It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


17 year old gets 10 years for having sex with 15 year old

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 07:09 AM
Well there should have been more than just the one teen charged. If you read the whole article you will see this.

Genarlow Wilson and his friends checked into the Days Inn right off Interstate 20. At some point in the night, according to court documents and evidence presented at trial, some girls came over to party with them. Bourbon and marijuana were consumed. One of the young men turned on a video camera.

Later in the evening, a 17-year-old girl began to have sex with the young men, first in the bathroom, then on the bed. Genarlow is captured on tape appearing to have sex with the girl from behind. Her hand is clearly visible on the floor supporting herself. Witnesses said she was a willing participant.

The next morning, the girl awoke in a stupor, wearing nothing but her socks. She called her mother and said she had been raped. Police came to the room after sunrise and took the revelers in for questioning. Genarlow had already gone home -- he didn't want to miss curfew -- but the video camera remained.

On tape, the cops saw a 15-year-old girl, a 10th-grader, performing oral sex on a partygoer and, after finishing with him, turning and performing the act on Genarlow. She was the instigator, according to her mother's testimony. Problem was, the girl was a year under the age of consent. Local prosecutors called the act aggravated child molestation, following the letter and not the spirit of the law, which was designed to prosecute pedophiles.

I mean come on the one girl has sex with at least two guys on camera then the 15 y/o in question provides oral sex for at least two guys on camera. Now forgetting for a moment what this says about the girls in general but I see that at least four others should have been charged for some sort of crime.

If the other girl had been 15 this guy could have gotten hit twice possibly because he had sex with the 17 then came out and got oral sex from the 15 y/o.

These ppl should have left the movie making to some one else. But in that same thought the movie is the only thing that saved one person from a rape charge. This video was a double edged sword all the way.


posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 07:32 AM
Hi all,

This story really upset me for a whole number of reasons, many of which have already been posted here. Here is something from the article that really bothered me:

At the same time this trial was under way, a local high school teacher, a white female, was found guilty of having a sexual relationship with a student -- a true case of child molestation. The teacher received 90 days. Wilson received 3,650 days.

How can that be?? Here is a clear case of why the law was made and yet this woman was only given 90 days--- a mere 3 month sentence!
I used to live in GA, and I definitely remember how backwards things can be there. I guess it was too much on my part to think that it had changed in the 20 years since Ive left.

A few posts back someone made a comment about how the kids, knowing the law, should not have taken the chance. I am quite sure that they had no idea that consentual oral sex with someone with a 2 year age difference was a felony. I know I had no idea about that law when I was going to highschool in GA, and neither did my classmates (who were very much into all kinds of sexual acts).

Of course where I went to school it was quite taboo to have sex with someone of another race. I know that some people did, but they never told anyone about it. It seems as if GA still has severe race issues. (one of the things that drove me nuts while I was going to school there

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 08:07 AM
Put it this way, in Wales (the UK) a guy over 40 who has downloaded child porn has been given a 3 year suspended sentance. Basically, because our prisons are full (hang the feckers) we can convict real, dirty, horrible criminals.

This 20 year old guy needs letting out before his life is ruined. 17 and 15 aint that bad. 40+ and children is wrong, wrong, wrong. I think they should trade places in sentencing.

Having said that I have a friend who was 16 when he slept with a girl of 15 (2 weeks beofre her birthday). Bear in mind that this was in the early 1990's and he was slapped on the wrist and told he was a bad boy. Reason being, she admitted that she lied about her age. He got a record becasue of it but it was just bad timing. And a lying woman (there's something you never see).


posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 09:57 AM
2 minors- where's the crime? It's not like he was 17 and she was 3. There are a lot of laws that need reviewing, and if they can't pass the common sense test, need to be thrown out. 10 years for a hummer seems a bit stiff(no pun intended).

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 10:03 AM
It's those nasty lil hose (yes, yes, misspelt on purpose
) that need to be locked up if U ask me.
This truly is above and beyond ridiculous.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 10:14 AM
I watched a video on CNN yesterday about underage prostitution in Georgia. They said it's the state with the worst problem. I know this girl was not a prostitue but she was underage and they take it real serious down there. I'll see if I can dig up the vid.


posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Nygdan
He broke the law and comited statutory rape on a minor. He belongs in jail. It doesn't matter that he was young when it happened.

In Pennsylvania, the age of consent is 14. Does this mean that it'd be acceptable for an 17 year old to have sex with a 13 year old?

These kinds of laws need to have an arbitrary age cut off, and it has to be stuck to, otherwise, there's no point to the law.

I disagree.

I met my high school sweetheart (we dated for 7 years) when I was sixteen and she was 15. So when I turned 17, would this be considered rape, considering we have been dating, were still in high school, parents on both sides love us, etc.

I think a better judgement call could have been made on this one.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 11:53 AM
I signed the petition.

I wonder why the media isn't bringing this story to the front pages. Seems that most people would agree that this sentence is way too harsh.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:13 PM
well this message proofes again how sick the law enforcement is in the USA.....since the prisons are run by private corporations...they want only moore in prisons!
I wonder how much judges are on there pay-role!

after all it makes good buissnes........

[edit on 26-1-2007 by ressiv]

[edit on 26-1-2007 by ressiv]

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:16 PM
i must say...that is one costly i know of a guy that was 30 and had sex with 3 of my 16yr old friends (im 20 and they arnt 16 anymore they 18/19) and he got them all pregnet....most of them was forced (there was in a 4th) but the 4th was too scared to testfy so the guy only got 6 months in jail for raping the other girls.......only 6 months and this guy was 30..........yet here is a 17 (probably a senior) and 15 (a sophmore mostlikely) making love between the sheets and getting the 17yr for 10years in prison........thats messed my highschool tons of the seniors went for the young putang of the sophmores......argghhh! laws like this disgust me

note: i just noticed he is black, im not racist or anything and i hate when colored people pull the race card, but in this situation i think he could pull that card and say they gave him an overexcissive punishment because hes black.....probably wouldnt work but worth a try in this case right?

[edit on 1/26/2007 by ConfederacyOfUnity]

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 01:49 PM

Originally posted by forestlady
Oh come on, Nygdan, they both consented to it, nobody forced anyone and they're only 2 years apart.

I understand, but there's got to be a cut off, and whenever there's a cut off, there are going to be cases where its so close, that its reall just an arbitrary decision.

Personally, I think those kind of laws are silly except the one about someone very mature having sex with someone under the age of say 18.

So whats the cut off? Can a 30 year old have sex with a 17 year old then? Where ever we place the cut off, there's going to be instances were a person one year outside of the cutoff is going to be doing it. We have to have a lower age where we say, below this age a person isn't old enough to be able to give consent to sex. As long as there is an age of consent, there's going to be situations like this. We can't just say 'well, the age of consent doesn't really count'.

But between a 17 y.o. and a 15 y.o.? Where's the victim?

The 15 year old.

Where's the crime?

Statutory rape. The younger person was below the age of consent, any sex with them is statutory rape.

This guy rented out a hotel room with his football buddies, bought a bunch of liquor and who knows what other drugs, got a bunch of underage girls drunk, and then had sex with them while video tapping it. One 17 year old girl is sprawled out on the floor of a bathroom at one point, and they drag her around having sex with her. ThHen the 15 year old starts blowing everyone at the party. Afterwards, the 17 year old reports a rape.
"I know that it was consensual," he told "Primetime." "I wouldn't went on with the acts if it wasn't consensual. I'm not that kind of person. No means no."

When you get a girl loaded and start passing her around as a sex toy, its rape. She can't give consent, just like the 15 year old, she cannot give consent.

The second girl in the videotape was 15, and the age of consent in Georgia is 16.

Period. Age of consent is 16. She can not give someoen permission to have sex with her. It was on videotape. He was a fool to go to trial with his undeniably illegal activity on tape.

But anyway, my main point is that the parents of an under 18 kid should be the one to make the decision, not the courts or the govt.

I suspect that if the parents of the younger person pleaded with the judge to drop the prosecution or go easy in the sentencing or anything liek that, then there wouldn't be a 10 year sentence here. Sounds more like the parents of the younger person said 'this creep committed statutory rape'.

Apparently there WAS a problem Nygdan. they changed the law.

Too bad for him he did this when it was illegal then. Notice also, if a person is that irresponsible that they will break this type of law, who is to say that it was some 'wonderful little loving relationship'?

Do you think he deserves 10 years?

I think people having sex with people below the age of consent should be sent to jail for much longer than 10 years. Why does it really matter if the person is 'just' a few years older than the minor? How much is 'just a few' years? I agree, this instance seems pretty darned close. Lots of people can have lots of different opinions about whats too much of an age gap. If there's going to be a law preventing sex with minors, then it has to define what a minor is, and what a minor isn't. That means that there has to be cases that are 'close' and that lots of people wouldn't have a problem with. Does that mean that we shouldn't have an age of consent?
Also, as I said, in pennsylvania, the age of consent is 14. Is it allright for anyone to have sex with a 13 year old then, no matter what the age? I'd say no, a 13 year old can't consent to sex, regardless of the age of the person that wants to have sex with them.

Of course, There is the fact that it was the female that instigated the situation.

A minor, who can't give consent, can not insitgate a sexual situation. Legally, we can't say 'its the minor's fault'. I know that this isn't a case fit for "to catch a predator", but still, as long as we have an age of consent, we're going to have these issues. And we need to have an age of consent, clearly.

"exaggerating" enforcement of the law is really starting to become common

What was exagerated? The law is clear with regards to there being an age of consent and the type of crime it is and what punishment is acceptable for that level of crime. The people of hte state of georgia elected representatives to their assembly, and they created this law, which the public didn't object to, and which the public was still supporting at the time of this incident.

Not old enough to vote, join the military, or drink alcohol.
And yet senetenced for a mandatory 10 years.

Thats because she wasn't old enough to do any of those things either, AND wasn't old enough to consent to sex.

All laws should have a "sunset" provision that makes the local, state, or federal government have to vote again in ten years to keep a law valid.

Not for nothing, but who are you to tell the people of georgia how to run their state and protect their children? You might think that a 15 year old can consent to sex, at least with a person only two years older than them, but the people of georgia didn't. They created this law, it didn't arrive like a space ship from the sky, out of nowhere. It wasn't a surprise to them. They debated about when to have the age of consent, and they decided it should be 15. They knew that 17 year olds might have sex with a 15 year old, they didn't include any special clause saying that that was permissible.

16 year old male was convicted of statuatory rape of a 14 year old female, even though the mother of the female and the 14 year old consented.

Good, a 14 year old can't consent to sex, and a parent can't consent to sex for a minor, that'd be disgusting.

These types of cases make us look like a third world country.

Third world countries force marriage between minors, not protect minors from adults that want to have sex.

Why is he still in prison? 2+ years later.

Because he banged a minor.

whom upon learning of the fine print of the law

Sex with minors is hardly a 'finer point of law'. Its not a fine point, its a black and white issue, below a certain age, its a type of rape, period.

Murders get less time than that it seems.

People who have sex with children are usually considered worse than people who've committed murder.

Personally I know of heaps of people that have sex at around that age, it's their choice and their business I think.

They're all commiting crimes. It doesn't matter if they dont' think its a crime.

Two high school kids had sex

And adult had sex with a minor.

if he was 17 isnt he still considered a minor

No, he's not a minor. It doesn't matter how old he is, she was a minor, she cannot consent to sex.

I don't believe it should be considered "rape" if both of the parties are freely engaging in the act.

An adult can not have sex with a minor. It doesn't matter if the minor agrees to it.

The guy was underage (18) when he did it, making him a minor as well.

He was not a minor. She was below the age of consent.

Consensual sex between people just a couple of years apart should not be a crime, at the very most it should be a misdemeanor.

It coudl be argued that the law should be something like 'from ages 15-19, if they are within two years apart, its permissible, if both people are 19 or above anything goes'. But even then, if a 15 year old has sex with a 14 year old, that'd be a crime. There has to be some age of consent. The only way to prevent situations like this one is to make it extremely low, but then we'd have cases that are disturbing in the opposite direction.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:18 PM

Originally posted by sylvrshadow
How can that be?? Here is a clear case of why the law was made and yet this woman was only given 90 days--- a mere 3 month sentence!

Sorry to have to say this, but in rape cases the girl/woman has ALL the say. It's like the South Park episode where Ike and his teacher "fall in love". All everyone kept saying (cops included) was NICCCCCEEEEEE!!!!

Men have no rights when it comes to rape and statutory rape.

I actually know a guy that something like this happened to him. He had sex with a girl (not sure if she was underage...he was 16 or 17 I think). Her mother found out that she had sex and the girl cried rape. My friend went to jail for rape for a few years for having consentual sex, but no one would listen to his side of the story. It's sickening how no one will listen to the man.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:40 PM
Im not going to say that 10 years is ok, but here in Missouri, it is or at least was illegal to have sex with someone under the age of 18. A law that was made clear to all the boys in the sex ed class they had in elementary school. It did not matter if the girl agreed to it or not. If they had sex it was considered rape, and it was the parents who would press charges.

What this kid did was wrong. To me it looks like they were setting an example by giving him the 10 years. As crappy as it is, that is the chance he took. Another thing to keep in mind, is that if someone in his situation had been charged with ANYTHING before, he would get the max. Can anyone see if this boy had a clean file on him before this happened? I am just saying I doubt they would give him 10 years for the hell of it.

Personally, I would not vote to change the law, except changing it to include sex instead of just oral. I just wish they would enforce it to this extent to all those ADULTS who get charged with it.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:45 PM
NYGDAN your telling me he was not a minor he was 17 thats a minor...what are you saying if he had sex with a20 year old whos the minor...him....if he has to go to jail she should also go under your premise.good thing you dont make the laws everybody be locked up...

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:48 PM
What a crock.

Well, this is where all the "To Catch A Predator" teen sex hysteria gets us...

Teens have sex. They've been doing so since the human race has been on this planet, they'll continue doing so, no matter what idiotic nanny state laws we pass.

Frankly, in an age where the average American loses their virginity at 14, current age of consent laws are as archaic as miscegnation and sodomy laws.

By all means, prosecute genuine child molesters, but teens are not children, and treating them as if they were ignores basic biology.

"It's the law" is an idiotic response.

Not that long ago "the law" was prosecuting people who helped slaves escape - did the fact that it was the law change the fact that slavery was evil? Even more recently, "the law" was putting gays in prison - despite the fact that homosexuality has been around since before the dawn of human history.

Stupid laws (especially those that ignore the basic facts of human life, like the fact that puberty occurs at 12-13, not 18) need to be rewritten or stricken from the books.

[edit on 1/26/07 by xmotex]

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:49 PM
Hi Griff,

I agree that unfortunately many young girls cry "rape" to get out of having to confess to their parents that they were willing sexual participants. If I recall correctly, that is how this enitre case came to be. I have not read anywhere that any punishment was given to the girls, including the one who made the false claim of rape.

The case I was talking about that you quoted was an older woman, a teacher, who had sex with a student. That woman only recieved 90 days in jail. Her case was being tried at the same time as Genarlow Wilson's case. That to me is rediculous, and at the same time typically unsurprising.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:03 PM

Originally posted by sylvrshadow
I have not read anywhere that any punishment was given to the girls, including the one who made the false claim of rape.

This is an interesting point you bring up. Why ISN'T the girl who claimed rape in jail? At the very least that is slander or something similar. There should be laws inacted for girls who cry rape when in fact it wasn't (hard to prove I know...because of what I was's he says, she says....and every single time they go by what she says).

The case I was talking about that you quoted was an older woman, a teacher, who had sex with a student. That woman only recieved 90 days in jail. Her case was being tried at the same time as Genarlow Wilson's case. That to me is rediculous, and at the same time typically unsurprising.

I agree wholeheartedly. Look at all the cases lately of women teachers having sex with their students. Not one has been sentenced to 10 years. But, since this is a guy we are talking about, he gets 10 years? Insanity at it's best.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:15 PM
I'm with Nygdan on this one. Though I disagree with the law, it is the law. Until the law is changed, then this is the way it should be.

The laws are similar in Louisiana. I have seen people go to jail for it.

Don't like it? Then we should be writing to our law makers, and demanding a change, because as it is now, it is illegal. It doesn't matter how many people get away with it, just as it doesn't matter how many people are speeding on the highway. You get pulled over for doing 75 in a 50, you're at fault. And you can't just say "officer, look at everyone else speeding."

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:22 PM
GA morality is one those things i laugh about, when the teen rate of pregnancy is just outrageous.

funny that instead of putting children in jail for promiscuity they should start putting death bolts with not keys between the knees of the young ladies having sex so they stop showing their goods.

Because wanted or not sex is happening and will keep happening even if they star jailing 12 year olds for having sex.

My children when to school here in GA and sex starts in junion high, wanted, liked or not, so people need to face the reality of life.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:30 PM
Hi niteboy82,

I just wanted to let you know, in case you didnt, they did change the law. In fact Genarlow Wilson's case is what changed the law. Unfortunately, his lawyer did not fight to make it retroactive, a mistake that she sorely regrets. She is still trying however.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in