Posted by JourneyOn on May 21, 2008 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I've read all the negative comments over the past few months, what are the positives for each candidate? What makes one a better leader or a better prosecutor than the other? What is their reputation for managing budgets and employees? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by Charlestonguy on May 21, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wilson has served as a federal prosecutor.

Wilson has managed a bigger office and budget.

Wilson was appointed by Governor Mark Sanford.

Wilson received the 1997 Department of Justice Director’s award for Superior Performance, the highest of awards for federal prosecutors.

Wilson is a tough experienced and proven prosecutor.

Posted by abitskeptical on May 21, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wilson is doing her best to keep up with the good old boy system. If you think that is a good thing then I guess that is a positive.

Posted by SCgal on May 21, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's see in 8.5 - 10 what our community welcomes back after teens have been in an adult prison population 24x7 with hardened criminals vs. the opportunity to experience extensive rehab/counseling at the tender formative yrs of 16 & 17 yr old minds............


Laws that send teen offenders to the adult justice system "do more harm than good" in reducing violent or other criminal behavior, according to a task force report reviewing studies conducted over two decades.

Reginald Dwayne Betts knows firsthand. He spent more than eight years behind bars in Virginia for an armed carjacking. An honors student who had never been in trouble with the police, he says he expected he might be sent to a juvenile detention center or even receive a suspended sentence.

Instead, he was tried as an adult. When he was originally sentenced to 23 years, he says, he didn't know the difference between the terms "consecutive" and "concurrent."

Locked up at 16, Betts spent most of his time in adult prisons.

"Of course it makes a difference if you're 15, 16 or 17," he says. "You're not prepared to deal with it physically or emotionally. You're trying to deal with being away from home. You're trying to deal with the stress that comes with being in prison."

Violence was a constant presence. "I got used to stuff most people I see today would never have to get used to — like somebody getting their head split open," Betts says. "You get numb to it. It's like, OK, somebody got stabbed."

Betts had serious problems at first. He wound up in isolation three times during his first 18 months. But he gradually retreated into books, taught himself Spanish, took a paralegal course, wrote and published poetry.

When he was released two years ago at age 24, he won a college scholarship, found work and started a book club for young boys. He's now engaged and has a book contract. He knows he is an exception: "People don't come out of prison and make good," he says.

Posted by SCgal on May 21, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is an interesting point when researching the subject~~

The decision to send children to adult court is most likely not made by a juvenile court judge, who would be a neutral player in the best position to determine the merits of the child’s case.

http://www.campaign4youthjustice.org/nat...

Posted by grayghost on May 21, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Charlestonguy is Frank O. Hunt !!

Posted by Mayor on May 21, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Get rid of every incumbent.

Get rid of every incumbent.

Posted by Thomas1776 on May 21, 2008 at 8:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wilson looks like that possessed girl in that old movie called "The Exorcist."

I can see evil in Wilson's eyes.

Posted by Thomas1776 on May 21, 2008 at 8:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ralph Hoisington's wife endorsed Mr. Jennings. That says it all. I know Ralph would want Mr. Jennings to be in charge.

I think Wilson is mentally unstable. To blame her lost of a murder conviction on Mr. Jennings when he had been gone for 6 months is just totally wacko. It shows she will say anything - even lie if she has too. And she did lie!

Posted by just1reader on May 21, 2008 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No one who commits an "armed carjacking" at the age of 16 or 17 should see the inside of a juvenile facility, they are too dangerous to be there. We do need better options than what we currently have, and hopefully the legislature will create some. But it makes more sense to put the violent offenders with their kind rather than in the existing juvenile facilities so they can teach the likely younger and less experienced criminals their violent ways and send them the signal that they can commit far worse crimes and only end up in a juvenile facility.

Posted by Cid95 on May 21, 2008 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hoisington designted Wilson as his successor. What the late Hoisington's wife says is about as relevant as who Nancy Reagan supports for President.

Posted by grayghost on May 21, 2008 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Cid95....if Mr. Hoisington designated Ms.Wilson as his successor, why would Mrs. Hoisington be backing Mr. Jennings?

hmmmmmm

Posted by abitskeptical on May 21, 2008 at 11:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, Scott Schools was 1st choice, not Wilson.

Posted by Tulane75 on May 21, 2008 at 11:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thomas1776 is a mercenary. This week's target is Scarlett Wilson, about whom he knows nothing.

Posted by Thomas1776 on May 21, 2008 at 8:01 p.m.
"Wilson looks like that possessed girl in that old movie called "The Exorcist."
"I can see evil in Wilson's eyes,"

Here are two intelligent reasons to vote against Scarlett, Thomas says she is possessed and that he can see evil. What more do you need to know?

To answer JourneyOn's question, Scarlett is an excellent lawyer who is able to out-prepare her opponent in most cases. I have had cases against her in which she demonstrated a comprehensive knowledge of the law, was good on her feet and was able to address every question of law or issue raised at trial.

I have also represented the family of a murder victim. The sensitivity shown by Scarlett at both the trial stage and then the post conviction stage was exemplary and greatly appreciated by my clients. I have seen the family of one victim bring her flowers for her intense prosecution of the case, but also by showing courtesy and respect to the family of the deceased.

Posted by JourneyOn on May 22, 2008 at 5:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

But what about the rest of the job? The Solicitor is more than a trial attorney. The Solicitor has to manage staff and public money. Has to interact with other elected officials. Has to be able to work with people not just case files and court rooms. Has to see the bigger picture of what is happening in crime and work with other officials to determine what to do about it. Has to talk to legislative officials about how the laws are written. That's what I'm asking about. In most of the places I've lived the Solicitor or prosecutor does not have a large case load but instead runs the office and advises, coaches, directs, teaches, trains the other attorneys and staff.

I'm new here and don't know the personalities of these people nor do I need to. How about "just the facts". How does each candidate measure up to the total job and why?

Posted by Tulane75 on May 22, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JourneyOn,

You certainly ask good questions, Alas, my response, unlike some others who post here, is limited to matters with which I feel I am familiar.

Posted by JourneyOn on May 22, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd like to see both candidates respond to today's letter to the editor from the crime victim. It poses the types of questions a Solicitor, as the public's representative in the Criminal Justice system, should answer not a trial attorney. That's who we are electing. Our representative in the system.

Tulane75 thanks for your answers. Trials are still a part of the job and should be considered before casting a vote. But there is more to the Solicitor's reponsibilities than trials.

Posted by SCgal on May 22, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Under a new bill proposed by Representative Ben Hagood, judges could have more discretion in sentencing teens in armed robbery cases.

It was at a Mount Pleasant grocery store that ten teens have admitted they made a terrible mistake. So far two have been sentenced to ten years in prison, the absolute minimum they could get for the armed robbery charges they faced.

"It's a little too harsh," said Fred Etminan, who runs Souri's Italian restaurant next to where the robberies occurred.

Despite the fear of one day being robbed himself, he still feels ten years is too many.

"I would give them maybe a year sentence and then put them on probation. Try to educate them before ruining their whole life," said Etminan.

A similar stance from the man behind the bill, who's an attorney himself. Representative Hagood has suggested the mandatory minimum be switched to three years.

"When dealing with teens, we're dealing with youthful offenders. I think it's appropriate to make sure judges have the right discretion to make sure justice is served in the case," said Hagood.

If passed, the bill would not be retroactive, so it may not effect any of the ten Wando students arrested for the Food Lion and Subway robberies. Though, Hagood says it could be amended to address pending cases. Hagood insists the problem with how the law stands is that minimum sentencing for armed robbery with a shotgun is essentially the same as if a teen over 16 commits the offense with a slingshot.

"Give them the benefit of the doubt so maybe in the long run they would have a better life and follow the right direction," said Etminan.

It's the potential for a second chance for some.

Both Chief Greg Mullen and Sheriff Al Cannon have expressed opposition to the proposal. The remaining Wando students involved in the 2006 robberies are expected to be sentenced this summer.

http://www.wciv.com/news/stories/0408/51...

Posted by SCgal on May 22, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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

Here is some more info to research~ an interview on the above topic~

Be sure to come out and vote June 10th~

Posted by abitskeptical on May 22, 2008 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear Journeyon,
You are so right. There is much more to being the Solicitor than trying cases.

Key to being a good solicitor is a commitment to the law & policies that assure that the law is applied equally regardless of race, class or gender.

Unfortunately, Ms. Wilson does not seem to appreciate that. She sets the tone & sends a strong negative message regarding how the law will be applied & whether for example women will protected from their abusive husbands & soon to be ex husbands & whether children will be protected from abusive fathers.

Women are told to get protective orders & to seek help from the police when they are in abusive relationships but Ms. Wilson and her office views abusive activities as "annoying" and basically tells women to stop bothering the police.

This sends a strong message to abusers & those who see women as punching bags.

Please feel free to click on my name& it will bring up a number of posts that will discuss the particular matter in detail. However it is not the details of this particular case but the reaction of Ms. Wilson & her offic& the language they used to reject the victim's pleas for help.

I know that there are those who disagree with me & that is ok. Unfortunately for victims of abuse, abuse & stalking often results in violence, physical harm & fatal confrontations.

In my opinion if Ms. Wilson is as cavalier about other matters as she was in this matter I would welcome someone else in her position.

Posted by JourneyOn on May 22, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks abitskeptical for the straightforward answer. Maybe others will respond with similar detail about either candidate.

Posted by abitskeptical on May 22, 2008 at 7:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You're welcome, journeyon.

Without 1st hand knowledge or experience it becomes more difficult to compare & contrast.

I had knowledge of certain things & shared that to the extent that I could.

I put that knowledge beside other things such as an interview with Wilson last fall, information gathered from past & recent articles in the P&C & information gathered from the campaign contributor lists. In other words, my perspective is not based solely on the handling of the case I referenced, although admittedly, the handling of that case caused me to start paying more attention to this race & the candidates.

I never intended to "bash" Wilson (although as you will see, 1 poster in particular seems to believe so).

You will have to go back through several pages...maybe more to see the posts referencing details of the case. If you have any other questions feel free to contact me via e-mail & I will answer what I can.

Posted by SCgal on May 22, 2008 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is another article for your review between the 2 candidates

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

Acquittal heightens political duel
By Schuyler Kropf (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Monday, February 18, 2008

MONCKS CORNER — The case of an accused murderer acquitted last week after less than 25 minutes of jury deliberation has led to finger-pointing between the two leading political candidates for top prosecutor over how it happened.

Current 9th Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson and former Berkeley County prosecutor Blair Jennings have differing views over how the "not guilty" verdict was given to formerly accused murderer Reginald Ricardo Hamilton in the two-year-old case.

The duel has political overtones as both are vying for the Republican nomination for solicitor in the upcoming June primary. The crux of their disagreement is Wilson's opinion that Jennings didn't propertly handle the case when he was in charge.

The sparks also come as Wilson is scheduled to meet with representatives of the Berkeley County Sheriff's Office today to discuss how the trial was handled.

Last week, a jury acquitted Hamilton, 21, in the shooting death of rookie taxicab driver Nelcena "Muffin" Jenkins. The Summerville woman, who feared her job, was shot in the back of the head in January 2006 by one of two men who wanted to rob her, authorities contend. The acquittal came after less than two days of testimony in which co-defendant Oliver William Hicks pegged Hamilton as the shooter.

On Monday, Wilson said the previous deputy solicitor in Berkeley County — Jennings — was partially responsible for the evidence prosecutors had to deal with. He had managed the case before Wilson asked him to leave his post in September.

Jennings on Monday said Wilson's comments are off-base, saying she is the one in charge of all management of the office, including how and when to prosecute murder trials in Charleston and Berkeley counties. Holding him responsible five months after he was forced out of his job was grasping at straws, he said.

Posted by JourneyOn on May 22, 2008 at 8:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've read the articles and most of the comments. It doesn't sound like either candidate deserves "bashing" and I prefer to avoid mud slinging. No one wins. Especially the public. Maybe these next few weeks can be spent making honest comparisions between the two beyond their court successes and failures. How well will they represent the public? How do they compare in fiscal management of public funds? How well do they work with other agencies for the common good? Surely someone has some knowledge.

The interest in this thread is dwindling. Maybe we can start it up on the next article. Live well and journey on.

Posted by SCgal on May 22, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe these next few weeks can be spent making honest comparisions between the two beyond their court successes and failures.

We work with what is presented in the media, interviews, newpaper articles, past cases, stated comments~ it is what it is~~

Posted by JourneyOn on May 22, 2008 at 10:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry SCgal but that is scary. I should hope someone here actually knows these two people. I certainly don't want to rely (key word "rely") on what is or is not in the media. And stated "comments" are empty without detail. I should hope voters find out "what it is".

Posted by abitskeptical on May 23, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JourneyOn-a reasonable poster is always appreciated.

Clearly, I have concerns about Wilson.

Nonetheless,I want to make it clear that I am appalled & discouraged at the non-productive & baseless juvenile name calling, comments on her looks & speculation about her private life.

Regardless of what one thinks of her performance as solicitor, that sort of thing is demeaning,uncalled for, & drags the whole process down.

It also is pretty revealing & discouraging to see how some posters have so little respect not only for another's opinion, but also for their candidate of choice, that they would engage in mudslinging against those who express opinions & concerns that are not favorable to their candidate.

Additionally, I certainly hope that sort of thing does not influence people to ignore legitimate concerns that have been expressed by me & others.

Likewise I hope the same for Jennings. I still am looking to find out more about him.

Posted by lillycollette on May 24, 2008 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If people are genuinely interested in the candidates a good place to start searching would be the candidate’s web sites. http://www.wilsonforsolicitor.com/?catID...