Posted by carolinabeachgirl on May 16, 2008 at 5:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

65 cases tried with 24 convictions. My math shows that's not even 50% which would be failing by any standards.

Posted by Thomas1776 on May 16, 2008 at 5:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Blah Blah Blah. Wilson will say anything to get elec

If Ralph Hoisington could speak from the grave, and rest his soul, he would say "Blair" is the one that is best.

BTW: Remember, Wilson blamed Mr. Jennings for her losing a murder case several months after she fired/forced him out. Never forget that one! lol

Blair Jennings = Rock Solid Family Man.

Scarlett Wilson = ?? No Kids. No Husband? Divorced? Why?

And who cares how many "murder" cases she has tried. But blaming someone she ran off for losing one she handled afterwards is childish and very very unprofessional, to say the least.

Posted by Thomas1776 on May 16, 2008 at 5:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wilson "pushes a friend's two young children on a swing"

In real life she doesn't do this. It's all just an act. We know that. We all know the routine with political ads where everything is made to look different than what it really is. But with Mr. Jennings, there is no act. He is who he is. And he is the best one. He has morals and values.

Dig into Wilson's past and what she really is, if you want to know the real truth about her character.

Posted by PollyA on May 16, 2008 at 5:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

carolinabeachgirl -- You have misconstrued the statement. The report says 65 trials "with 24 convicted criminals currently serving life sentences". It does NOT say that she has gotten convictions in only 24 of those 65 trials. Indeed, the ad states 24 convicted with life sentences and 19 convicted serving 25 years or more.

Posted by SCgal on May 16, 2008 at 5:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In my opinion, it's not just about putting them behind bars~ it's looking at the overall scheme and doing what in the long run is best for the overall community from start to finish~

What is the end goal of having teens in their formative yrs tossed in for 10 yrs for 24x7 with hardened criminals?

What happens at the age of 26, 27 when these people are tossed back into our community after serving 10 yrs in an adult prison population with little or no guidance whatsoever vs. family court, extensive rehab, counseling, and a chance of being a productive citizen in our society vs. the end product of this sentencing?

http://www.helpingsean.com/

Society is understanding that putting teens into an adult population as punishment is not, in the end the best, overall solution for our community as a whole~

In my opinion, putting teens behind bars in an adult prison population for numerous years only creates much bigger and more serious problems for our society once they are released~~

http://law.vanderbilt.edu/article-search...

Posted by SCgal on May 16, 2008 at 6 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults?
1/08/2007

"Old enough to do the crime, old enough to do the time."

This popular refrain reduces a complex reality to simplistic rhetoric. It's also wrong. While young people must be held accountable for serious crimes, the juvenile justice system exists for precisely that purpose. Funneling more youth into the adult system does no good and much harm.

Juveniles are not adults, and saying so doesn't make it so.

When we try them in criminal court, we don't deem them adults for other purposes, such as voting and drinking. We know they're still minors — they're developmentally less mature and responsible and more impulsive, erratic and vulnerable to negative peer pressure.

As people, they are still active works in progress. We just don't like the logical consequences of that reality — that they are by nature less culpable than lawbreaking adults, even when they do very bad things. So we change the rules of the game.

In some states, including Tennessee, there is now no minimum age for being transferred to criminal court for certain crimes.....

The consequences of this switch-up can be extreme. Most young offenders do not become adult criminals. But when we punish them as adults, we change those odds. Teens tried as adults commit more crimes when released; their educational and employment prospects are markedly worse, creating opportunity and incentive for more crime; they bear a lifelong, potentially debilitating stigma.

The separate juvenile system was developed both to mitigate these harms and because youth were being preyed upon and "schooled in crime" while in adult prisons. We are now sending them straight back to that harsh schoolyard. All this for little or no payoff: Increased transfer has never been shown to reduce juvenile crime.

Our desire to ratchet up consequences is understandable. Victims of juvenile crime don't hurt any less, and close cases (say, crime committed the day before the 18th birthday) make age distinctions seem arbitrary. This is why we historically have built in a small "safety valve," under which transfer arguably is appropriate for those very few offenders who are extremely close to the age cutoff and commit particularly awful crimes. The trouble is that the valve has both expanded and lost its spring. Indeed, people now act as if the decision to treat a juvenile as a juvenile implies a judgment that the crime was not that serious, the victims not that worthy of respect.

It doesn't have to be this way.

Terry A. Maroney joined the Vanderbilt Law faculty as assistant professor in Fall 2006.

Posted by carolinabeachgirl on May 16, 2008 at 6:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The life sentences and 25 years or more of those convicted only account for 33 cases. What about the other of the "more than 65"? Were they convicted or not? Or where those cases not media worthy?

Posted by suec on May 16, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe the ones not convicted were really not guilty?

Posted by PollyA on May 16, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Check your math carolinabeachgirl. That would be 43.

Posted by easyridr on May 16, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Blair Jennings is the man for this job! I have seen him in action and he certainly gets the job done.I have heard nothing good about his opponent. We all need to make sure that everyone we know is registered to vote and does his or her part. If not we may end up with a president like Obama.

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

She's tough on crime. I would have preferred that the recent case for the young adult armed robbers/car thief’s from Mt. Pleasant get more time (in my opinion, the death penalty should apply to armed robbery) but I think she did the best that she could do under the current restrictions. The high number of bleeding heart criminal lovers in the US has seriously affected what the judicial system can do to such dirt bags. Her conviction rate is very good and she's looking out for law abiding citizens. I'm not familiar with Jennings, so I'm not taking sides on the election.

I will say that it's sad that politics has reached such a high level for a position such as Solicitor.

Posted by Charlestonguy on May 16, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Scarlett Wilson for Solicitor!!!!!!

Stop taking cheap shots at Wilson.

Scarlett is far more qualified then Jennings. Wilson has managed a staff double the size of his and has prosecuted more violent crimes, including MURDER. Moreover, Wilson's experience at the US Attorney's Office speaks for itself. While Jennings may seem like a nice downtown Charleston kinda guy, I think we would all agree that considering the volume of crime in the area, Charleston needs a strong and proven prosecutor.

Scarlett Wilson, you have my vote!!

Posted by NativeSC on May 16, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The same people show up on these boards every time there is a story about this race to bash Wilson. I can't tell if they are misogynists, Jenning's neighbors, or what. Maybe they are just pro-criminal, but she is going to clean his clock on June 10 and the better person will continue as solicitor. Look at their backgrounds and records and don't try to hard to make the math look like you want it to look, you will end up with a headache. His work history doesn't even begin to compare with hers. She is by far the better candidate, so educate yourselves before voting.

Posted by mypointofview on May 16, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thomas1776 wrote:

Scarlett Wilson = ?? No Kids. No Husband? Divorced? Why?

Thomas1776...I have seen many moronic statements in here, but you are clearly the dumbest or most uninformed writer I've ever had the opportunity to read. Since when is it one's ability to reproduce that is the most important attribute when running for office? Hell, if that's whats most important lets elect all the unwed, multiple-children, state-sponsored parents we so often read about as Solicitor. They are clearly the most qualified given your criteria.

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by TP: "The camera doesn't love her, but I bet she's pretty hot in person. She gets my vote!"

LOL

Posted by Charlestonguy on May 16, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thomas1776: You must be on Blair's campaign committee.

I have seen Scarlett in person, she is very good looking! But more importantly, she is a tough prosecutor.

Posted by KidYendor on May 16, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am also voting for Scarlett Wilson because she is very good looking in a Ladies Professional Golf Association star Annika Sorenstam sort of way. She has beauty, experience, dedication, toughness all rolled into one. And she has a terrific southern name to boot. What more can you say! Scarlett all the way!

Posted by Thomas1776 on May 16, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mypointofview,

Scarlett Wilson is lesbian?

Posted by Thomas1776 on May 16, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Charlestonguy,

Looks qualify her? Wow! Now that is really smart.

Old maid, eh?

Posted by hillbilly on May 16, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Dorchester County Solicitors office is paying Jennings 50K a year to prosecute DUI cases. Check his record. He's prosecuted None. Maybe he needs to give that salary back to the Dorchester taxpayers.
From what I hear he did very little while in the Berk. Office to earn what Ralph was paying him.

Posted by kiteboarder on May 16, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's refreshing to have a candidate for office look you in the eye and tell you about their record. I like Solicitor Wilson and she has proven herself worthy of my vote!

Posted by ColaProsecutor on May 16, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Blair - If Thomas1776 is a friend of yours, you should be ashamed. Although his childish comments are not worthy of response, I'll give one anyway. If you look at prosecutors' offices across this state, on the local, state, and federal level, you will find they are filled with tough, smart, justice-minded, and career-driven women who have sacrificed their personal lives for the job. I have worked alongside both Scarlett and Blair. Blair, I would like to believe that you wouldn't stoop to Thomas1776's level. Please don't prove me wrong.

Scarlett, you are my hero. If I were half the prosecutor that you are, I would be proud.

Posted by Tulane75 on May 16, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with ColaProsecutor that the comments of Thomas1776 do not merit a response!

I also agree with ColaProsecutor's response!

Posted by ThinkAboutThis on May 16, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gather votes and win an election based on looks- that is comical.

How did you win? Oh, I'm a hottie- that is all that matters for some- nothing more, nothing less.

What a great way to state why you possibly won the election-no matter of experience, job, etc. just good ole looks!

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm just not sure it's proper to agree with both :)

Why was the picture removed? Too many people commenting on her looks?

Posted by summerville_guy on May 16, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought people could get arrested for soliciting. And here we are voting for a hot woman to pay her to solicit. That is awesome!

Posted by coccougs on May 16, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TP -

The reason no one has responded to you is that when Blair Jennings released his ad a couple of weeks ago - the P&C did exactly the same thing for him. It's a non-issue.

To anyone who reads these comments regularly, I think you'll all agree with this:

Thomas1776's endorsement of Blair Jennings is a pretty darn good reason to vote for Scarlett Wilson (along with the more important fact that she is the better person for the job).

Posted by easyridr on May 16, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thomas1776
Everything I've ever read from this cat is way out there.
I wonder if he has electricity and an out house where he lives. I'm sure he does not even know who Blair Jennings is. Don't mess things up dude! Sway the other way.

Posted by DontSpamMeBro on May 16, 2008 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll vote for the candidate supported by those who put their lives on the line to put crooks in behind bars. Check to see which candidate is supported by law enforcement.

Posted by lillycollette on May 16, 2008 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Solicitor Wilson has my vote based on her vision for the office of Solicitor and her record.

The libelous slander and garbage being spewed against her is a moral outrage!

Posted by bkc6 on May 16, 2008 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For mypointofview - right on! She is one damn nice looking lady. As for Thomas1776 - She's a lesbian? Well, it takes one half to know the other half. Which half are you. The half that you think you are or the half that you wish you were. I know, the half that was forgotten. All but that one half. Miss Wilson has my vote and not because of her personal life which is none of our damn business.

Posted by lillycollette on May 16, 2008 at 7:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SCgal, the same family court that you wanted the two Wando High School students tried in—was the very court that waived their case up to General Sessions where they were tried as adults.

Shevlino’s father and his attorney (Mr. Cornley) agreed with the sentence—which Solicitor Hoisington had offered both of these men.

The Shevlino family announced that they were going to use the sentencing—which they agreed to—to attack Solicitor Wilson’s future election.

And you hold Solicitor Wilson responsible for all of this—WOW!

Posted by lillycollette on May 16, 2008 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thomas1776 at 5:39 a.m.: “Dig into Wilson's past and what she really is, if you want to know the real truth about her character.”

I thought it might be better to do some digging into your past given your deplorable lack of character.

You belonged to that nutty Summerville, Family Court Reform movement.

Posted by SCgal on May 16, 2008 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Wilson herself when asked by the local news about the sentencing reported she had the authority to try the Wando teen cases in the Family court~

I am basing my opinion and knowledge on what Ms. Wilson told the local news reporter on TV 2 Charleston

And to base any case on a previous person's decision is again in my opinion irresponsible~ make up your own mind after reviewing the current status, not what someone else's decision months earlier~

My understanding from reading articles in the P&C, the family ONLY agreed to the plea AFTER one involved who was ONLY a LOOK OUT and did not EVEN HOLD a GUN or ROB the store had just been handed 10 YEARS for just that part and involvement

And don't forget the OTHERS who were INVOLVED as LOOK OUTS have NOT been SENTENCED YET!!! Waiting to see what happens with ALL of the OTHER LOOK-OUTS!!

Posted by SCgal on May 16, 2008 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.tribaltribune.com/articles/wi...

“She could have done less [of a sentence] and didn’t. She could have done anything she wanted,” April added.

However, Wilson did not see Family Court as a viable option because five of the involved were eligible for Family Court and five were not.

“The most culpable [Sean Shevlino] would have gone to Family Court, and the least culpable [lookouts only involved on Aug. 26, 2006] would have been in General Sessions [adult] court,” Wilson said. “Can you imagine that? That would have been horrible.”
Wilson received this case, along with all cases still pending after June 11, 2007, when Ninth Circuit Solicitor Ralph Hoisington died of pancreatic cancer. Hoisington had begun writing a plea bargain for Mike and Sean’s case before he passed away, and Wilson considered his decision when writing her final plea bargain.
“I wasn’t bound by his offer, but I certainly looked at if for guidance and analysis,” Wilson said. “

Posted by SCgal on May 16, 2008 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's see what sentencing for the others involved ends up being and how ironic that dated has been pushed back to July 08!!

Posted by lillycollette on May 17, 2008 at 5:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Harpo on May 16 at 8:07 p.m.: “The word I have is the law enforcement community by far and large support Blair Jennings for solicitor.”

It is reported that both candidates were working to improve communications between the Solicitor’s Office and law enforcement.

The Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office endorsed Mr. Jennings for solicitor and then officials of the Berkeley County branch of the South Carolina Police Benevolent Association (PBA) followed suit.

The Charleston County Sheriff’s Office endorsed Solicitor Wilson.

This looks more like a split decision to me.

Posted by grayghost on May 17, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

charlestonguy is Frank O. Hunt !!!

Posted by SCgal on May 17, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hoisington had begun writing a plea bargain ..............

Posted by lillycollette on May 17, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SCgal May 16, 9:52 p.m. quote: “Ms. Wilson herself when asked by the local news about the sentencing reported she had the authority to try the Wando teen cases in the Family court~ I am basing my opinion and knowledge on what Ms. Wilson told the local news reporter on TV 2 Charleston.”

SCgal there must be an error somewhere because once a family court judge waives a juvenile case up to General Sessions no solicitor—not even Mr. Jennings—would have the authority to override the judge’s order.

SCgal quote: “My understanding from reading articles in the P&C, the family ONLY agreed to the plea AFTER one involved who was ONLY a LOOK OUT and did not EVEN HOLD a GUN or ROB the store had just been handed 10 YEARS for just that part and involvement.”

The family agreed to this sentencing—on the advice of counsel. At no point in time were they denied the right to go to trial – or select new counsel.

Posted by lillycollette on May 17, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SCgal quote: “Hoisington had begun writing a plea bargain” ..............

Mr. Hosington had already made his sentencing proposal and provided it to opposing counsel who in turn discussed it with family members.

If I am in error, please cite to your sources so that I may go back and examine that material.

Posted by lillycollette on May 17, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SCgal aren’t you a Berkeley County, S.C., guardian ad litem?

Posted by SCgal on May 17, 2008 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.tribaltribune.com/articles/wi...

From Wilson herself~~

http://www.tribaltribune.com/read.html

Posted by SCgal on May 17, 2008 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wilson received this case, along with all cases still pending after June 11, 2007, when Ninth Circuit Solicitor Ralph Hoisington died of pancreatic cancer. Hoisington had begun writing a plea bargain for Mike and Sean’s case before he passed away, and Wilson considered his decision when writing her final plea bargain.
“I wasn’t bound by his offer, but I certainly looked at if for guidance and analysis,” Wilson said. “It means something to me knowing [Hoisington] made that offer when he was dying…He had to search his soul for that decision.”

“I wasn’t bound by his offer,

“I wasn’t bound by his offer,

“I wasn’t bound by his offer,

Posted by SCgal on May 17, 2008 at 5:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SCgal aren’t you a Berkeley County, S.C., guardian ad litem?

No~

Posted by SCgal on May 17, 2008 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by SCgal on February 11, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.counton2.com/midatlantic/cbd/......

Solicitor Scarlett Wilson said, "This gun looks real. Those people didn't know when they had this in their face what they were dealing with." Shevlino's father says Shevlino deserved punishment...but not 10 years for his first offense. Peter Shevlino said, "The solicitor had a choice to send him to family court or treat him like an adult. She decided to put him jail for 10 years instead of sending him to family court."

News 2's Jenny Fisher sat down with Solicitor Wilson and talked about the sentence the family called too harsh. Jenny said, "There's times in bond court where rapists are out in under 10 years. Did you feel armed robbery was the charge or could you have lessened it?" Wilson replied, "I certainly have the authority, but what people need to understand is when we negotiate sentence that is less what may be expected, in a rape chage, that's because we have an evidentiary issue...we have a problem proving our case."

http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/feb/...

Did you feel armed robbery was the charge or could you have lessened it?" Wilson replied, "I certainly have the authority,

Did you feel armed robbery was the charge or could you have lessened it?" Wilson replied, "I certainly have the authority,

Reasearch the NEWs 2 Jenny Fisher interview~~

Posted by SCgal on May 17, 2008 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And most of the victims have forgiven and even stated, "Ten years is too long"

Posted by LowCountryCrime on May 17, 2008 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I see Wilson catching a lot of heck about this Shevlino case. Whatever my professional problems with her are, this case isn't one of them. These "kids" shoved a realistic firearm in people's faces. Hard to feel a lot of sympathy for them after that. If my wife or kid was traumatized like that I'd feel ten years was a bit light - especially for someone who continued to commit these crimes and victimize people.

Posted by lillycollette on May 18, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SCgal I read your citations carefully -- several times. I even went back through some of your other postings. I do see your arguments about the sentencing of youthful offenders.

I do not see where you have taken any action in support of your cause—other than using it as a weapon to unfairly lobby against Solicitor Wilson.

Solicitor Wilson has earned my vote on her vision for this office and her record.

Posted by SCgal on May 18, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I do not see where you have taken any action in support of your cause—other than using it as a weapon to unfairly lobby against Solicitor Wilson.

Excuse me, I consider your above statement defamation!! My opinion, is my opinion concnerning what and how these teens were senetenced!

But let's wait and see in 8.5 - 10 yrs when they are dumped back into our community without the guidance, rehab but rather formative minds mentored by hardened criminals 24/7 and see what Miss Wilson's end products will be for our community!

Posted by SCgal on May 18, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Furhtermore, what was this statment by you about?

"SCgal aren’t you a Berkeley County, S.C., guardian ad litem?"

Posted by SCgal on May 18, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry for the typos~

Furhtermore & statement

And again, all I did was read and listened and what is there is, i nmy opinion is:

1. Wilson told the reporter ~~she had the authority
in reference to changing the sentencing

2. and "she was not bound" in reference to following the work of the previous Solicitor~

It is what it is!!

Posted by SCgal on May 18, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

**** Read the last line~ you must not care for people who have an opinion other than yours~

Posted by lillycollette on May 15, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ah, the on-going saga of abitskeptical and her tirade against Solicitor Wilson because of a mystery stalker of a mystery friend.

She can’t give out facts because there is a minor child involved. Yet abitskeptical alleges that all of the following are already aware of the facts of this case -- they allegedly believe her -- and none of them can allegedly bring this case to justice:

May 14 at 7:17 p.m.:
2 sheriff's deputies;
2 magistrates;
1 retired state judge;
1 attorney in the AG's office; &
A # of other attorneys

May 13 at 11:09 a.m.:
1 health care professional

April 28 at 2:28 p.m.
Social Security Administration

April 13 at 8:52 p.m.
AUSAs (feds)

April 13 at 9:37 a.m.
Victim’s advocate

April 12 at 9:40 p.m.,
and April 11 at 7:04 a.m.
League of women voters

April 10 at 1:32 p.m.
A family court judge

April 3 at 6:40 a.m.
A state judge

-- AND MY ALL-TIME FAVORITE --

April 2 at 2:20 p.m.
Abitskeptical says, “I KNOW THAT NO INVESTIGATION OF SUBSTANCE WAS DONE” …

Abitskeptical has never presented anything against Solicitor Wilson but unsupported allegations.

Posted by SCgal on May 18, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lily post "I do not see where you have taken any action in support of your cause"

And to that--> could it be because you do not even know me, what I do, or what I have done~

I didn't realize I had to report and post my daily living, ongoings, and actions for you!!!

But don't worry~ in the end, you have your opinion and I have mine~ I just don't go around trying to make false assumptions about others for having their opinions:+)

Posted by abitskeptical on May 19, 2008 at 7:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SCgal..don't pay too much attention to ole lc...

if she does not like what you post or if you point out that her assumption/argument about your post is wrong or inaccurate, she will switch gears, come up with some nonsequitur, respond with blah blah blah, or attack your integrity in an attempt, I can only guess, to hide the fact that she is off base or wrong...