Members of the jury...

Where do you stand on this Ched Evans business?  To recap  - he is a professional footballer who, back in 2012 was convicted of rape and sentenced to five years in prison.  Having served half his sentence, and having kept his nose clean, he was released in 2014.  Meanwhile he had appealed against his conviction, and the Court of Appeal in April of this year quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.  This has now taken place and resulted in his acquittal, mainly it would seem as a result of the previous sexual history of the girl he is accused of raping being given in court - which it wasn't at the original trial.  This has been condemned by various women's groups who say it may deter rape victims coming forward in the future.  So, should it have been allowed?  It isn't normally, but the circumstances here were considered exceptional enough to warrant relaxing the rule on this occasion. So, where do you stand? I fear I may be seen as simply a bloke siding with a bloke, but the way I see it is that, if it had not been for this new evidence being allowed, chances are he would have been found guilty again - as he was at the original trial.  So, what it comes down to is which is more important - that the girl's previous sexual behaviour should remain secret, or that the defendant should get a fair trial with a just verdict?