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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:34 PM
seems alot of you missed the 15 she is under the age of concent meaning she is not old enough to make her own mind up about sex.

she is at a party giving blow jobs haveing sex smoking pot and drinking. its peer presure and munipulation by the older guys....its a mental form of rape if you ask me. dont matter if she volunteered or not....its not a decision she can make.

a guy like this took advantage of her and got what he wanted and knew what he was doing was wrong. its not like they were highschool swwethearts...he got a 15yr old drunk, high, and made a whore of her for his own enjoyment.

after saying that...i agree his sentence was to long, and 17 he is an idoit still also. i belive a long community service sentance would have satisfied the crime. Jail at his age is only going to make a criminal of him.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Griff
Men have no rights when it comes to rape and statutory rape.

Of course they do. Sex with minors is illegal. And if man doesn't want to have sex, its illegal for him to be forced to have it.

Socially, its not often a problem, becuse guys are socially geared to be looking for sex, while women are socially geared to be careful about it. But legally, the law can't discriminate between the sexes. If someone says they are rapped, it have to be investigated, and if its found that they did infact say no, or were drunk, then its rape.

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.

Are those all the facts in the situation? How do you know her mom 'forced her' to say she was raped? Had she been drinking at the time of the act?

and every single time they go by what she says).

The law doesn't just say 'if a girl says there was rape, and there is no physical evidence of any kind, then its rape'. ANd its still up to a jury to decide what happened.

mrs dudara
Can anyone see if this boy had a clean file on him before this happened?

Apparently, he was the only one of the boys at the hotel party who had sex with this girl and the other girl that had a clean record.

NYGDAN your telling me he was not a minor he was 17 thats a minor

No, the age of consent in georgia at the time was 17. He was not a minor.

what are you saying if he had sex with a20 year old whos the minor...him

No. He is above the age of consent and can have sex with whoever he wants.

if he has to go to jail she should also go under your premise

No, she is the minor and can not consent to sex, she is the victim of statutory rape.

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

She is below the age of consent, and he is above it. It doesn't matter that he was only a few years above it. What if she was a 13 year old girl? Or a 12 year old girl? What if he was a 23 year old guy? What makes you think that you get to decide for an entire state what their age of consent should be?

If I recall correctly, that is how this enitre case came to be.

At this hotel party, the football team apparently served alcohol to a bunch of girls, and started passing them around having sex with them.

If you get a girl drunk to have sex with her, thats rape. Period.

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

What false claim? The jury didn't find him guilty of rape. Are you saying that anytime a rape victim's rapist isn't found guilty, that the victim should be charged????

No wonder rape is so under-reported in this country.

I'm with Nygdan on this one. Though I disagree with the law, it is the law.

I don't even think its a bad law. If the society decides that a 15 year old can't consent to sex, then it doesn't really matter if the person they have sex with is 16, or 17, or 54. We can't really say, '15 year olds can't consent to sex with people over 20, but can with people between 15-20".

At BEST, they could say 'if the other person isn't yet 20, then its a misdemeanor' or some such. But really, consent is consent.

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."

Especially not when they offer you a plea to a lesser charge, and you reject it, even though you're on video tape doing 75. This guy assumed that the jury would figure 'who cares, even if it is illegal'.

Part of the problem is that he was charged and tried with Rape of a 17 year old and then a different charge for the 15 year old, he was acquitted of rape, but, since he was on video getting blown by a 15 year old, the jury pretty clearly had to find him guilty of it.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:43 PM
The problem is . . . that instead of targeting the root of the problem and that means sex under age they are getting the easier targets when they can find one.

But the girls will be free to do another boy, Sad but truth until she gets pregnant.

This how things are here in my neck of the woods.

Nobody wants to explain where are the parents when these girls are out there engaging in promiscuity.

Nobody wants to take the blame but to give it to the stupid boys that falls for this girls.

Perhaps from the beginning of time that is the way that goes, women is in charge of the sex.

Men are just willing fools.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:43 PM
[edit on 26-1-2007 by marg6043]

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:51 PM
To me this isn't right. If it happened while he was of the age of 18. I can see him getting into trouble. Because that's the law. But this happened when he was 17 and she was 15. Concentual sex, not rape. I would have hated to be on that jury or the judge.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:52 PM

No, the age of consent in georgia at the time was 17. He was not a minor.

"Minor" is a different legal concept unrelated to the age of consent.
Anyone under 18 is legally a minor unless they've been emancipated by a judges ruling.

[edit on 1/26/07 by xmotex]

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 04:01 PM

According to this he was a minor in the state of Georgia at the time.

In the eyes of the law, a juvenile or a minor, is any person under the legal adult age. This age varies from state to state, but in most states, the District of Columbia, and in all Federal Districts, any person age 18 or younger is considered a juvenile. In several states, such as New York, Connecticut, and North Carolina, a juvenile is age 16 or less, and in Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin, a juvenile is age 17 or less. Wyoming is the only state that has established the age of juveniles to be 19 or younger (Whitehead & Lab, 1999).

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 04:38 PM

Originally posted by sigung86
Before anyone beats on me for being a fuddy-duddy, or an old fart ... I'm not for that particular law (glad it's changed now), and if you don't like a law then you need to do one of two things, either campaign to get the law changed (a little late for this young man), or be very circumspect in that which you do, and how you do it, that may be illegal, while you are doing it.

Everyone ignores the third option, and it's the option the founding fathers were banking on in case the US government got out of control. It's the option that justifies the existance of the second amendment.

And OF COURSE this is a racially motivated issue. Most of the upper class in Georgia still yearn for nappy headed tractors to become legal again.

Does anyone remember this?
Sodomy Trial
These laws were used against the godless homosexuals. Remember this nonsense. In some states the law even applied to hetero couples, but was never used against them.
And the real kicker is that this US Supreme Court case did not end in a unanimous vote. What nobody seems to realise is that this essentially means that 3 US Supreme Court Justices are such out of touch, depends wearing, doddering old douchebags that they believe that homosexuality should not only be heresy, but it should be illegal.
The fact that the supreme court wasted time on a case that basically disputed which gender has the legal right to absorb protein from reproductive cells speaks volumes about our society.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 04:49 PM
This is truly disgusting. 10years! In most cases you don't get this even for killing someone. At least in europe.

On this page you find some stats about the first time age. The prisons should be full of young people.
(17,6years for women and 17,1years for men in the usa)

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 05:03 PM
Hi Nygdan,

I think that you have the story a bit out of context. The young man and his friends rented a hotel room, and at some point in the evening a few girls arrived wanting to party with them. They did not bring the girls with them.

It was proven, based on the evidence on the video tape, that the girls initiated the sex acts, even the girls parents agree that was the case. The problem is that the 15 year old who initiated oral sex with one boy and then proceeded to perform the same act with Genarlow Wilson was considered a felony by GA law. They have since changed that law to make it a misdemeanor.

Here is some more information about the case in this article

Michelle had arrived at the party tipsy; she’d been drinking Hennessy cognac that afternoon even before the party began. She voluntarily continued to drink and smoke with them. She had packed a bag, obviously with the intention of spending the night. She had also reportedly flirted relentlessly with the guys, including her old high school track buddy Genarlow. And more importantly, even Michelle’s own girlfriend, Natasha*, who’d also been at the party, told investigators that she had never heard Michelle say “no” to the guys.

The entire article can be found here Genarlow Wilson had sex with the other 17 year olds, but did not engage in sex with the 15 year old.

To answer your question here

What false claim? The jury didn't find him guilty of rape. Are you saying that anytime a rape victim's rapist isn't found guilty, that the victim should be charged????

I am in no way saying that a rape victim should be charged if a jury finds the accused person innocent. I know for a fact that some women, and especially young girls, will knowingly falsely accuse a boy of raping her out fear of what her parents might do if they knew she was initiating sex of her own free will. Some have been know to do this as an act of revenge. I am saying that in those cases, the girls should be held accountable for their actions.

I believe that it is not right to attempt to send a person to jail because you are scared, or are out for revenge.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Nygdan

Two high school kids had sex

And adult had sex with a minor.

He was not an adult... He wasn't even old enough to vote or buy a pack of Cools.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 05:43 PM
People used to get married at 14, 15 years old. The judge on this case in an idiot and should be kick off the court. This is ridiculus. Another thing that bothers me is the fact that he is going to have to be a registered sex offender for the rest of his life too. Maybe they should just have shot him, with the way his life is going to turn out. Sounds to me like he got the DA from the Duke rape case.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by Royal76]

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 05:56 PM
The self rightousness by some people here makes me wanna puke

If everyone in your country, or my country or any country who has done this got prosecuted and locked up for 10 years the world would need a helluva lot more prisons.

at 15 the girl was probably more mentally mature than the 17 year old BOY. yes breaking law is breaking the law but 10 years without a chance for parole, thats hardly fair and just. If the guy forced himself against her wishes I would hope he got 10 years but he didn't.

So much for liberty and Justice for all.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 05:59 PM
CNN will be running a piece on this over the weekend.
I believe it starts tonight (Friday).
I'll doublecheck, but in the meantime, keep an eye out for it.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 06:56 PM
As a registered sex offender, he will find it very difficult to find employment. He will not be allowed to have children of his own since it was a conviction pertaining to a child. He will have not much quality of a life at all. He will have to constantly let the courts know where he lives and have it on a website without being able to tell his side of the story. If he moves somewhere and fails to give new info he'll go back to prison. Some person could see the information on the website and do further harm to him. He will have a hard time finding a place to live since he won't be allowed to live near schools, day cares, etc. The government owns him now. He will never have a positive future all because of an incident when he was a minor and he never even killed or hurt anyone.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 06:59 PM
CNN will have it on tonight 10PM eastern standard time. They just now advertised it.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 07:00 PM
read this article and tell me if 10 years incarcaration and a completly ruined life is fair!


posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 07:22 PM
Here is the report from CNN in 2004.

Turns out the guy was actually 18 when it happened.

He was a black succesful footbal player, he had sex with a white girl from his highschool.

Playing devils advocate here "Could the black guy white girl thing be an issue here, it's certainly not unheard of"

Rant mode:
A white US marine I served with in Iraq had a black wife, also in the military. People threw eggs at them in the streets and sent them death threats. These were people who risked their lives for your country. Racism is VERY MUCH alive an' well in the USA.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 07:28 PM

I had to take the index.html off the end of the link for the article to load.

5 years for killing 3 people and smirking about it in court while this kid spends 10 years in prison. And the ones who killed the 3 people were adults in college when they did it. And the murder victims burned to death.

This is beyond ridiculous!

Oh and it says on the page that they'll be eligible for parole in 16 months. 16 months served for killing 3 people!

[edit on 1/26/2007 by Jessicamsa]

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Jimmy1880
Here is the report from CNN in 2004.

Turns out the guy was actually 18 when it happened.

He was a black succesful footbal player, he had sex with a white girl from his highschool.

Playing devils advocate here "Could the black guy white girl thing be an issue here, it's certainly not unheard of"

Different guy, but this guy was aquitted..hmmm.

On the "Black guy with white girl" thing.
I considered that too. And it's certainly a possibility.
Some laws seem to be kept on the books just so they can be selectively cited and enforced. Ignored in some cases, and used to their fullest extent, in others.

Jessica, thanks for the info on the CNN programming information!

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in