Where punishment ends

[Rapscallion]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30015701

A footballer (soccer player to some) was found guilty of rape and sentenced to time in jail. He's paid the defined price for a defined crime as decided by a court of law.

We now have a situation where he's rejoined training with a football club and all sorts of outrage has ensued. I can understand the outrage, but where does punishment end?

Right now, it's as if public outrage has grown to the level that if the indignant have their way, he'll never work again. The court mandated one punishment, but he's being punished above and beyond that. I don't agree with that. If the general public think a longer or harsher sentence should be applied, there are channels (basically politics) to go through.

I don't like the crime he was convicted for, but I don't agree with the concept that if you are moderately famous there should never be any rehabilitation.

Your thoughts?

Rapscallion

[Panacea]

I disapprove of the effort to keep this guy from earning a living.

We send people to jail as punishment. He has done what society has demanded and had his liberties taken from him. Now he has returned to society, and he has to support himself like everyone else.

That means he needs a job. I see no reason why he should not return to football. You pay with a predetermined sentence not the rest of your life.

If he commits another crime, he'll go back to jail. If he doesn't, he should be able to rebuilt the life he had . . . if he can.

And here's the thing. Athletics are time limited. He's getting old for an athlete; he lost valuable time while in jail. There are no guarantees he will be able to pick up where he left off.

But he has the right to try. I'd rather see him successful than become a homeless bum on the street because no one will give him a job.

[Gravekeeper]

Not to derail this, but just reading up on the case and I can't seem to find a clear answer. How was the other guy with him acquitted but he was convicted?

[Rapscallion]

Damned if I know. I just took the view when creating the thread I'd try to stay out of the claims and counter claims and just deal with the issue that troubled me. As far as I'm concerned, a court looked at the evidence and found him guilty, so I was basing it on that.

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

Just seems bizarre that they both admitted to having sex with her and both claimed it was consensual but one guy was acquitted and the other was chastised by the judge. Who told him he should have known she was too intoxicated to consent. So how did the other guy slip out of it?

Judging by the news stories it really came as a shock to both of them that one was acquitted and the other was found guilty.

[s_stabeler]

I think some of the indignation is the fact that he shows no sign of remorse- now, it's true that he claims the sex was consensual- and IIRC, the issue is that the victim was too drunk to consent- but it's partly that causing the indignation- that, and the fact that footballers ARE rolemodels. Part of it is probably worry that he'll ( intentionally or not) encourage others.

my opinion? I'm split, honestly. he paid for the crime, but at a minimum, he needs to STFU about not doing anything wrong. That, or appeal the conviction.

[Greenday]

my opinion? I'm split, honestly. he paid for the crime, but at a minimum, he needs to STFU about not doing anything wrong. That, or appeal the conviction.

I don't have a problem with someone maintaining their innocence. It's not like the courts have never been wrong before. And I don't know how it works in England but in America, you can't appeal a conviction just because you don't like it.

As for punishing someone once their official punishment is over, it's what we do as a society. In America, sex offenders must register as such and ridiculous restrictions are put in place. And when they finally find a place to live, the locals will petition to have them removed or harass them into moving. Tons end up homeless, without jobs, and without hope of being a productive member of society.

[Gravekeeper]

Other guy was a team mate though. They both plead not guilty. They both maintain they did nothing wrong. They were both in the hotel room. They both had sex with her. They both said it was consensual. The prosecution's case was that she was too intoxicated to consent. The victim has no recollection of the events. The judge straight up said she was too drunk to consent based on CCTV footage. Yet somehow the jury decided she could consent to one but not the other? Never mind that the guy that was acquitted was the guy that picked her up off the street to begin with.

Also the life and career of the other guy that was acquitted was ruined too. The fact he was acquitted counts for nothing. He's in the same boat as the convicted rapist is. Not that I have much sympathy there mind you, he didn't do any time and thus still deserves the shame.

[Hyena Dandy]

I don't think that prison time should prevent one from holding a job. But I do think that people can decide to approve or disapprove of a decision for any reason they want. If they disapprove of their team hirin a rapist, fine, express that.

[Panacea]

I don't think that prison time should prevent one from holding a job. But I do think that people can decide to approve or disapprove of a decision for any reason they want. If they disapprove of their team hirin a rapist, fine, express that.

Well, you're contradicting yourself, then. Because public opinion matters. If the team decides enough fans are opposed to this guy coming back, or they lose enough sponsors, they will do what's best for the team and cut the player loose . . . his rights be damned.

[siead_lietrathua]

Yet somehow the jury decided she could consent to one but not the other? Never mind that the guy that was acquitted was the guy that picked her up off the street to begin with.

i wonder if the guy convicted was the one that purchased/ provided the intoxicants? after all, picking up a girl isn't a crime. but getting her blasted drunk so you can bang her is.
*shrug* only thing i can think of

[NecCat]

If the team decides enough fans are opposed to this guy coming back, or they lose enough sponsors, they will do what's best for the team and cut the player loose . . . his rights be damned.

But how is it a right to play professionally on a sports team? The team is in the business to make money, they do that on the backs of the players, from the pockets of the fans.

I agree with you that this guy has paid the price the law demanded for his crime, and absolutely has the right to try to play on the team again. Trying doesn't mean he has a right to be successful at it. If the team is hindered by him, either through losing fans and sponsors, or because teammates are not happy with his presence and he becomes a liability to their season, then they shouldn't have to suffer for something that was his responsibility.

[Hyena Dandy]

Well, you're contradicting yourself, then. Because public opinion matters. If the team decides enough fans are opposed to this guy coming back, or they lose enough sponsors, they will do what's best for the team and cut the player loose . . . his rights be damned.

I'm not contradicting myself.

The fact that I wouldn't object to a person being on a team, does not mean I want to censor those who do. I might well disagree with those who do. I could even express such disagreement. I think the continued stigma suffered by criminals is a shame, and that prison terms have limits for a reason.

Do you see an alternative? Should we, instead, ban people from switching sporting allegiance because of a decision they don't like? Or can they say they don't like a team anymore, but they have to lie about why?

either through losing fans and sponsors, or because teammates are not happy with his presence and he becomes a liability to their season,

Or, obviously, because he's not very good at the game after spending so much time away from practice, that is a possibility. :P

[TheHuckster]

Well, you're contradicting yourself, then. Because public opinion matters. If the team decides enough fans are opposed to this guy coming back, or they lose enough sponsors, they will do what's best for the team and cut the player loose . . . his rights be damned.

So, what should we do, then? I don't see any solution to this problem, other than either censoring those who wish to voice their distaste, which violates the public's free speech rights, or by requiring any employer to hire a convicted rapist even though that might cause a boycott by the public.

It sounds like what you're asking for is "freedom from consequences." Yes, getting booed in a sports game and being snubbed by the public extends their original punishment of prison terms in a sense. But, public opinion is a consequence of any public figure's actions. People have gotten booed by the public for far less, such as voicing their unpopular opinion on a political topic or making racist comments.

Entertainers have ruined (or at least stunted) their careers over making stupid insensitive comments without even breaking the law, and when people try to claim "they are violating their first amendment rights" they are rightfully retorted with, "first amendment rights does not mean 'freedom from consequences'". Same goes for people who have committed crimes. Let's face it: athletes are entertainers. Yes, their main career goal is to be good at the game and an asset to the team, but the only reason they are even in this position is because the team is supported by fans. So, when that support is lost, for whatever reason, that's a consequence of that athlete's careless or even criminal actions, and furthermore, they are now unable to do their principal job of entertaining the public by being considered a disgrace, which gives their employer a legitimate reason to fire them, because clearly we can't force people to like athletes.

[Panacea]

I don't think that prison time should prevent one from holding a job. But I do think that people can decide to approve or disapprove of a decision for any reason they want. If they disapprove of their team hirin a rapist, fine, express that.

I'm requoting what Hyena Daddy said for reference.

Look at it again. What he's really saying is, "I'm not going to say he shouldn't get a job, but I'm going to say that other people should say he shouldn't get a job."

I'm not saying that people who don't approve of this guy have to be censored, or that they aren't entitled to their opinions. They can vote with their wallets.

The problem with letting public opinion settle the matter is the voices of a few can drown out the voices of the rest. Those voices don't necessarily reflect the views of the majority.

In the meantime, the ability of a man to earn a living is seriously hampered. A guy who's already been punished. Society has already voiced its displeasure by sending him to jail and imposing fines.

After he's paid the price, it's time for society to shut the fuck up and let the man earn a living. If he commits another crime, the cops will be on him, and the legal system will do its thing again.

So I stand by what I said: if you think it's OK to continue to harass or allow a man to be harassed out of a job after he's served his time, while claiming he should be allowed to work, then you're being inconsistent and contradictory.