Non-League Val McDermid sponsorship

There is also the 'role model' element of footballers who a lot of young players will look up to. Certain types of crime will mean that some footballers won't find another role at many clubs and being found guilty of rape albeit in a civil case is one of those.

The Adam Chapman case was quite different in that he was incredibly unlucky as he was texting on his phone whilst driving (when this wasn't illegal) and hit an elderly neighbour's car which killed that person - there but for the Grace of God go I and I suspect many others on this forum. I think even the victim's family spoke up for him at the trial as they realised it was just appalling 'luck' and there was no intent whatsoever.
 
mooro said:
This whole story makes me quite uncomfortable on a number of fronts:
1) as others have said, he is not a convicted rapist as he has not been found guilty in a criminal court.
2) so, a number of the comments and statements made in public about him should have been more qualified in their severity than they were.
3) again as others have said, this is another example where people who have been served a punishment continue to be punished beyond that, without the chance for reconciliation. We saw the same here with Chapman and McCormick who many felt unable to allow to move on with their careers, even after serving their sentences.
4) without having gone into all of the detail, it appears that one of, or the, deciding factor in the civil case was that the female was deemed too drunk to make a coherent decision regarding consent, which is fine. However, if a male and a female have gone out and are equally drunk, should the same logic not apply the other way.- is his ability to determine whether any consent given, either direct or implied, is valid under this policy, equally impaired? Is it therefore fair to proceed with any case against the male for a drunken miscalculation, when it is the very removal of the outcome of the female drunken miscalculation that is putting him in this position?
5) also, could the same logic be used to turn the situation on it's head and the male take action against the female as he was too drunk to give valid consent and therefore the female has committed at the very least sexual assault if she has failed to recognise this?
Click to expand...

3. He's not been formally punished unless the damages in the civil case were 'punitive', I don't even know if 'punitive damages' feature in Scots law. More to the point, Chapman & MacCormick were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases for crimes that, regardless of their awful outcomes, were crimes of stupidity and recklessness rather than malice. Continuing to punish them after they had served their sentences was stupid, cruel and ignorant (there but for the grace ......). I don't know him, her or enough about the case the comment but I don't think there's such a thing as 'rape without malice' - and he was found guilty (on the balance of probabilities).

4. This is the 'she was asking for it' defence. Ugly.

5. I'm sure it's been tried. By the way, @eaststandboy linked article mentions 2 men were in court for the civil action and both ordered to pay damages for raping her, surely she didn't get them both pissed then have her way with them?
 
chuckbert said:
This question of wiping your slate clean is a bit simplistic.

Would you lend money to a convicted embezzler who had served time and showed remorse? Why not?

When you employ people you have values that you look for like integrity and honesty, good interpersonal skills and equitable attitude. Why would you employ someone who in the past had violated those principles to the point of criminal or civil action?
Click to expand...

Christ, mate! He's not Boris Johnson.
 
Paul Cannell said:
3. He's not been formally punished unless the damages in the civil case were 'punitive', I don't even know if 'punitive damages' feature in Scots law. More to the point, Chapman & MacCormick were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases for crimes that, regardless of their awful outcomes, were crimes of stupidity and recklessness rather than malice. Continuing to punish them after they had served their sentences was stupid, cruel and ignorant (there but for the grace ......). I don't know him, her or enough about the case the comment but I don't think there's such a thing as 'rape without malice' - and he was found guilty (on the balance of probabilities).

4. This is the 'she was asking for it' defence. Ugly.

5. I'm sure it's been tried. By the way, @eaststandboy linked article mentions 2 men were in court for the civil action and both ordered to pay damages for raping her, surely she didn't get them both pissed then have her way with them?
Click to expand...
4 No it isn't!
It is more an observation that as steps are taken to help improve conviction rates in such cases, as indeed they should, sometimes the intention and spirit of a change can leave difficult situations that don't necessarily achieve the desired goal.
For instance, the aim here is to prevent predatory males taking advantage of females too incapacitated to resist by removing the validity of any consent given in that state.
My point is not to question that, but to just raise a more ' innocent' scenario - where both parties go into a situation on an equal footing, but end up in very different situations thereafter (because the capacity to make judgement is removed from one, but left in place for the other) - and ask should, and if so how, these can be treated differently in a landscape of commendably trying to bring more perpetrators to justice without destroying the lives of those more guilty of foolish misjudgement than malice

3A I agree regarding AC & LM, but was just commenting that many were unable to allow them to move on.
5 good point regarding how the presence of two men may change the dynamic of this particular case.
3B more generally - perhaps the crux is that there IS arguably a thing which is ' rape without malice', which for want of a better phrase is 'rape with ignorance'.
By this I mean someone, such as in my example in (4) above, who is to their knowledge at the time acting normally/ innocently, but subsequently finds any consent they received (or perceived) is invalid due to age/ incapacity/ etc. This doesn't make them innocent, I hasten to add, but more guilty by misjudgement than malice.
 
chuckbert said:
This question of wiping your slate clean is a bit simplistic.

Would you lend money to a convicted embezzler who had served time and showed remorse? Why not?

When you employ people you have values that you look for like integrity and honesty, good interpersonal skills and equitable attitude. Why would you employ someone who in the past had violated those principles to the point of criminal or civil action?
Click to expand...

That's a bit of a simplistic view in itself. If I worked in finance and an prospective job applicant had a conviction for embezzlement against their name, it would take a very forgiving company to give them another go. With this case, there's no link between Goodwillie's crime and his profession. The rape civil case 'conviction' probably doesn't come with the conditions courts set for other sexually motivated crimes such as not working with minors.

We can all draw up a list of footballers with lengthy lists of convictions - we could even draw up an OUFC XI of those with criminal records. Most come back into the game without much of a second glance. We've had two with death by dangerous driving convictions on the same pitch and yet it was hardly a talking point. Forgiven and forgotten seemingly.

Sexual assault however has a stigma where the public and social media don't let it slide like an assault, theft or even manslaughter. It's a crime that is never shaken away. I kind of understand why but if the likes of McCormick and Chapman are allowed a second chance, then so should Goodwillie no matter how much the public have an issue with it. He has that opportunity and a club can give him the chance if they so wish. Whether any club will now offer him that chance again given the public outcry is another matter.

It well be the end of allowing rapist footballers back into the game. If that's what it takes for some young men to consider their actions and the situations they find themselves in for the future, then maybe some good can come of this.
 
unification said:
That's a bit of a simplistic view in itself. If I worked in finance and an prospective job applicant had a conviction for embezzlement against their name, it would take a very forgiving company to give them another go. With this case, there's no link between Goodwillie's crime and his profession. The rape civil case 'conviction' probably doesn't come with the conditions courts set for other sexually motivated crimes such as not working with minors.

We can all draw up a list of footballers with lengthy lists of convictions - we could even draw up an OUFC XI of those with criminal records. Most come back into the game without much of a second glance. We've had two with death by dangerous driving convictions on the same pitch and yet it was hardly a talking point. Forgiven and forgotten seemingly.

Sexual assault however has a stigma where the public and social media don't let it slide like an assault, theft or even manslaughter. It's a crime that is never shaken away. I kind of understand why but if the likes of McCormick and Chapman are allowed a second chance, then so should Goodwillie no matter how much the public have an issue with it. He has that opportunity and a club can give him the chance if they so wish. Whether any club will now offer him that chance again given the public outcry is another matter.

It well be the end of allowing rapist footballers back into the game. If that's what it takes for some young men to consider their actions and the situations they find themselves in for the future, then maybe some good can come of this.
Click to expand...
That's not completely correct. Following the Soham murders and the amount of intelligence on Ian Huntley without an actual conviction prior to the murders and thus him getting a job in a school, things other than relevant convictions such as police intelligence were allowed to be included on CRCs, now DBS checks. Thus this could impact his ability to work with vulnerable adults and/or children. Something like this could impact someone working with vulnerable people. In fact there is is case law regarding someone who was found not guilty of rape but the allegation was still included on a DBS. I'm not sure in this case David Goodwillie would be required to work with vulnerable people though.
 
unification said:
With this case, there's no link between Goodwillie's crime and his profession.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s black and white - it is the point I was making.
We've had two with death by dangerous driving convictions on the same pitch and yet it was hardly a talking point.
Click to expand...
That’s not true. Massive talking point with people questioning whether they could continue to support the team!

As I tried to express before, recruitment is changing and many employers are rating values much more strongly alongside technical qualifications.

If a tech company wants to employ a highly specialised database programmer and there are few candidates, if one of them has a well known reputation for being a bit handsy, they won’t get selected. Is that unfair? No criminal cases, no prosecutions.
 
chuckbert said:
If a tech company wants to employ a highly specialised database programmer and there are few candidates, if one of them has a well known reputation for being a bit handsy, they won’t get selected. Is that unfair? No criminal cases, no prosecutions.
Click to expand...
Yeah like database programmers have any type of social skills, good or bad...

Yours,

Database programmer and forum moderator.
 
mooro said:
4 No it isn't!
It is more an observation that as steps are taken to help improve conviction rates in such cases, as indeed they should, sometimes the intention and spirit of a change can leave difficult situations that don't necessarily achieve the desired goal.
For instance, the aim here is to prevent predatory males taking advantage of females too incapacitated to resist by removing the validity of any consent given in that state.
My point is not to question that, but to just raise a more ' innocent' scenario - where both parties go into a situation on an equal footing, but end up in very different situations thereafter (because the capacity to make judgement is removed from one, but left in place for the other) - and ask should, and if so how, these can be treated differently in a landscape of commendably trying to bring more perpetrators to justice without destroying the lives of those more guilty of foolish misjudgement than malice

3A I agree regarding AC & LM, but was just commenting that many were unable to allow them to move on.
5 good point regarding how the presence of two men may change the dynamic of this particular case.
3B more generally - perhaps the crux is that there IS arguably a thing which is ' rape without malice', which for want of a better phrase is 'rape with ignorance'.
By this I mean someone, such as in my example in (4) above, who is to their knowledge at the time acting normally/ innocently, but subsequently finds any consent they received (or perceived) is invalid due to age/ incapacity/ etc. This doesn't make them innocent, I hasten to add, but more guilty by misjudgement than malice.
Click to expand...


4 You have a sunnier view of human nature than I. For clarity, I wasn't accusing you of wanting the 'she was aksing...' outcome although it may have seemed like that. I'm sure now that you don't. In my view it's not the law that's wrong, it's enforcement and support given to victims that need to be far better for victims (of any orientation) - fast evidence gathering could remove a lot of uncertainty from the process of prosecution and make conviction of the guilty more likely; I'm not sure I understand how your suggestion would work in law or perhaps I think you'd just get more accused people adopting what will in reality be used as an excuse or get-out.

3b

How would that defense work, though. "She was unconscious so poked her anyway?" "I didn't think she meant no?" Aside - I did know one 'kiddy-fiddler' who I truly believe was let's say 'half-trapped' into a single, catastrophic act (he was educationally well below par and his parents were cunts to him. Beyond that, I still don't think there can be 'rape without malice'.

Your point on rehabilitation / moving on is valuable. I think remorse and recognition are the key, plus education for the public at large. As usual, our justice system doesn't seem designed to support offenders recovery in the same way it doesn't protect victims very well.

It's not good.
 
Whether footballers like it or not, they are ultimately in the entertainment industry, and that's why self-image is as much a part of that. That's why on the flip side Marcus Rashford is probably the most marketable player in the game, even if he's not necessarily the first name on Gareth Southgate's team sheet.

But crimes such as rape and sexual acts with a child are career suicide. Adam Johnson for example could easily do a good job for any Championship, maybe even lower level Premier League team, but nobody is prepared to touch him with a barge pole. And when was the last time you heard a Gary Glitter or Rolf Harris song on the radio?
 
Now out of 2nd club
www.bbc.com

Clyde U-turn on Goodwillie return

Clyde say they will terminate a loan deal for David Goodwillie after a furious reaction to re-signing the former Scotland striker, who was ruled a rapist in civil court.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom