Should a Convicted Rapist Soccer Player be Allowed to Play Again?

Sometime this month, Ched Evans, a 25-year-old former professional soccer player, will walk out the doors of Prison Wymott, a correctional facility in Lancaster, England, and re-enter public life. A jury convicted Evans of rape in April, 2012, and questions about what he will do for work when he's on parole and afterward have divided the nation: Will he return to professional soccer? Should he be allowed to return to professional soccer?

As of this writing, more than 145,000 people have signed a petition urging Evans' former club, Sheffield United, not to re-sign their former star striker. "[The signators] see that Ched Evans has abused a trusted position as a role model in sport by committing a crime. The worst crime," the petition's author, Jean Hatchet, said in an email. (Jean Hatchet is a pseudonym.) "The fact that he doesn't acknowledge the crime makes it even more horrific. He is therefore a very dangerous man to reinstate in a similar position at that, or indeed any, football club."

Whether any clubs are interested in signing Evans remains to be seen. Today, Nigel Clough, Sheffield United's manager, told the BBC the club's owners were discussing the possibility of resigning Evans, but that they had yet to reach a decision. Given Evans' goal scoring record, it's not inconceivable that a club might give him a contract, an idea the Professional Footballers' Association (PFA) is fully behind. "I didn't know there was a law that said once you come out of prison you still can't do anything," Gordon Taylor, the PFA's chief executive, told the BBC on October 9. The following day, in a press release, the PFA doubled down on its support of Evans and other ex-cons: "It is a fundamental part of the justice system in this country and society in general that a person serves the punishment which the court determines is appropriate and, providing that has been done, an individual is entitled to be released to continue with his or her life." (This is not entirely true. The UK denied Mike Tyson an entry visa because of his criminal history, which includes a rape conviction.)

As the PFA press release suggests, the core of the debate—at least on the surface—is about societal atonement versus legal atonement. Judicially, Evans has served his time (or at least his time in prison; he will be on parole, having only served part of his five-year sentence). The court of public opinion clearly disagrees.

But this court of public opinion/court of law incongruity doesn't adequately account for the passion and anger lurking beneath the surface of the Evans Question. As Hatchet noted, Evans has always maintained his innocence, and his supporters have, from the beginning, framed his trial as a kind of witch hunt, portraying Evans as the victim: He's a good young man with a bright, important future, who had his dream snatched from him in his prime.

This line of thinking resulted in Evans' rape victim being named publicly on Twitter. Many of those involved in outing her appeared to be Sheffield United supporters. Due to the abuse the victim received, police later put her into hiding.

Evans' girlfriend, Natasha Massey, has spent much of the past three years advocating on Evans' behalf, documenting her fight to clear his name at chedevans.com. In her most recent endeavor, Massey appeared yesterday on ITV's This Morning. She said she had long "forgiven" Evans for "cheating on" her, while maintaining that there had been a "miscarriage of justice" in his case. "I love him and I'll continue to stand by him," Massey said.

The miscarriage of justice charge is a particularly easy sell to Evans' supporters due to the circumstances of the actual rape, which don't align with the "perfect victim" narrative that is so often the high bar accusers are forced to clear. According to a case summary (available here), these are the undisputed facts: Clayton McDonald, a friend of Evans' and fellow footballer, met the victim shortly before 4 am on the morning of the attack. The victim had been drinking at a bar until roughly 3 am and could not recall leaving or anything that happened afterwards; in surveillance footage obtained by prosecutors, she appeared to be very drunk, at one point falling down while inside a kebab shop, where she also left her handbag after stumbling out.

After the victim "wandered into" McDonald's path, the two took a taxi to a hotel where Evans had booked a room. A night porter described the victim as "extremely drunk." McDonald and the victim went to the room and had sex; Evans then entered the room and raped the victim while two of his friends stood outside a window and filmed part of the assault on a mobile phone. McDonald and Evans then left the hotel—the latter by an emergency exit.

Evans' supporters highlight two points. First, McDonald was also charged with rape, but was acquitted because his sex with the victim was deemed consensual—so why would Evans be any different? Second, the victim was too intoxicated to remember either her encounter with McDonald or her rape by Evans. However, a jury found the evidence damning enough to imprison Evans for five years, and his subsequent appeal—partially on the grounds of the inconsistent verdicts between himself and McDonald—was unsuccessful. (Evans is reportedly considering further appeals).

According to British law, "A person consents if she or he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice." Given the victim's severe intoxication, there were clear questions about her capacity to choose. The blaming of Evans' victim and the vitriol directed at Hatchet and other activists—which is based on the same circumstantial factors often used to marginalize, intimidate, and silence victims—indicates society's understanding of rape and consent is underdeveloped or just plain wrong. That much becomes clear when you consider what passes for acceptable commentary on rape.

On Monday, Judy Finnigan, an English television personality, went on the talk show Loose Women (seriously) and basically said she didn't see what the big deal was:

"He's served his time. He's served two years. And I am not, please, by any means minimising any kind of rape, but the rape was not violent. He didn't cause any bodily harm to the person. It was unpleasant, in a hotel room, I believe, and she had far too much to drink. And you know, that is reprehensible. But he has been convicted and he has served his time."

Critics were quick to point out that a non-violent rape is an oxymoron, even if there is no physical struggle. Moreover, if a victims has "far too much to drink" it isn't a Get Out of Rape Free card for assailants: severe intoxication can actually render consent impossible.

"The key issue around consent and rape is that we need to educate young boys and men about the issues," said Hatchet. "And, crucially, putting a rapist who doesn't understand them, giving him a football shirt, and a huge bag of money each week and saying 'Look at him - he raped and he's still done alright for himself' is absolutely the wrong message at the wrong time."

It's one thing to serve time, and another to be rehabilitated. Is there a way back for Evans?

"Acknowledging his crime immediately would have been best, but he can do it now," said Hatchet. "I'm not sure it would ever be right for him to attain such a privileged position [like that of a professional footballer], but I wouldn't be firm in that, as I don't know what he will do or how he will make efforts to repair his wrongs. Currently, whilst appealing, he is further harming his victim and survivors everywhere. If he is still hurting women then he cannot be forgiven."