Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MonkeyHead]

Well, I think the law specify one sentece: jail. It says nothing about loosing your job.

We can argue if the sentence was though enough, but I don't think anyone should suffer punishment beyond what the laws says.

So the protestations and resignations are too far, in your opinion?

[Helgoland]

I have pretty much a standard answer to stuff like this: He should be allowed to return, but he shouldn't do it, i.e. he should nominally be given permission, but it should unofficially be made quite clear that there's no way he'll ever get back in, leading to him not even trying. Saving face while still getting the right result, you know? The key is that this is not part of his punishment, but a direct repercussion of his crime. The PFA no longer giving a damn about him would be part of such a treatment, but I don't think these resignations accomplish anything.
And if there's something to be talked about, mistakes have already been made. Such issues should be taken care of discretely, because dragging it through the press is not beneficial to anyone.

[MonkeyHead]

I have pretty much a standard answer to stuff like this: He should be allowed to return, but he shouldn't do it, i.e. he should nominally be given permission, but it should unofficially be made quite clear that there's no way he'll ever get back in, leading to him not even trying. Saving face while still getting the right result, you know? The key is that this is not part of his punishment, but a direct repercussion of his crime. The PFA no longer giving a damn about him would be part of such a treatment, but I don't think these resignations accomplish anything.
And if there's something to be talked about, mistakes have already been made. Such issues should be taken care of discretely, because dragging it through the press is not beneficial to anyone.

This actually is neat and elegant. Trouble is that the guy seems to be a massive jerk, and has been quite vocal in protesting his innocence and pushing to resume his career - I don't think he would go quietly, so to speak.

[Sheb]

Yeah, frankly, I don't know how we as liberal can bitch on how felons have their life wrecked, not finding a job after jail and everything, and then wanting that guy not to get a job. He had his sentence, he's been punished according to the law, now he's just a normal guy.

If you think his sentence wasn't harsh enough (and 30 months for a rape case sounds ridiculously low), we can argue harsher rape laws.

[Helgoland]

Nonono, a jail sentence does not mean your slate is wiped clean! It only means you're a normal person again in the eyes of the law, not in the eyes of society. That's why I'm against a formal ban: It would be in bad taste, and reeks of mob justice. But simply having an implicit understanding that certain things won't fly anymore is just another form of social feedback.
An example: If I stole money from some club I'm a member of, was found out, sentenced, and endured my punishment - would you argue that the club shoudln't throw me out because I already had a sentence handed to me?

[Sheb]

Yeah, I think I get your point. Kinda make sense, although I'm not fully convince, it still reeks of mob justice to me.

Also, in this case, the club suffered through your actions, that guy's employer did not. Also, taking away someone's career is... really harsh.

[Helgoland]

Also, in this case, the club suffered through your actions, that guy's employer did not. Also, taking away someone's career is... really harsh.

Sure they suffered - think of the negative publicity! And taking him back would mean even more of that.
And yes, the difference between my proposal and McCarthyism is one of degree. That's why it's so important to keep this an unofficial agreement, and to keep the government out! This guy can always go into some other profession - he'd have to eventually, there's very few old football players - and still make a decent living.

[Reelya]

Yeah, frankly, I don't know how we as liberal can bitch on how felons have their life wrecked, not finding a job after jail and everything, and then wanting that guy not to get a job. He had his sentence, he's been punished according to the law, now he's just a normal guy.

If you think his sentence wasn't harsh enough (and 30 months for a rape case sounds ridiculously low), we can argue harsher rape laws.

Read the details of the case. The case totally hinges on the fact that she was drunk and can't remember. There's no suggestion of physical restraint or use of force, or any threats of force in this case. Saying "5 years just isn't enough!" doesn't match the nature of the case. Also, there's no suggestion in the story that he deliberately got her intoxicated. What this looks like is that they threw the book at him because he's a high-profile public person so they wouldn't look like they were going soft. If this was "joe blow" in this case the police would probably have said the facts were too indeterminate.

5 years is a normal charge for rape with violent assault and threats with weapons, not a drunken screw. So, given the known facts and regular sentences that get handed down for comparable cases, 5 years is normal.

[Baffler]

Yeah, I think I get your point. Kinda make sense, although I'm not fully convince, it still reeks of mob justice to me.

Also, in this case, the club suffered through your actions, that guy's employer did not. Also, taking away someone's career is... really harsh.

Perhaps not in this case. As a pro footballer he's very much a public figure and we expect certain things of our public figures, people look up to them. Allowing him to continue to be a public figure shouldn't even be on the table, but nobody is saying he's not allowed to get some other job, or even continue to play football as an amateur away from the cameras and the press that playing professionally gets you. That's the ideal solution for everybody. Now, he's still very insistent that he should still be allowed to play and that kind of breaks the whole thing down, but I'm basically of a mind with Helgo when I say it should have been handled with more... discretion. He's not doing himself any favors acting this way.

[Phmcw]

Double penality is illegal. In addition of that hindering the reinsertion of a former felon is putting society at a risk and is both hypocrite and counterproductive.


I wouldn't be opposed to prosecution of the peoples hindering his employment.

[i2amroy]

I think it's the same sort of thing as what pops up about free speech in arguments fairly often. The law says that legally you have served the time needed to equate what you did. However it says absolutely nothing about being boycotted, canceled, not signed on, banned, etc.. Those are the prerogatives of the people who own or manage the respective organizations and clubs, and has basically nothing to do with the law. It's just like the CEO's who say something stupid on twitter and end up being forced into resignations. Their careers are in just as bad a shape as the football player's is going to be unless he wants to try something else.

As for why the actual league isn't taking a stance, I'd say it's an outreach of the Streisand Effect. This type of situation is a sort of lose-lose situation for the league. If they say they support him then people are going to cry out that they are supporting rapists. If they say they don't support him then there is going to be a portion of people who say that they are ruining people's lives who justly served their time. Either way it's bad publicity that will probably be remembered for a while. If, on the other hand, they don't say anything, then in a few months most likely nobody will remember this at all. It's much harder to remember and fault someone for having no opinion on a subject than for them having the "wrong" opinion from your point of view.

[Phmcw]

I disagree and this goes against a fundamental principle of social democracy.


Actually it combine two topical American misguided idea : freedom of speech is absolute and "you vote with your wallet".
Freedom of speech shouldn't be absolute : hate speech is an agression and, because it force peoples to be civil, the state itself should sanction it.


And the monetisation of politics make it so that ALL political parties are controlled by money, Democrat and Republican. In practice, CEO shouldn't be allowed to voice a political opinion and companies whouldn't be allowed to finance politics. As long as they are, poorer peoples will never be represented.
In your system, if your wallet is empty you don't exist.

[Leafsnail]

Footballers are public figures and are regarded as role models by young people, I don't think it's unreasonable to keep rapists away from that kind of position (I think clubs should also be careful about hiring people who haven't committed crimes at all, eg outspoken racists).  Preventing someone from playing football professionally doesn't amount to "ruining someone's life".

[Reelya]

And in cases like this, the actual details of the court case don't really matter. If the public thinks you're guilty then that's what the league will respond to. The court of public opinion trumps legal and ethical issues any day. What matters is the appearance of not supporting rapists.

[Phmcw]

.... it's not "rapists" that they are opposing, it's justice and reinsertion.


It always amuse me that peoples are all for left wing ideas in theory, but will drop them all the time in practice.