There is an argument being put forward that Ched Evans ‘deserves’ a second chance, which in football means he should be given a lucrative contract to score goals. Why shouldn’t he, it’s important that he puts his talents to good use instead of wasting what remains of his career, or so the argument goes. But there’s a big leap from saying someone should be allowed the chance to find employment after they’ve served their punishment, to saying a football club should fast track the return of a former employee convicted of rape. In any case, no one has been arguing against the legality of employing criminals – but since when did society become so clearly defined by matters of law?
Think about other professions in the public eye; can you imagine many people holding a similar view if a Government minister was convicted of rape – do you think there’d be people calling for that person to get a second chance in their old Cabinet job? And, there are many less high profile professions where you’d imagine a rape conviction would be seen as a career ending incident. You probably wouldn’t welcome a convicted rapist back to teach at your local school, for example.
Football is of course laced with double standards and hypocrisy, and there are no limits to the absurd positions people will assume in order to defend their preferred idols. The Luis Suarez charge of racist abuse was a prime example. All sorts of armchair experts on linguistics came forward talking about cultural relativity, and explaining the authorities were ignorant for not recognising that the language Suarez used was a term of endearment in his native land. The end result was a lot of white people defending one man’s right to call a black man ‘negrito’, but there we are. That happened.
Now we have a debate around second chances for convicted rapists, and for some reason, many people think it’s absolutely vital that Evans is given a chance to redeem himself at his old club, because the law requires criminals to be rehabilitated. What about criminals that refuse to acknowledge their guilt? Ched Evans is not sorry for what he did; he believes he is the victim of a terrible injustice, and has vowed to clear his name. That is his choice, but in this situation, his former employer, Sheffield United, owe him nothing. There is no obligation for the club to nurture him back into society while he campaigns to clear his name – it is not Sheffield United that was found guilty of rape. And yet, they appear intent on shouldering this responsibility for him at any cost.
When the Club released a statement about their decision to let Evans train with their squad, they referenced all the points of view they had considered. These included the views of: their staff, the PFA, social media comments (!), and Mr Evans himself, who they believe has acknowledged the ‘destructive nature of the acts which led to his conviction’. An interesting statement, given that Evans has created his own website that states “On 20 April 2012 I was convicted of a crime I did not commit”. I hardly see how that is an acknowledgement of anything.
United argue that Evans’ campaign to clear his name is not their business and that they have no view on the matter. But, what if they decide to offer him a new contract, do they really think they are neutral actors in this situation, given the public interest in football, and the prominence of Sheffield United to their community? United’s statement argues that Evans shouldn’t be punished twice, “The Club rejects the notion that society should seek to impose extrajudicial or post-term penalties on anyone” – and that he should be treated as equal before the law – as if anyone is arguing against that. It’s not a punishment to decide that someone doesn’t meet the required standards of your organisation. People get turned away from jobs for things a lot more trivial than a rape conviction. It is totally within Sheffield United’s control to decide that Evans’ conviction as a rapist is not something they want associated with their football club, but instead they’ve written a statement that suggests they are duty bound to give him a second chance.
Citing social media as a credible source in their reasoning is as risible as it is utterly depressing, given the comments sent to Jessica Ennis-Hill on Twitter after her views on the matter were made public. But, there is also a significant omission from United’s list of considerations: the victim of Evans’ crime. There is no mention of how this decision will impact on her, or her family.
And, this incident has also highlighted, once again, that many fans are unable to decouple supporting their team with an unquestioning loyalty to those individuals that are paid to represent their club. The depth of stupidity among those unable to recognise that footballers are paid to do a job is astonishing. You support the club, and you hope that the players who represent it aren’t terrible people. That so many Sheffield United fans appear keen for Evans to return suggests many are not convinced by the severity of his crime, and this is the crux of the matter. The moral crusade for second chances is a smokescreen. Really, it seems that many people are keen for Evans to return to his old job because they just don’t consider his rape conviction to be that serious, and have no sympathy for his victim.
I agree the “deserves a second change” argument doesn’t hold much water. There’s a whole raft of other occupations where it’d be irrelevant – if he was a teacher, worked in the medical profession, was a bus or taxi driver or in any other profession where he came into contact with kids he’d just not get “a second chance” – full stop.
So, why not add football to those occupations where a convicted sex offender would not get a second chance?