In the court of social media, rugby stars are handed life sentences

It is impossible to defend the behaviour of irish rugby pair Paddy Jackson and stuart Olding. Outside a court of law, nobody should try.

the concept of innocence, however, is worth fighting for. As it is, Jackson and Olding were found not guilty of rape, but are staring at a life- altering punishment anyway. the backlash against their potential recruitment by sale sharks suggests they are close to unemployable right now.

sale were forced to deny any approach to Jackson and Olding, after their interest was reported — although they dismissed speculation they were trying to sign James O’Connor and Faf de Klerk a year ago, and did the deals two months later, so make of that what you will.

Yet even if we take sale at their word, the reaction to this false alarm shows what would happen if a club did try to sign either of the players and any potential suitors will now be hastily reconsidering.

When the story broke, on Wednesday, sale’s MP, Barbara Keeley, was immediately involved, and a petition launched opposing the deal.

sponsors expressed concern and a pressure group, the End Violence Against Women Coalition, reiterated its view that Jackson and Olding should never play professional rugby again. Despite a unanimous verdict of not guilty.

For those unfamiliar with the case, among the sordid details of men behaving extremely badly — and then bragging about it, suggesting a behavioural pattern — was the emergence of a WhatsApp group in which the players discussed their sexual encounters with women in the crudest, most misogynistic terms.

sluts, spit- roasting, the degrading language of male sexual conquest that helps subjugate 50 per cent of the planet. the only proper reaction is revulsion.

And if a sponsor did not want brand association with such individuals, or if supporters decided the presence of Jackson and Olding on the team sheet compromised their love for the club, that is understandable.

it is the point of no return that is troubling. the finality of censure — and the idea that in our modern, liberal age, a person could walk free from court, yet still receive what amounts to a life sentence.

this is not about right and wrong. We know the players were wrong. But it doesn’t make us right to become self-appointed judge and jury, rejecting an unpopular verdict.

For if Jackson and Olding are found innocent after due process yet rendered unemployable just the same, that suggests we have abandoned our belief in redemption, in change, in the capacity for personal growth and the possibility that an individual might be made to face the consequences of his or her actions and feel sorrow. Replacing this would be emotion, reaction, anger, vengeance and righteousness.

On the day the trial ended, the players spoke of regret. As a fresh storm swirled around them, they talked of shame at their actions. it has been deemed insufficient. For some, it can never be enough.

SO, where does this end? it is hard to imagine the players’ destructive behaviour will continue, that their very public disgrace — and a not guilty verdict does not make their actions acceptable — has left them unenlightened. they know they have appalled a nation. they know they are held beneath contempt.

to be judged so publicly is painful and, while Jackson and Olding were considered innocent of rape, they are rightly considered guilty of shocking despicability. their reputations are irretrievable

— doubly so if any feelings of remorse are dismissed as irrelevant. We have been here before, with Ched Evans.

Even after serving his sentence, any football club that attempted to employ him faced a siege of protest.

Yet everyone who said he should not play again, from politicians to police commissioners to newspaper columnists, claimed to be big believers in the principles of rehabilitation and redemption, even while espousing views that flew in the face of both, even while wishing the lives of the convicted turned ‘to ash’.

And then Evans was found not guilty of rape, on appeal.

So perhaps it is just as well that we do not destroy lives to prove a point, that we do allow slivers of daylight, of hope, into our process, that we do have a system that seeks growth and forgiveness, not revenge and immutable sentence.

And if we do want to get biblical on those accused of rape, or any crime, shouldn’t we at least distinguish between innocent and guilty — or do our courts now play support act to the barometer of social media?

No doubt the reaction to Jackson and Olding was made worse by a not guilty verdict.

They are not seen to have paid a price, as even Evans did. They are considered to have behaved appallingly and got away scot free. Yet, with the shaming fury of modern public life, that is not the case.

The two players know how the wider world sees them and must live with it. This is their sentence, even when walking free.

What happens from here concerns us, not them.

Our belief in the judicial system; our acceptance that not every verdict will chime with popular opinion; our understanding that a civilised society grants individuals the power to repent and modify.

And that the concepts of justice and fairness, guilt and innocence, regret and redemption are more than hashtags or slogans on billboards, and cannot be collected or dropped, as is the fashion.