Once again, I must humbly limit myself to being a mere messenger, and relate wisdom that seems to have been forgotten, despite its published omnipresence around the world.

In addressing the case of footballer Ched Evans, I will not go into the merits of the case itself - seeing how enough wise co-nationals have already tackled this - but will simply deliver a message that was conveyed around two millennia ago and must somehow have been lost in the post.

There's another reason I will not comment on the case itself, and that has mainly to do with the teachings instructing not to pass judgement and all that jazz that my fervently catholic country imparts to its ethical citizens.

This is not to say that Evans is innocent, or that he is not guilty of raping a girl or that raping should go unpunished; this is all quite beside the point, in fact. It is precisely because I do not want to say these things, and because I equally do not wish to say that he is guilty, either, that I won't say these things.

And it is also not to say that the court's judgement is to be ignored or is not valid. But, having been privy only to the court's conclusions, I can only limit myself to stating what those conclusions were, for without having followed the case through the media, I feel I cannot even partake of the armchair investigations that seem to be our national pastime.

We need to uphold the court's judgement, but to expect someone to apologise for something he claims he did not do is ridiculous. He is guilty; he is guilty according to the court - but that much is implied and economically done without, an omission which is generally of no concern, but which in certain cases such as this one may hinder us from remembering this obvious truth in our accusative deliberations.

Christians - the ones of a bygone era, at least - did not forget this truth so easily: they constantly reminded themselves that the ultimate judge is God. They knew that human courts, fallible as they are - being made up of fallible human beings - have at times absolved guilty criminals and punished innocent scapegoats.

We must live in this imperfect world and live with our imperfections, but to forget or ignore these imperfections is a sin we must not commit.

I will not comment on the case because, instead, I'd like to remind people of the story of another convicted criminal. A chap called Socrates was once accused of much graver accusations, if not in quality, then certainly in number: corrupting the young and impiety. He was found guilty by the court and sentenced to death.

Yet he never apologised, though, as the name of his student's recounting of the events suggests, he did issue an apology.

The apology is, contrary to what a modern reader may think, a defence argument.

Socrates refused to admit any wrongdoing. When asked what his punishment should be, he proposed a just reward for services rendered: free meals at the Prytaneum, an honour reserved for athletes and important people. He had the audacity to ask for a prize, and was clearly in contempt of the law: that's how he was seen by his peers.

And yet today, the Apology, Plato's text recounting the defence speech made by Socrates at his own trial, is a classic of philosophy, a gem of literature and a pearl of wisdom.

Does one really need to articulate the moral to be learnt by this lesson?

Ched Evans may well be guilty of his crime. The court may well be right, and the proof may well be considered irrefutable. But to expect someone to apologise in order to be reintegrated into society is a bit too much. Had he admitted his crime and shown no remorse, as some Nazi officials indeed did at the Nuremberg Trials, that would be a different story.

But Evans is not saying that he is does not regret his crime, he is asserting that he has not committed the crime, which is significantly different.

This is not to say that the decision is easy, or that Maltese football club Hibernians should or should not show an interest in acquiring a player with such a past, regardless of the (im)possibility of this happening and of the actual desire, successively denied, of this transfer ever having existed. Irrespective of all this, we must learn to differentiate and take into consideration the subtleties of a case or situation. Whether it be Hibernians, Oldham Athletic or Hypothetical FC makes absolutely no difference.

For starters, the whole attention is misguided: we must address the addressable. We must decide whether a 'second chance' is to be given to people who have undergone punishment and paid for their (alleged) crimes, or to people who have apologised.

There is a strong argument in favour of the second, especially from the brigade, of which I am member, though with reservations, which holds true the school of thought that prisons and punishment find their purpose more in ensuring reintegration in society than in providing vengeful punishment. As much as people enjoy the comfort of simplicity, we cannot shun the difference I have highlighted above: what happens in cases where someone dutifully serves the punishment but refuses to apologise, not through contempt or out of spite - which, for better or for worse and irrespective of who is right, clearly shows that the individual is at odds with the collective, with society - but through a refusal to admit guilt?

That this is a complicated scenario has been verified and constituted and confirmed by the diverse and divergent commentary.

I am doubtful that the more vehement ones, calling for some sort of holy crusade against not only the footballer but also any clubs which have shown interest in acquiring him, have followed the case thoroughly. From my experience at least, I find that most people hardly follow things thoroughly on their own job, let alone when it comes to events which have happened in another country and to which, were it not for the local tinge given to them, they would have been understandably oblivious.

One can perfectly, and consistently, hold that the club's action was imprudent (upholding the court's judgement and believing the person found guilty must apologise) while still not expecting the person found guilty to apologise. I am aware that for many this may sound contradictory, when in reality it is only paradoxical.

The contradiction, on the contrary, appears in Evans' latest decision to apologise while maintaining his innocence. That is truly confusing: if he is maintaining his innocence, then for what, exactly, is he apologising? Is he taking us for a ride? That would truly be insulting. Is he undermining the act of apology? That would truly be offensive.

Evans did try to elucidate the matter by clarifying that he was apologising for the "effects" of that night on the people involved, but what these effects are is still vague, and, in any case, why would he need to apologise for effects of which he was not the cause?

Probably he is simply accommodating the perverse demands of Western civilised behaviour, which should make one doubt the sincerity of his apology. The chap probably just wants to go on with his life and, given the lack of free speech in our society - despite the hubbub of criticism on other cultures, and the opposite idea that some people have deluded themselves into believing, he simply must adhere and obey the strict ritual rules of the tribe, even after serving his punishment, in order to function well in this would-be free and democratic society.

Socrates himself, seeing that the court was not amused at his suggestion of a penalty in the form of free chow, tried to settle things with a fine of 100 drachmae - a paltry sum, considering the accusations of which he had just been found guilty - simply to humour his audience.

It should be noted that most of the opposition to Evans's signing in the UK arose from either the fact that he has served only half of the sentence imposed or, in line with the position that a sponsor to Oldham Athletic has taken, from the belief that while Evans should be given a second chance, this should not be in the public domain. In both cases, whether he apologised or not does not come into play.