Marcus Dixon CONVICTED Ten Years for Child Molestation

[cyborg]

I just heard that Marcus Dixon has been convicted of child molestation. Ten years in prison...a complete outrage esp. since the girl said she lied anout the rape.

[cyborg]

I'm not telling the state of GA what to do. I'm just giving my personal opinion which is ten years for teen sex is harsh. If they had waited three more months then it would have been legal sex. What's the difference between 15.75 and 16 yearss of age?

[green iguana]

I agree with both of you with regards to the fact that he broke the law and should be punished. We may disagree in that I fully believe that the punishment does not fit the crime, and that this case is a good example of why mandatory minimum sentencing is bad law.

[Dante3]

It's about time perverts like Dixon learn a lesson to leave children alone.

[cyborg]

I know :) but does three months make a difference in terms of the girl? I don't think so but that's just muy opinion.

[cyborg]

I agree

[CatoRenasci]

When I was in high school in California some 40 years ago, the saying went 15 will get you 20, which reminded us all that sleeping with a girl under 16 or a guy under 18 (by a girl over 18) was statutory rape, then punishable by up to 20 years in San Quentin.

Penalties like this have always been out there and seldom are enforced. In my day, they were mostly used if the girl's father was prominent and the boy was from the wrong side of town, as it were. Although, I do remember a case where a girl with a bad reputation seduced and (some said on purpose) became pregant by, a younger boy from wealthy and prominent family. She was an 18 year old senior and he was a 15 year old sophomore when it happened. She was arrested and, until an accomodation was reached in which she went to a home for unwed mothers and gave the child up for adoption, there was pretty serious talk about prosecuting her for statutory rape.

[cyborg]

I see what you're saying. I think it's unfortunate, but as the saying goes, actions have consequences. Somehow I don't think teens in high school are aware of this law in these sexualized times.

[BlueNgold]

since the girl said she lied anout the rape

I've not heard that bit of information and I have followed the case fairly closely. What's your source? She testified in court as I recall. To my knowledge she has never changed her story. The defense, upon his acquital on that charge has made allegations of consensual sex, but I've not seen anything on the record where SHE said it was consensual. I'm open to education ... please provide a link.

[TheSpottedOwl]

Since I'm not familiar with the case, I read through everyone's replies before I posted mine.

In light of the fact that he and the girl were only 3 years apart, I find it interesting/appalling that this guy got ten years in prison. Women who kill their children get less time!

[cyborg]

That is what was presented in the news, and if I get anything I'll be glad to put it up. The jury dismissed the rape charges in the first case.

[cyborg]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/13/findlaw.analysis.colb.statutory.rape/

[BlueNgold]

Why does everyone seem to want to forget that this was prosecuted as a FORCIBLE RAPE. Just because he was acquited on that charge it cannot now be said that it was a consensual act. To my knowledge, the victim has yet to say that and until she does I for one will not insult a victim in that manner. This was a lesser included charge to the more serious charges of rape. Had the victim claimed a consensual encounter then this would be a misdemeanor stat rape case. She reported this as a rape, not statutory .. but as an assualt .. it was prosecuted, and he was convicted on this charge as part of that prosecution. This was not a stand alone charge made by a prosecutor looking to ruin a kids life with a spurious court case.

[BlueNgold]

Juries don't dismiss charges for one ... OJ was acquited as well ... how many people here rant about him walking the streets and wish the prosecution had an LIO in his case to put him away?

[Cobra Scott]

I think you are missing his point (maybe?). The law is the law, no doubt about it; the mandatory sentencing part is what is in question. If a judge and jury (as the case may be) cannot be trusted to make the punishment fit the crime, how can they be trusted to administer a just verdict?

[BlueNgold]

From your link:
In the Dixon case, for example, the 15-year-old victim claimed that the defendant "tracked her down in a classroom trailer that she was cleaning as part of her duties in an after-school job, asked if she was a virgin, grabbed her arms, unbuttoned her pants and raped her on a table." This description renders the statutory rape and aggravated child molestation prosecution something other than the state targeting consensual activity for unduly harsh punishment.

Though Dixon was acquitted on the rape charge, that fact does not rule out the possibility of sexual assault. It means only that the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Dixon forced the 15-year-old girl to have sex against her will.

This states my position exactly...

The jury convicted him of the charge of assualt as part of the larger prosecution for rape. The mandatory min is 10 years on that charge. This is not a case of consensual sex in the minds of anyone except the defendandt and his legal team. I still have yet to see evidence that the victim reversed her story.

[cyborg]

We have a difference of opinion.

[cyborg]

The mandatory sentencing is what I am questioning. If this law was ever applied then I think we'd see a lot of more high school students in jail or with police records.

[judgeandjury]

If they had waited three more months then it would have been legal sex.

Then they should have waited three more months.