The Ched Evans Thread

[AZOffaly]

Yes, but the verdict is either Guilty, or Not Guilty. They, the jury, don't say 'Guilty', 'Innocent' or 'Not Guilty', I think?

[AQMP]

Yes, but the verdict is either Guilty, or Not Guilty. They, the jury, don't say 'Guilty', 'Innocent' or 'Not Guilty', I think?

AFAIK there is no such thing as being found "innocent".  You're either guilty or not guilty.

[AZOffaly]

'Sactly. So even though we as observers can draw a distinction based on a judges instruction, or comment, the law just says Not Guilty. i.e. You didn't do it.

Of course if a civil case were taken, where the burden of proof is a little less onerous, then it's possible to have a criminal 'not guilty' but a civil damages awarded against you.

[gallsman]

'Sactly. So even though we as observers can draw a distinction based on a judges instruction, or comment, the law just says Not Guilty. i.e. You didn't do it.

Of course if a civil case were taken, where the burden of proof is a little less onerous, then it's possible to have a criminal 'not guilty' but a civil damages awarded against you.

No, that's the technicality. By declaring you not guilty, the court does not declare that you didn't do it. It declares there wasn't enough evidence to convict you of it, therefore you are presumed to be innocent. You may still have done it though.

[AZOffaly]

Doesn't matter. You implied there was a third option 'Innocent'. There isn't. That's just up to observers to add. You're either Guilty or Not Guilty. There's no such thing as 'Not Guilty, wink wink'.

[gallsman]

Doesn't matter. You implied there was a third option 'Innocent'. There isn't. That's just up to observers to add. You're either Guilty or Not Guilty. There's no such thing as 'Not Guilty, wink wink'.

No, I didn't. I just answered a question that someone asked ("does this quashing mean that he is innocent or just not guilty of the crime?").

And yes, it does matter.

[AZOffaly]

Doesn't matter. You implied there was a third option 'Innocent'. There isn't. That's just up to observers to add. You're either Guilty or Not Guilty. There's no such thing as 'Not Guilty, wink wink'.

No, I didn't. I just answered a question that someone asked ("does this quashing mean that he is innocent or just not guilty of the crime?").

And yes, it does matter.

Apologies, I thought you were suggesting there was a third type of verdict. Of course there's a difference in real life, but in the eyes of the law it's no different.

[grounded]

Interesting article here regarding the topics discussed http://www.insidejusticeuk.com/articles/proving-innocence/63

[screenexile]

Doesn't matter. You implied there was a third option 'Innocent'. There isn't. That's just up to observers to add. You're either Guilty or Not Guilty. There's no such thing as 'Not Guilty, wink wink'.

No, I didn't. I just answered a question that someone asked ("does this quashing mean that he is innocent or just not guilty of the crime?").

And yes, it does matter.

Apologies, I thought you were suggesting there was a third type of verdict. Of course there's a difference in real life, but in the eyes of the law it's no different.

Does innocence even exist in todays society? You're guilty if someone writes something about you on the internet these days. Even if it is proven false there is no smoke without fire. It's a sad state of affairs that the world has come to this!!

[Gabriel_Hurl]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/oct/14/footballer-ched-evans-cleared-of-in-retrial?CMP=share_btn_tw

[Franko]

Jesus, I feel for gallsman.

[Estimator]

The legislation protecting alleged victims is now in tatters. The fact that previous sexual partners were able to give evidence against the woman/in favour of Ched, may have future implications for a lot of rape cases.

[theskull1]

The legislation protecting alleged victims is now in tatters. The fact that previous sexual partners were able to give evidence against the woman/in favour of Ched, may have future implications for a lot of rape cases.

So you're implying there (judging by the tone of your words) that the original verdict should have stood on basis that that case swinging evidence shouldn't have been submitted, even though he was (in the eyes of the court after that evidence was submitted) not guilty of the crime. 

[imtommygunn]

this case always stood out to me as one that couldn't be proven "beyond reasonable doubt" so irrespective of what people think i never saw how he could have been convicted.

[Estimator]

The legislation protecting alleged victims is now in tatters. The fact that previous sexual partners were able to give evidence against the woman/in favour of Ched, may have future implications for a lot of rape cases.

So you're implying there (judging by the tone of your words) that the original verdict should have stood on basis that that case swinging evidence shouldn't have been submitted, even though he was (in the eyes of the court after that evidence was submitted) not guilty of the crime. 

I was thinking only about the legislation regarding the protection of the victim. E.g. Just because a woman has loose morals regarding sexual activity, doesn't mean that she can't be raped. I thought this might open the door to further cases being blighted by that. But the article below sets a few things out.