By Sammie Jones-
Campaigners against the not guilty verdict of Ched Evans are right.
After the 27-year-old former Sheffield player was acquitted on Friday, several campaigners are complaining against the verdict. Many are angry that evidence about the woman’s sexual history was admitted in court.
Without the doubt, the woman was a stupid, misguided individual. Evidence that she slept with three men in the space of two days shows her to be sexually loose- drunk or not. However, it doesn’t excuse Evans or change the standard which should have been used in determining whether or not the woman consented to sex. The relevant issue should have remained whether she was drunk enough to have been incapable of giving her consent. This should have been the sole consideration, not the fact she had slept with men and claimed not to have remembered a thing after. Campaigners are right in this respect.
THE EVIDENCE
The evidence presented to the court that she had encouraged two men to ”go harder” the day before and after the alleged rape, then claiming to remember nothing when she woke up. This was what eventually led to the acquittal of Ched Evans. However, that consideration is weak when properly examined. A drunk woman can enjoy sex despite having not consented to it. Our inhibitions are often gone when drunk, and a woman’s libido can make her engage in a sexual counter she has not consented to. How nobody considered this fact is puzzling.
The case should have been solely based on whether Evans knew she was too drunk to consent, not whether she had expressed an enjoyment of a sexual experience she had not wilfully gone into. It is worth noting that the woman never complained of rape with the other two men or even Evans football accomplice who also slept with the girl. She raised the issue with Evans, leading to a criminal investigation and subsequent conviction. The argument that the woman targeted Evans because he was a footballer will always be raised as a point of suspicion, however, the more important issue is that reference to her sexual history should not have been raised in court.
She may have been off her face on the other occasions and not consented to the sex she could not remember but may have taking responsibility for the fact she knew she liked them and did not mind having sex with them. In other words, a woman can know she is willing to have sex with a man, but at the time of the sexual encounter, may have been too drunk to consent. That may have happened with the other men, but not with Evans. That’s the argument the court should have heard, and which should have been considered. Campaigners and women’s group should campaign against this type of flawed thinking being use din our courts. This woman knew she had no intentions to have sex with Evans, and when she realised it had happened, knew she had been abused. In the other cases, she probably did not mind the guys, though could not remember the point at which things began to get frisky between them.
INTERNAL DEBATE
A debate between some of our writers at the eye of media.com on this issue took place this morning, with some on the side of the current verdict, and others seeing things from my viewpoint. Something else that should be looked at is asking what kind of person Evans is. Why would he want to sleep with a girl who his mate has just slept with? Where are his morals? I tell you, he hasn’t got any! Campaigners now fear that other rape victims might be put off complaining if they know reference may be made to their past. This is true, though all rape victims must be courageous enough to report incidences of rape that happen to them.
Campaigners cry against Ched Evans not guilty verdict is definitely valid and should not be brushed aside. Rape is a serious crime, and footballers seem to walk around thinking they can just do what they like.