ClumsyMonkey.net

please give this kid some money. he really doesn't deserve this

http://www.helpmarcus.com

what a fucked up story.

I heard about that.

It's definitely not rape, and they're flushing his life down the toilet.

what the fuck! that's so unfair! I didnt even know you could go to jail for sleeping with someone under the legal age. Does anyone know the age of consent in canada? . I might be in trouble . Yeah, well it is america isnt it (no disrespect to americans, i mean the judicial system). "Land of the free".

Judges in the south the to be *cough* REPUBLICANS. oops...I mean they stick to the book way too much *hehheh*.

well i've never been south, but i've heard a tale or two

There are some judges from that reigon, and their values are really messed up. Especially on abortions. The are 100% anti-abortion, regardless of incest or rape or endangerment to the mother or anything!

If you've ever heard of Pickering or Pryur, you know what I'm talking about.

Canada's is 14, or 16 if its a teacher.

Right, because this sort of thing never happens in <a href="http://www.injusticebusters.com/2003/Tisdale_rape.htm">Canada</a>

Let's keep in mind that the jury was merely following the letter of the law. The law needs to be changed and updated, afterall it was created to protect children from sexual predators. Perhaps it was misapplied in this case.

Also, there are always two sides to a story. Are you really going to trust a site called "Save So-And-So!" to be unbiased? There are plenty of sources out there that describe Marcus Dixon's prior 2 sexual mishaps. (one where he exposed himself to a 16 year old and another for touching a 14 year old).

Jury's are intended to give just and fair sentences to people, and are called on to make a make a factual and moral decision. They are in no way expected to follow laws to the letter, instead they are designed to decide upon justice. This obviously wasn't and the law is no excuse

umm... it would be injustice if they went against the law... by definition. Plus.. they don't hand out the sentence.. the judge does.

prior two sexual mishaps are irrelevant. that is just character assasination with absolutely no connection to the current case.

the facts remain that marcus dixon did not rape that girl. they had consensual sex. the only reason the state has imprisoned marcus dixon is because the state has it's nose where it doesn't belong, as per usual.

the state has no fucking business whatsoever setting a "legal age of consent". this "crime" that mr. dixon has been convicted of is an absolute abberation of "justice".

this is the state acting far outside of the boundaries of reason. there is not one single justifiable, or even respectable reason for there to be a legal age of consent.

that jury should've recognized the law as unjust and refused to uphold it. that judge is either rascist or sexist. pick one. either or, he is a piece of shit who deserves to be shot and killed.

do you people have any idea what is going to happen to marcus dixon in prison? 6'6 and 260 or not, this kid is eighteen fucking years old. he is going to be torn to bloody shreds in there. only his previous strength of character leads me to believe that this kid has a snowballs chance in hell of returning to anything resembling a normal life after he is done with his prison nightmare.

jail is not just being bored all the time people. jail is hell. this kid doesn't deserve it.

the alchemist wrote:prior two sexual mishaps are irrelevant. that is just character assasination with absolutely no connection to the current case.

Actually, no. 60% of all sexual offenders are repeat offenders. It follows that since this guy does have a history of sexual abuse, he's more likely to have actually committed it here.

the state has no fucking business whatsoever setting a "legal age of consent". this "crime" that mr. dixon has been convicted of is an absolute abberation of "justice".

Until a person hits a certain maturity, they are not capable of making decisions that involve sex, and to have an adult take advantage of that is a horrible, disgusting offense. Two people who have no idea what they're doing together is one thing, an adult taking sexual advantage of a young, immature person is something completely else.
I agree that age isn't always an indicator of maturity, yes, but there has to be some kind of line here.

it is impossible, even for you Narbus, to say that the girl did not know what she was doing or was taken advantage of. a jury of his peers found him innocent of rape.

I agree that there must be a line drawn. but that line should not be drawn by total strangers working in the government, and should not carry with it the ruin of a person's life as a penalty.

drawing the line is up to the parents. you can't have a standard rule because people are different. some kids are ready for sex at 14, 15 etc.

i know plenty of people who lost their virginity at that age and are fine, well adjusted indviduals.

that this extremely personal choice is now out of the hands of the people and into the hands of the government just show how out of control the state is.

ps.

"60% of sex offenders re-offend" is a meaningless statement. you cannot predict human behaviour. i don't care if 99% of sex offenders reoffend, that doesn't mean that marcus dixon did.

irrelevant, as i said earlier.

the alchemist wrote:drawing the line is up to the parents.

bad parents won't draw a line at all. and even when there is a standard rule for consent, it is the parents that file these charges. so technically they have a say as to when charges can be files on such incidents.

well, that's too bad. it's not my responsibility or anybody elses to make sure you parent your children. hell, if the government fucked off, i bet we'd see a substantial increase in the quality of parenting people recieve.

A few things:

1. In this case, I do think there was a misapplication of justice. I really don't think it was okay for the big 18 year old football star to sleep with a 15 year old. I do think that something should have happened, community service, probation, something, yes. But the 10 year, no probation thing was a big step over the line, especially considering the charge and the law itself.

2. A big question here (as in, on this board) is whether or not the girl was of a state of mind to have consenual sex with this guy. An excellent resource The issue of consent is still rather up in the air. As I mentioned before, Dixon had shown himself to be willing to commit these kinds of acts.

3. As to the bit regarding the "60%" statistic, I didn't supply to suggest that he would do it again, I'm not trying to "predict" what he'll do. I'm suggesting that since he has shown himself willing to engage in this type of activity means that here, in this case, when he did have sex with a minor, it's more likely that his weren't the totally innocent actions the website suggests, but the actions of a sexual deviant. I'm not trying to read the future, I'm using his past actions to explain his past actions.

4. According to most sources, the parents, particularly her father, are the ones pushing this. So the parents are deciding where the line is here.

/edit: Snopes cleared some stuff up for me.

Found Not Guilty.

He was on Oprah!

This reminds me of another story in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution... about a 15 year old boy caught having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend by her father. He jumped out her window and tried to run for it. Her parents tried to bring him down for it, because apparently it was completely illegal for them to do anything at all, but the case was thrown out of court.

But moving on.

First of all, we're talking about a state where oral sex was legalised in 2002, where you need parental consent to have an abortion under the age of eighteen, and where last year, a high school in southern Georgia had separate proms for white and black students.

In this case though- I know how Georgia football boys act. I don't know if they have no problem with date rape, or they're just too damn egotistical to realise that not everyone wants to sleep with them, but I have no doubt that he's not as innocent as he appears.

I'm guessing she probably didn't actually want to do it, but really did think that he'd make her if she said no. In other words, she consented because she was afraid she would be violently raped otherwise. When her daddy found out, he went ballistic.

The ten year sentence is *really* weird though. It was my understanding that Georgia's ten year minimum is specifically for offenders over 21. If the victim is 14 or 15, and the offender is no more than three years older than her, the sentence should be up to one year. If neither of those apply, then it's 1 to 20 years. I don't know why it was so harsh here.

I don't think he's a bad kid. I think he was kinda self-absorbed and stupid, but he doesn't deserve more than a couple years probation. He's not a violent psychopath who needs to be locked up for everyone's safety.