Marcus Dixon CONVICTED Ten Years for Child Molestation

[Dante3]

Apology accepted. Has happened to me also.

[tsomer]

When I first read the headline I was taken in: another innocent ensnared in the criminal justice system. But reading the AP story led to a different conclusion.

His description of her and the alledged affair seems curious; he sounds like a con with his indirect references to the event and the girl. Also,a table in the back of a classroom where the girl was working, hardly seems a plausible location for consensual sex. There is the fact that she reported the incident to school authorities and that they summoned the police; this also buttresses the rape allegation. Finally that article noted that the kid had a prior history of sexually predatory behavior.

I say he's lucky to have gotten off so lightly. He probably pled down to a statuatory rape charge, and now is trying to leverage public opinion against that.

[cyborg]

Well he's in jail and will serve his time according to the law, and nothing I can do about that.

[Southack]

"In a recent case before the state Supreme Court, lawyers for 18-year-old Marcus Dixon argued that a decade-long mandatory sentence for aggravated child molestation was cruel and unusual. The trial judge said during sentencing that his hands are tied by the Legislature insofar as the mandatory minimum."

Yes, the trial judge's hands are tied by the legislature, but that fact is irrelevant to the argument that the penalty for a high school student having consensual sex with a classmate is a "cruel" or unusual punishment.

You see, one of several problems with many judges of today is that they come from a background filled with non-thinking moral relativism backed by a legal education that emphasizes capricious case law over written statute. Filled with such mush in their heads, they can't even see that their own facts and opinions (such as highlighted above) aren't relevant to the arguments at hand.

In this case, the judge *thinks* that he/she is doing the right thing by following Georgia's written statute by enforcing stiff penalties against those who would dare have sex with a minor.

...And the judge would be right if the world existed in a vacuum, was Manichean, or was all wrapped up inside the binary rules of a computer's artificial reality.

But we humans don't live in such an environment. Real world variables actually matter. Circumstances matter. Motives matter.

Of course, if there was a rape, coercion, or manipulation then throw the book at him. There was a recent case where an 18 year old boy had gay sex with a 14 year old mental patient, and the abuser's attorneys argued that the punishment for that act was likewise "cruel," and they were likewise wrong, for instance.

But *if* the sex was consensual, then you can't just say that this 18 year old should get 10 years in jail while his 17.9 year old fellow classmate would have been legal to have the same sex with that same girl.

[bk1000]

" I think ten years for teen sex is a bit harsh."

You are correct, however, the charge is 'child molestation', a crime that deserves every bit of ten years, if not more. The real point is that mandatory sentencing and zero tolerance are simply societal abdications of responsibility. An 18 yr old male and a 15 yr old female may be consensual, and not the same as an 18 yr old male and a 12 yr old girl, which would be child molestation. It seems now we can't deal with these cases individuality as to do so would surely be racist, or at the least, insensitive or offensive. (note sarcasm in last sentence)

[cyborg]

Okay fair enough.

[jwalsh07]

RDB3 never once intimated that my position was racist for supporting Lott in those debates though some other freepers did. No problem though, I know who and what I am.

As for this case, I can offer my own life experience. When I was a senior in high school I was still 15 until my birthday in September. My girl friend was 18. The notion that she was guilty of some crime requiring 10 years in jail is crazy.

If the sex was consensual, 10 years is wacky. It's a bad law that requires immediate attention. There just is no moral equivalence between an 18 year old having relations with a girl who is almost 16 and a twenty something having sex with a 13 year old.

There needs to be some judgment involved here.

[Prime Choice]

I've no sympathy for pedophiles who try to rationalize sex with minors.

Hear-hear! There's enough immorality in the world without people making excuses for it.

[rdb3]

There's enough immorality in the world without people making excuses for it.

I agree with that. But let me ask you a question. Is bearing false witness immoral to you?

[cyborg]

No quarrel with that. There definately needs to be better parent-child communication about sex, esp. with boys since girls get enough lecturing. The lecturing is warranted since we have more to lose in terms of pregnancy,etc. Sex ed begins at home though.

[Lorianne]

He broke the law, the STATUATORY rape law. The sentence may be harsh but that is a separate issue. The voters of that state can work to reduce the punishment for statuatory rape if they so wish.

If others have been given similar sentence for similar crime in that state, then it at least "equal justice under the law".

[Rifleman]

Re your first 'graph: The two cases are congruent in that the law of the time and place was followed resulting in abominable cruelty and injustice to the victim.

Re your second 'graph: Ok, how would you feel about turning in hidden Jews in 1940 Germany? One must follow the law...right?

Re your third 'graph: I care not a fig about how stern a law is, only how just it is. Murderers serve less time than that. If this girl's chastity (if any) was devalued, perhaps her family has a civil claim. Inequitous sentences like this one hold the law up for ridicule and scorn. Not, to my mind, a good thing.

[Madstrider]

I agree with that. But let me ask you a question. Is bearing false witness immoral to you?

Oh, lying is absolutely wrong. But he was not falsely convicted his attorneys aren't challenging the sentence they want to argue that the sentence was too harsh. He was convicted of Statutory Rape - there is no question of his guilt on that, none. The second conviction which was similar to Sexual Assault on a child w/ injuries carried the mandatory sentence. The injuries were well documented. The government has an obligation to protect our society. That obligation falls on our legislators, the judicial system and law enforcement. The State of Georgia is tough on crimes against children and it should be. This isn't the Kobe Bryant case the victim was a child. That anyone would try to gin up sympathy for a grown man who beyond all doubt is guilty of having sex with a child is utterly shameless. An eleven year old was killed in Florida because the system failed. Because they were too lenient on sex offenders one slipped through the cracks. They failed to protect the child. If you think the sentence is too harsh, and that is really whats up up for debate, then maybe we could do an assessment. What would be acceptable as far as casualties? Does anyone think that the number of sex crimes against children is so low we should relax our laws. They certainly weren't tough enough to deter Marcus Dixon.