Tuesday, April 13, 2004
Marcus Dixon - analysis...
In the alternative, feel free to weigh in on the perils of Red-Blue dating in this polarized age.
I've been waiting for the GA Supreme Court to hand down its verdict, first because I wanted the final resolution, second because I'm not sure how I feel about this case, honestly. Dixon had better grades and SAT scores than I did when I was his age, and was a star athlete to boot. He had everything going for him, and it's heartbreaking anytime someone loses that, regardless of whether or not they brought their misfortune on themselves. I do know I get less sympathetic towards Dixon every time I hear someone allege that Dixon was victimized solely because he was black. The general tenor of the racism charge is that the only reason the aggravated child molestation (hereafter, ACM) charge was brought is to spread the word about black folks messing with white women.
People who claim this either 1.) don't know the mechanics of the criminal justice system, or 2.) are deliberately misleading people. Neither group should be consulted as to how a criminal case should turn out. Check out this CNN interview. It suggests that prosecutors didn't think Dixon was a rapist, which is completely untrue. At the time the ACM charge was brought, law enforcement believed Dixon to be a rapist. (They believe it to this day. If you knew what rape victims go through to make sex cases, if you saw how hard it is - you'd find it difficult to believe that someone would go through that to advance a lie. My personal take is coming.) At the time of the charging decision, you charge every crime the facts fit, and you trust the jury to sort it out properly. (I believe Dixon's jury was racially mixed, but I'm not sure.) I have also never heard any evidence that the Floyd County D.A. is racially biased, other than this case. I've heard Rome in general smeared, but if Rome were such a hotbed of racism, why couldn't they find 12 people to brand Dixon a rapist.
This brings us to the jury. Some jurors have appeared on TV around here, expressing shock and dismay at the sentence parameters for the crimes they convicted Dixon of. I'll admit, I'm at a loss how people could hear the words "aggravated" and "child molestation" and think they didn't describe a serious offense. Still, the sentence isn't their call. I can't tell a jury that a guy with 14 DUI's is facing at most a year in jail, and the defense can't tell a jury that a guy charged with ACM is facing 10 years. They just have to decide whether or not the facts fit the law.
And, apparently, they do. Consent is not a defense to ACM. The only defenses are 1.) no child, or 2.) no injury. It's this latter one that interests me. The victim in this case was a virgin, and her injuries could potentially have resulted from that, rather than any force or struggle (either option can be claimed with a straight face). Dixon was obviously capably defended at trial, but I've never heard if this line was pursued. I think it's a viable issue to claim that vaginal bleeding, etc., resulting from consensual sex with a virgin is a natural consequence of sexual contact and therefore, not an injury. I don't know if it would (or even should) work. I don't know if it was raised. I think it'd be a reasonable point, however. If it is being raised, it's not getting any attention. The thrust of the appeal seems to be, OK, technically the facts fit the crime alleged. It's still not fair.
Personally, I still struggle with the question of whether I think he's a rapist. People who actually have been raped rarely come forward, I find it hard to believe someone would say they were raped when they weren't. (Regarding the guy who said she told him she made it up - I find it at least plausible that someone would make up a story to get in with the Big Man On Campus) That point of view contrasts with another strong view I have - I trust juries. They hear only relevant evidence, while the rest of us hear all the nonsense surrounding it. They come together for the sole purpose of resolving the question. I guess I believe he's not guilty of rape as strongly as I believe he's guilty of ACM. Either the jury took its job seriously and applied the facts to the law or they didn't. I have no reason to doubt their work.
I believe prosecutors were presented evidence that a young man with a history of sexual misconduct raped a 15 year old girl. I believe they did their level best to light him up, and would have done the same had he been white or she been black. I believe the jury did its best and returned a fair verdict that makes sense, given the facts I've been made aware of. I know of no reason to suspect any impropriety in the cops, prosecutor, judge or jury. There is no evidence of any pattern suggesting racial animus anywhere, save a result that some do not like. For those people, the result is enough to prove their case.
Of course, if Marcus Dixon's jury were that easily convinced, he'd never get out of prison.
I've been waiting for the GA Supreme Court to hand down its verdict, first because I wanted the final resolution, second because I'm not sure how I feel about this case, honestly. Dixon had better grades and SAT scores than I did when I was his age, and was a star athlete to boot. He had everything going for him, and it's heartbreaking anytime someone loses that, regardless of whether or not they brought their misfortune on themselves. I do know I get less sympathetic towards Dixon every time I hear someone allege that Dixon was victimized solely because he was black. The general tenor of the racism charge is that the only reason the aggravated child molestation (hereafter, ACM) charge was brought is to spread the word about black folks messing with white women.
People who claim this either 1.) don't know the mechanics of the criminal justice system, or 2.) are deliberately misleading people. Neither group should be consulted as to how a criminal case should turn out. Check out this CNN interview. It suggests that prosecutors didn't think Dixon was a rapist, which is completely untrue. At the time the ACM charge was brought, law enforcement believed Dixon to be a rapist. (They believe it to this day. If you knew what rape victims go through to make sex cases, if you saw how hard it is - you'd find it difficult to believe that someone would go through that to advance a lie. My personal take is coming.) At the time of the charging decision, you charge every crime the facts fit, and you trust the jury to sort it out properly. (I believe Dixon's jury was racially mixed, but I'm not sure.) I have also never heard any evidence that the Floyd County D.A. is racially biased, other than this case. I've heard Rome in general smeared, but if Rome were such a hotbed of racism, why couldn't they find 12 people to brand Dixon a rapist.
This brings us to the jury. Some jurors have appeared on TV around here, expressing shock and dismay at the sentence parameters for the crimes they convicted Dixon of. I'll admit, I'm at a loss how people could hear the words "aggravated" and "child molestation" and think they didn't describe a serious offense. Still, the sentence isn't their call. I can't tell a jury that a guy with 14 DUI's is facing at most a year in jail, and the defense can't tell a jury that a guy charged with ACM is facing 10 years. They just have to decide whether or not the facts fit the law.
And, apparently, they do. Consent is not a defense to ACM. The only defenses are 1.) no child, or 2.) no injury. It's this latter one that interests me. The victim in this case was a virgin, and her injuries could potentially have resulted from that, rather than any force or struggle (either option can be claimed with a straight face). Dixon was obviously capably defended at trial, but I've never heard if this line was pursued. I think it's a viable issue to claim that vaginal bleeding, etc., resulting from consensual sex with a virgin is a natural consequence of sexual contact and therefore, not an injury. I don't know if it would (or even should) work. I don't know if it was raised. I think it'd be a reasonable point, however. If it is being raised, it's not getting any attention. The thrust of the appeal seems to be, OK, technically the facts fit the crime alleged. It's still not fair.
Personally, I still struggle with the question of whether I think he's a rapist. People who actually have been raped rarely come forward, I find it hard to believe someone would say they were raped when they weren't. (Regarding the guy who said she told him she made it up - I find it at least plausible that someone would make up a story to get in with the Big Man On Campus) That point of view contrasts with another strong view I have - I trust juries. They hear only relevant evidence, while the rest of us hear all the nonsense surrounding it. They come together for the sole purpose of resolving the question. I guess I believe he's not guilty of rape as strongly as I believe he's guilty of ACM. Either the jury took its job seriously and applied the facts to the law or they didn't. I have no reason to doubt their work.
I believe prosecutors were presented evidence that a young man with a history of sexual misconduct raped a 15 year old girl. I believe they did their level best to light him up, and would have done the same had he been white or she been black. I believe the jury did its best and returned a fair verdict that makes sense, given the facts I've been made aware of. I know of no reason to suspect any impropriety in the cops, prosecutor, judge or jury. There is no evidence of any pattern suggesting racial animus anywhere, save a result that some do not like. For those people, the result is enough to prove their case.
Of course, if Marcus Dixon's jury were that easily convinced, he'd never get out of prison.
