Regardless of the horrendous nature of the offence he has been found guilty of committing, Evans has every right to seek employment in whatever profession he chooses and every employer has the right to employ him, unless it is one where those on the sex offenders’ register are barred or where having a criminal record prevents employment.
This is the rule of law. It is not the rule of the mob, of the loud, supposed guardians of morality who scream and shout on behalf of the silent majority. Or those who, quite rightly, argue the woman he raped is the only victim here.
Evans is guilty. A jury of right-minded people decided he was guilty of raping a teenage girl in a hotel room in April 2012. He appealed against that decision and it was rejected six months later by the Court of Appeal. He has launched another appeal and remains determined to “prove his innocence and clear his name”.
As far as I’m concerned he is guilty, because that is what our judge and jury court system has determined. That will only change if his final appeal is successful.
I write this from the view that Evans is a rapist. Or rather he was. Evans has served the time our justice system determined he should spend in prison. He served half of a five-year sentence, because he was eligible for parole and was released early. This may seem lenient to many, not least the victim and her family, but that is the punishment he was given.
Evans has, to use legal jargon, served his time and paid his debt to society even though he will remain on licence for the next two-and-a-half years, meaning he must adhere to certain conditions, including holding regular meetings with his probation officer.
Presumably it needs to be said because there’s a significant portion of the society that doesn’t actually get it.
And it’s a portion that is far too vocal…
Does the same principle apply to the financier who fiddled his train fares for five years, and was barred from working in the City?
The financier wasn’t convicted of a crime: his professional regulator the FCA banned him from the profession. Like the Law Society or GMC would.
His wage will be significantly discounted. Some team will get a better footballer than they normally can afford.
There’s no legal impedement to Hartlepool hiring Ched Evans. Someone at the club has looked at the idea of hiring Ched, decided it’s bad for business and decided not to hire him. It’s no different to the situation when everyone realised that Fanny Craddock was a bitch and stopped hiring her for cookery shows – paying customers didn’t want to see her.
Maybe Luke Edwards thinks he knows better than Hartlepool’s management in which case, he can go ahead and pour some money into a club and hire Evans and become rich off the back of it. Or maybe he feels there’s a moral argument that Ched Evans should play, in which case, he can subsidise the losses at a club.
Whatever you feel about Evans’ situation, this is an entertainment business. Maybe Hartlepool are wrong and the fans won’t desert them, but I’m generally inclined to think that people inside a business know more about their business than I do.
Andrew M:
Short answer – No.
Where we can – and do – reasonable prohibit an individual from working in a particular field or professional following a criminal conviction it is on the basis that the offence for which they were convicted is relevant to the conduct of the profession/field.
Hence, for example, one cannot serve as a trustee of a registered charity if one has a prior unspent conviction for an offence involving dishonesty, e.g. fraud, theft, etc. much as one cannot, these days, hold a license to work in the security industry if you have violent offences on your record.
The point with Evans is that as a convicted rapist he does not present any material risk to his work colleagues, i.e. other male footballers – even allowing for the dubious nature of many modern goal celebrations – so the offence is not relevant to his profession, although one might reasonably think twice about employing him to coach a women’s team should such an opportunity present itself.
The financier’s offence is one of material dishonesty and consequently one that is relevant to his main profession, hence it is entirely reasonable for the FCA to bar him from that profession.
An employer has the right to employ him, OR NOT if that employer feels it would be detrimental to its good name. Yes we’re talking about the rule of Law. Yes we’re talking about due process and, yes, we’re talking about harpy lynch mobs. However, we are also talking about football. He is a good player – at Championship/League 1 level, but he also carries ‘baggage’. The football club directors need to weigh those against each other. That’s all.
I’d have no prroblem emplooying him.
Wasn’t aware football was a profession where convicted criminals or sex offenders who have served their time were barred.
Mob rule wins however, rather than rule of law. Which is sad.
The Left, normally so keen to ensure that malefactors are thoroughly babied, poor lambs, seems to make an exception for this chap. Odd, innit?
Martin Davies
“Mob rule wins”.
Yeah, that’s football.
much as one cannot, these days, hold a license to work in the security industry if you have violent offences on your record.
No? I thought that was a prerequisite!
even allowing for the dubious nature of many modern goal celebrations
Heh!
The Left, normally so keen to ensure that malefactors are thoroughly babied, poor lambs, seems to make an exception for this chap. Odd, innit?
Not really. He’s (or was) a well paid, white male – the demographic they hate. And he appears to have attacked one of the sisterhood.
His destruction is a glorious victory for them.
I bet, if his appeal is successful, the story won’t be anywhere near as prominently featured in the feminist friendly media…
Evans is a professional entertainer with a rape conviction. As such, he’s as unemployable as a professional cash-handler with a theft conviction. End of story, move along, nothing to see here.
How is the young woman of loose morals (allegedly) with whom he had non consensual intercourse doing? It would be wholly inappropriate to call her a slag who would’ve shagged any male (who was at least a ‘z’ lister – gotta have some standards).
Has the poor lamb managed to work with her legal team to finalize a suitable financial settlement. The proceeds of which she will, no doubt, be giving to a rape victims charity.
Isn’t it strange how Tim writes for The Register, and also for our friends like Bob who are probably on the register?
It’s not hard to see why RSOs always whinge about the injustice of their convictions when Bobby here appears to think that it’s legal to rape a ‘slag’. It’s also not hard to see why they’re wrong.
Bob
What exactly has this conversation got to do with her? I can’t see the relevance; we are discussing a convicted rapist here and his future.
The bloke is a convicted rapist. He may have served his time, but that doesn’t change him from being a loathsome bastard to being a saint. The sort of person who thinks they can force themselves on another person will still be a self-centred bastard how ever much time they spend inside. Yes, legally, they may have served their time and be free to carry on with their life, but fans should also be free to express their opinion of the bastard’s behaviour without threat of sanction from the FA or plod. Don’t want to be labelled a rapist, don’t commit rape, simples.
Bob, you’re just an utter cunt. The law has determined he was guilty of rape, it did not make a judgement on his victim.
It can’t be just being a well paid, white male that the Left hates. Otherwise how could you explain the cheerleading for Roman Polanski, that convicted child rapist on the run from serving his sentence?
We had the same sort of kerfuffle on this side of the Atlantic with the Ray Rice thing in the NFL this year. Roger Goodell’s original punishment of Rice (1/8 of the season with the concomitant loss of pay for those games) was more severe than what the legal system gave Rice, but because it’s easier and more convenient to gin up hatred of the NFL and the commissioner than the legal system, everybody screamed at how awful Goodell was. When they finally bullied him into imposing a harsher sentence and the arbitartor rightly struck it down, they suggested that this proved Goodell had no idea what he was doing, as though they had no role in the incident.
But Rice committed a crime that made him politically incorrect. And we have people saying that a second domestic violence offense should equal a lifetime ban. Would they suggest it should also result in being banned from all other jobs? Because that’s the conclusion at the end of that logical road.
“how could you explain the cheerleading for Roman Polanski”: a good question. I suppose it must be that in some sense he’s “one of us” whereas this coarse footballer chappie isn’t. In what sense, though, I have no idea. The sort of person one might have met at a cocktail party in Cannes? Dunno.
@ Dave
“Evans is a professional entertainer with a rape conviction. As such, he’s as unemployable as a professional cash-handler with a theft conviction. End of story, move along, nothing to see here.”
If it were the people he entertains who were shouting down his employment opportunities then I’d agree. But I get the impression that not many Guardian opinion piece writers or social media feminists are regulars at Bramall Lane or Victoria Park.
@”Martin Davies
December 24, 2014 at 10:30 am
Mob rule wins however, rather than rule of law. Which is sad.
”
I agree
The Thought Gang
To be fair it was the reaction of Sheffield United fans that made the club’s decision for it. Prominent fans like Jessica Ennis were, well, prominent in forcing the issue. Her opinion really does count in Sheffield, really does influence the opinion of other fans – and nothing else counts here.
Now Hartlepool fans will know that he’s frankly too good to play for them, but he’s a guy who can’t get a job at a big club, will score lots of goals for them and at a much cheaper price than they could have hoped for. And Jessica Ennis won’t give a shit about Hartlepool. So they may take a different view. If they do: fine.
Ted S,
Knocking a woman out is just a politically incorrect crime? Are you mad? As an employer, I’d never employ the bastard however much time he did, let him face the consequences of his actions, if that means nobody wants a bar of him ever, so be it. There are plenty of non-woman beaters in the job market.
PS bedtime here in Aus, need to get to sleep before midnight otherwise Santa might not come.
TTG,
So, why aren’t they hiring him if it’s only Guardianistas who have no effect on their bottom line and who they morally disagree with?
I know restaurants that have had protests outside against serving foie gras. They figure their patrons don’t care what those people say and carry on serving it.
Am I the only one who finds the idea that an organisation that has Sepp Blatter at its head is worried about its reputation when it comes to a minor team employing a convicted rapist who’s done his time rather amusing?
It’s important to distinguish a word used to describe an act from the same word used to define a crime. Criminal law can often accrue strange usages of words which do not relate to the vernacular usage.
Ched Evans was found guilty in a court of violating the rape law. From the presented facts available, it is clear however that he did not commit rape. Rather, the legal usage of rape now covers various acts which are not rape, such as having consensual sex with somebody who regrets it the next day.
Ched Evans was convicted of violating the criminal definition of rape. But to call him a “convicted rapist” is to imply that he actually committed a rape, which he did not. It is important to remember the distinction when considering the treatment of a person on the basis of their moral character.
To illustrate the distinction, it is not so long ago that the legal definition of “gross indecency” included one man kissing another man. This does not mean that it ever was actually a grossly indecent act.
@ BwiB
Possibly. Some of us think it is just ridiculous.
Ched Evans and his pal said that it wasn’t rape because she consented: the jury decided that she was not in a fit condition when she assented to him but was when she assented to his pal.
Sleazy, distasteful, something I should never do, even if I was drunk – absolutely! Violent? No. Corrupt? No.
If we think that Ched Evans wasa guilty and his sentence was not harsh enough (if it had been violent rape, then IMHO five years would have been too soft) then we have the right to avoid him and any football match in which he plays, but we do not have the right to stop other people watching him play football.
The USA has just fined Alstom, a French company, a vast amount for bribing third-world polticians/bureaucrats; it hasn’t touched Sepp Blatter – yet.
@ Ironman
Jess Ennis is a great athlete, but her opinion on who should play for Sheffield United shouldn’t count any more than my mate Ryan’s, and he, and most of his season-ticket-holding friends think the guy has done his time and should be able to get on with his life and career.
As a high profile person, Ennis was only ever likely to pick the uncontroversial side. The penalty for not towing the line on these matters is harsh, and as much as I can believe that she doesn’t personally think that Evans playing for her club would be a good thing, I expect she figures that she’ll make more money from being sponsored by people who’d run a mile if she was tarred as a ‘rape apologist’ than she would writing for Spiked!.
If it was the will of the majority of Sheff Utd fans, then fair enough. But I’m not sure that they were asked. And it cannot be denied that Ennis, as someone who’s stated and opinion and has a relationship to the club, is an exceptional case amongst the publicly outraged.
@ Anon
Sometimes, being controversial is rewarded. People might be attracted to a place that serves foie gras precisely because it pisses off the sorts of people who’d picket it. Plus, such matters are local in nature.
Football clubs are of national concern. Footballers are nationally known. Further, the social media mob that drives this sort of thing is quite new to us. Ched Evans is the first chance to flex those muscles in this arena, but we’ve seen TV shows cancelled, products taken off shelves and countless other petrified reactions to the glare of this type of publicity. Perhaps it’s cowardly, but it’s understandable. Nobody has yet found the right way to, on a national level, tell the mob to fuck off.
BWAB>
You’re a tad confused about the relationship between clubs, the FA, UEFA, and FIFA. The connection between Hartlepool and FIFA is tenuous to say the least.
Ian>
It’s important to realise that when you continually bang on about how rape isn’t actually rape, you don’t persuade anyone that rape isn’t actually rape. You do persuade at least one person that you’re almost certainly trying to make people think your own rape conviction was for something innocuous.
John>
It’s important to note that the other chap wasn’t found to be innocent, since we use innocent-until-proven-otherwise. It’s hypothetically possible that you could get two differing verdicts like this where both men were rapists but only one was provably so – although I don’t think that was the case here.
Rather, it was held that the prior behaviour of Evans’ victim gave the other chap reasonable cause to believe she was consenting (or, that a reasonable view is that she was) to him. Evans, meanwhile, came on the scene at too late a stage, and by his own account did not gain valid consent. He was stupid enough to fess-up, Assange-style, on the basis of misunderstanding the law.
TTG>
As far as I know, Hartlepool fans have threatened a boycott if Evans is signed.
Chef Evans has been convicted of rape by a jury of 12 men and women and sentenced.to 5 years by a judge in an English court. That’s why I use the term “convicted rapist”. It might satisfy IanB/George Galloway/Whoopie Godberg but English Law is good enough for me.
TTG
Thing is, Jessica.Ennis is a national hero, life vice – president and fan. And the directors are picking up the bill for whatever de is on they take. That’s all there is to it really..
“I write this from the view that Evans is a rapist. Or rather he was.” Nope; right first time.
“Evans has, to use legal jargon … paid his debt to society”: more likely to be journalistic pish than legal jargon is my guess.
Dave-
Dave wanders off into fantasy land again, imagining that which does not exist. This is by the way a common denunciation tactic employed by fanatics, known as “anyone who doubts the existence of witches is trying to hide that they are themself a witch”.
Thanks for that Dave. You twat.
But then you get back to him not actually having raped anyone, and the “good enough for me” argument turns rather threadbare.
The law is a formal system. Sometimes it maps quite well onto reality, and other times less well. A grievous common error is to invert the mapping, such that legal definitions are taken to define reality.
Here’s an example. Imagine a slave owning culture in which black humans are not given legal personhood. Saying, “The runaway slave George was found by a court not to be a person” is not actually a proof or otherwise of his actual personhood. Instead, it invites us to ask whether the law has poor mapping onto reality (which is indeed the case). A wise person amends the law to achieve a better mapping (according black people personhood) rather than repeating the court judgement as if it is proof of something about reality.
According to the facts presented in the case, Chef (sic) Evans did not rape anyone. The law needs to be amended.
No, there is no stupid false analogy with slavery here. We are talking about a rape case in 2014.
The Law decided actions like his are rape. It didn’t decide to introduce a crime it called rape but wasn’t rape really; the crime is rape. The jury knew when it considered the evidence that a guilty verdict would lead to a prison sentence and quite probably a loss of a very lucrative Career. And it decided he was guilty of rape; not a small legal, technical infringement called rape that isn’t really rape.
Then along comes IanB to pronounce that we all need to understand that, regardless of the jury’s findings, it wasn’t rape and it was only a technical legal thing and we shouldn’t anything of it. And all of this this he declares as an absolute, indisputable fact; a fact!
So we’re left to decide, a jury 12 men and women and a judge…or Ian B.
Wino I’m sorry, I’m not engaging with Ian B any further. He thinks sex with 14 year old girls shouldn’t be illegal. There is no talking with horror like that. Good night.
Ironman joining Dave in demonstrating what people do when they haven’t got a coherent argument. Merry Christmas and all that.
“Mob rule wins however, rather than rule of law. Which is sad”
The law says that Evans is free to seek employment, and employers are free to employ him. Equally, sponsors are free to choose whether or not to sponsor any particular employer, and customers are free to choose whether or not to favour any particular employer with their custom. What you are calling “mob rule” is simply the operation of a free market, something which commentators here are well in favour of when it’s not harming the interests of rapists.
“According to the facts presented in the case, Ched Evans did not rape anyone. The law needs to be amended.”
What Evans did was obtain by deception the key to a hotel room not his own, enter the room, and have sex with a drunk woman in bed there. The jury found that to be rape. And that’s exactly as the law should be.
“Rice committed a crime that made him politically incorrect.” Rice punched a woman unconscious. What’s politics got to do with it?
Which isn’t rape. You can keep saying you don’t approve all you like, and your disapproval may be valid. But it isn’t rape.
The legendary jury by the way (as discussed previously) managed to find that this was a technical “rape” on the basis of her being incapable of consent due to intoxication. While simultaneously not incapable of consent due to intoxication with the other man. Which means that either she achieved a quantum superposition of states at the macroscopic level- surely Nobel Prize material- or the verdict was bullshit. We should go with “the verdict was bullshit” in the absence of proof of the laws of physics being rewritten.
Dave – “Evans is a professional entertainer with a rape conviction. As such, he’s as unemployable as a professional cash-handler with a theft conviction. End of story, move along, nothing to see here.”
That is not true. Plenty of entertainers have all sorts of convictions. Doesn’t make them unemployable. This one man is unemployable. He should have done something the Left does not care so much about. Like murder.
The point here is really the mob out to wreak vengeance on someone who has done his time. Normally I would be fine with that but it is a bit unpleasant to watch.
DocBud – “Yes, legally, they may have served their time and be free to carry on with their life, but fans should also be free to express their opinion of the bastard’s behaviour without threat of sanction from the FA or plod.”
But is it the fans? It looks like a media campaign to me. I am all in favour of making all convictions public so that the public can make up their mind. But this is getting a little Stalinist. I don’t like standing with the lynch mob shouting “Death to Counter-revolutionaries”. I don’t think any of us should.
“Don’t want to be labelled a rapist, don’t commit rape, simples.”
How does that apply with the modern Western legal system? The Duke Lacrosse team did not commit rape. Nor did any number of young men driven out of American campuses. The legal system is not always right. These days an accusation is not proof – and unfortunately neither is a conviction. Yes he should get what is coming to him, and that includes the disgust of the fans. But I don’t think we should entirely forget charity on this festive season, nor do I think that we all ought to be joining the mob calling for his life to be destroyed forever.
Ironman – “He thinks sex with 14 year old girls shouldn’t be illegal. There is no talking with horror like that.”
Well the Spanish are a horror. But are Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Montenegro, Portugal, San Marino, and Serbia, who all set the age of consent at 14?
PaulB – “The law says that Evans is free to seek employment, and employers are free to employ him. Equally, sponsors are free to choose whether or not to sponsor any particular employer, and customers are free to choose whether or not to favour any particular employer with their custom.”
Indeed. The question is not what is legal but what is seemly. I am fine with the murderers of James Bulger being publicly known. But I note that we spend a lot of time and money making sure they are not. The mob whipped up by the media is distasteful at the best of times.
I would also note that there have been suggestions of banning discrimination on the grounds of criminal conviction because it has a disparate impact on minorities.
“Rice punched a woman unconscious. What’s politics got to do with it?”
Because if it had been a man he would not have had so much trouble. Given the wife is not complaining, the only reason there is so much fuss is that he crossed a powerful political lobby.
SMFS
Yes horror. But you disagree mate.
As I say; a man is convicted by 12 and & women in an English court. In response the same cretins who have been banging on all year about foreigners and how their countries aren’t fit to be measured against our uniquely great country and so they shouldn’t be let in etc suddenly decide our Law is an ass because how dare they call this man a rapist.
Thee may be harpies out there, but there are some with truly sick attitudes
The distinction is between “rape” as a term of art – i.e. whatever its current, perhaps fleeting, definition is in the statute law applied by the English courts – and “rape” in the everyday sense, which, I suspect, corresponds to its traditional meaning in English common law.
Journalists will try to gain circulation by muddying the waters as much as they can, by seeking to imply the second meaning while actually using the first. Shitbags, or ignorant tossers?
As for Evans, I have no particular view, except that I dismiss with derision all talk of criminals “having paid their debt to society”.
Ironman – “Yes horror. But you disagree mate.”
I don’t think that girls of 14 should be having sex. But I am used to being a minority on many many subjects. It is odd to hear the growing European consensus being called horrific though.
“As I say; a man is convicted by 12 and & women in an English court. In response the same cretins who have been banging on all year about foreigners and how their countries aren’t fit to be measured against our uniquely great country and so they shouldn’t be let in etc suddenly decide our Law is an ass because how dare they call this man a rapist.”
It is perfectly reasonable to say that British justice is second to none, but it still makes mistakes. And is becoming ever more politicised. You ought to see other people’s legal systems. I am agnostic on whether this man is a rapist or not. But I don’t think we can assume any more that because a court says he is, he is. A shame that.
“Thee may be harpies out there, but there are some with truly sick attitudes”
Doubting an English legal decision is hardly sick. After all, what about Ludovic Kennedy’s campaign to have every second murderer released?
dearieme – “As for Evans, I have no particular view, except that I dismiss with derision all talk of criminals “having paid their debt to society”.”
Absolutely. But it is a bit strange to see people who would otherwise scream from the rooftops about how someone had paid their debt to society, suddenly refusing to accept that Evans has done so. OK. He has not done so. Nor has anyone else stepping out of a British prison. Can we have John Venebles’ new name and address please?
Lord Longford campaigned for a long time to get Myra Hindley let out of prison. Even calling her a political prisoner. Longford was, you know, insane, but there was a heroic consistency to the man. Perhaps he did not make an adequate distinction between what we ought to do as individuals – forgive if we are offended against and repent if we offend – and what the prison system ought to do for society as a whole. However I have little doubt what he would think about this.
It is that lack of consistency that is the problem here. The Usual Guardianista Suspects are suddenly in favour of never forgiving. But only a rapist. Not something trivial like a murder. OK. Fine. But let’s be consistent. Let’s have a national register of offenders that anyone can consult. So we all can know.
And the next time the Guardian complains about the recidivism rate, we should point out it is because they will not allow a young offender to re-integrate into society.
I doubt Evans has repented. I doubt he thinks he has done anything wrong. But this sort of offense would have, in the old days, called for prayer and reflection. We don’t do prayer so let’s at least have some reflection. I think I can say there but for the grace of God – I would like to think that at that age I was better than that, but I doubt it. He was a very foolish young man who should have known better. Does he now deserve to have his entire life ruined by a tabloid lynch mob? If so, let’s be consistent – no criminal conviction can ever be vacated? No rehabilitation can ever take place? No one is ever saved?
SMFS>
You’ve actually hit the nail on the head at the end there. Evans’ greater crime isn’t the rape itself, but his total unwillingness to accept that what he did was wrong, even after absolutely everyone has told him so in no uncertain terms.
The reality is that, whether or not you profess to believe, a la Ian, that this is some form of non-consensual sex which shouldn’t be called rape, there’s absolutely no doubt whatever that Evans behaved like a skidmark. His very public stance has been ‘I’d do it again if I had a do-over’. It’s no wonder he’s less popular than ebola right now.
Ironman>
I think you might be confusing horrifyingly creepy with horrific.
To clarify… My point went off at a tangent. Apols for that.
My personal view of Evans is that he is a nasty & arrogant piece of work. He allegedly said that he could “have any woman he wanted”. Bit of an odd choice he made then…
Re: the young woman involved, she is/was a slag. NO she didn’t deserve to be raped. BUT, by God (on this Christmas morn) she behaved in a reckless way. She reminded me of the woman who went to Mike Tysons’ room & expected him to behave like David Niven (please, God, don’t tell me David Niven was a *@$%@%%$ !!!).
To repeat, she DID NOT DESERVE IT. But (as far as I know) she doesn’t have learning difficulties. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY (& self respect) spring to mind.
If the laddettes/slags of this once Fair Isle have had a sobering wake up call (pun intended), then some optimism for 2015 might be possible.
Merry Christmas one & all.
Doc Bud quoted me:
Knocking a woman out is just a politically incorrect crime?
What would the reaction have been had Ray Rice knoced out another man in that hotel elevator instead of his girlfriend? I doubt there would have been as much of a freakout as there has been over the Washington Redskins’ team name, for example.
That having been said, I was a bit inartful in my use of the language. People went after Roger Goodell because it was culturally/politically easier than going on about the prosecutor/judge who are unknowns. Talking about the alleged evils of millionaire players and billionaire owners is easy.
Ted, if Ray Rice had knocked out another big motherfucker, sex or gender wouldn’t have come into it. If he’d knocked out some weedy guy, he’d have attracted the same kind of flak.
It was rape both in law and in any sensible definition of the term.
Neither of us knows what what said in the jury room. But the test in law is whether the accused reasonably believes that the victim consents. If you break into someone’s room, you need it to be overwhelmingly clear before you can reasonably believe they consent to sex with you.
Consider two scenarios:
1) you go out and get very drunk, then return to your hotel room and go to sleep. During the night, a stranger uses an illicitly obtained keycard to get into your room, and has penetrative sex with you. In the morning you can’t remember anything about it, but when apprehended they say you consented. Should they be convicted of rape?
2) you go out, get very drunk, and go back to someone’s hotel room with them. Once there, you take your clothes off and get into bed with them. They have penetrative sex with you. In the morning you can’t remember anything about it, but when apprehended they say you consented. Should they be convicted of rape?
My answers are unhesitatingly (1) Yes, (2) No. This is entirely consistent with the law.