Reply #94: Only the defendants have said it was a "prank." I haven't read

[peacebaby3]

one story that legitimized their assertion that these church fires were pranks. I think there has been a definite focus on the word "prank" because it is so absurd, but it is directly from the statement of the defendant, Moseley. I think that is why you see the terms, prank and pranksters, in quotations in most articles. I work with defendants in capital cases and they are always called all sorts of things by the press even before they are convicted (which is a whole other discussion). The press always uses "sensational key-words and phrases" and on this story they picked up the word, "prank", and ran with it because it elicits a certain emotion and is completely absurd.

There is also no evidence that they are getting off easy. They have been arrested and charged and will now most definitely be indicted and go to court (or plea if they are lucky), but the penalty alone just for the church arson is 50 yrs. and they can be charged with other crimes as well.

I haven't heard one person in AL excuse these kids. People are really serious about church in AL and I believe they will not get off easy at all.

As someone mentioned earlier, this case has died down because there just isn't much sensational about it now that these guys are caught. If they had turned out to be members of the KKK, etc. you would have probably heard more about it, but the media always jumps on a few stories and lets others die when they are no longer attention grabbers.

I work in the criminal justice system, mostly on capital cases with indigent defendants here in the "death belt" so I really do understand the arbitrariness of the system, but I haven't seen anything yet to show me that these guys are going to get off easy because they are "privileged." I can cite many other cases that would be much better examples.