What Was the Jury Thinking??? Kenneth Glenn Hinson Found Not Guilty in Dungeon Rapes

What were these jurors thinking? NOT GUILTY??? A previously convicted sex offender who had raped a 12 year old girl is given the benefit of the doubt over two teens. What is this world coming to? We all know there is no such thing as a one time rapist and what the repeat rate is  among sex offenders. Why exactly does one own an underground bunker any how? If the day has come that we are giving sex offenders a greater benefit of the doubt over rape victims, then the sex offenders have won. I hope these jurors know what they truly have done.

Kenneth Glenn Hinson, 48, appeared to cry after the jury read its verdict, which followed about four hours of deliberations over two days.

Then after he cried and out of the cameras view, the formerly convicted sex offender probably did a jig and thought to himself, they bought that defense?

He was charged with kidnapping, sex crimes and assault with intent to kill.

“We are shocked and stunned. We believed Mr. Hinson was guilty as charged. We still believe he is guilty as charged,” said Attorney General Henry McMaster, who helped prosecute the case.

Hinson testified that the girls had consensual sex with him. He said they made up the story so they would be able to take drugs from the bunker, which he used to store marijuana.

Hinson said he panicked when he saw police cars arrive at his property and hid in nearby woods. He assumed they were after four pounds of marijuana stashed in the bunker, he said.

The two young women were not in the courtroom when Hinson was acquitted. Their mothers and other relatives wept. They declined to comment after the verdict. (Yahoo News)

So the two teens supposedly did it to get pot? Not crack, meth, cocaine or heroine, but pot. Something that is so easy to get in high schools these days. Consensual sex with a person that looked like Kenneth Hinson. If it was consensual why did he have to take them to the dungeon and not just his home? One really wonders what was a jury of his peers, previously convicted sex offenders or people who just stereotyped all people of poor backgrounds as the same? Some thing is just seriously wrong when a sex offender is given greater deference. Wrong indeed.