Marquita Alston, 24, was a teacher at Pearl-Cohn Entertainment Magnet High School who pleaded guilty to five counts of statutory rape with five different 17-year old boys, including encounters on school property. What is very surprising is that five counts of statutory rape by a teacher results in no jail time and only five years of probation.
Alston will have to register as a sex offender and undergo treatment.
The boys were close to the age of consent but the position as a teacher would normally warrant jail time.
What do you think?
Another episode of the girl’s discount. If you cleaned the crap out of the prosecutor’s offices and the judiciary, who would be left?
Just out of puerile curiosity, I’d like to see pictures of the youths capable of finding this woman attractive.
I’m loving the humorous digs @ our current PC culture. Good to see Davidm back.
Female students at the high school will sue the school district for discrimination because Ms. Alston did not pay them equal attention.
LOL! Good one LTMG.
If the recipients of sexual favors were all black, would the white boys and girls have a discrimination case too?
david – we can only hope that she was an equal opportunity offender.
Sadly, what she did is culturally acceptable in the Black Community. About the same sort of thing as Muslims marrying 14 year olds. But at least the Muzzies get married.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Sadly, what she did is culturally acceptable in the Black Community.
No. Most differences are modest. Sexual activity among blacks generally begins about a year earlier. A black woman will have her first child at 23 (about the norm for white women ca. 1964), about 3 years earlier than the median age for such among whites. Black women have more live births than white women on average (about 15% more), but still only reproduce at the replacement level (2.1 births per woman per lifetime). The major difference in behaviors concerns out-of-wedlock child-bearing and abortion, which are comparatively more common among blacks.
Interesting discussion.
I think if women want to be treated equally, then treat them equally.
If replacing her gender with a man would have warranted jail time, then this was a miscarriage of justice.
The parents of these teenagers sent their kids to a school, not a brothel. What if she gave them all herpes or God knows what else? What if she got pregnant by one of them and they are stuck paying child support for 18 years? What about the psychological issues of an older adult in power manipulating a teenager? I have seen this happen. I knew of a boy at my high school that was groomed and seduced by a friend’s mother. He lost his friends, and had some severe social consequences. When he turned 18, you would see them strolling around the neighborhood, arm in arm. She was, and looked, more than 30 years older than him. Some of us thought he had been psychologically twisted up in some sort of Stockholm Syndrome for molesters for a young vibrant teenager to be with a 50 year old woman who had not taken very good care of herself. And she didn’t even have a great personality, because who would hurt someone they really loved like that? They glorify these types of relationships with Stiffler’s Mom, but the reality is sad.
Yes, I think that there is a difference between a 7 year old victim and a 17 year old victim, but the latter is still a victim.
Nonsense! You start with saying that the genders should be treated equally, even though the law recognizes that they are not to be treated equally in areas where they are not in fact equal. Men and women are not equal when it comes to the ability to become pregnant and have a child. It is infinitely more burdensome for a teen girl to give birth and have the responsibility for a child than it is for a teen male to get her pregnant and walk away. And you totally undermine the credibility of your “equality” argument when you criticize the teen male who dated or married an older woman. Young women marry old men all the time for their money, so why is it a problem when a young guy marries an old woman, regardless of the reason?
Let’s see now….
“Summer of ’42” vs “Lotita”
A boy got lucky. vs. A guy in trouble
Err. Lolita
i wonder what would have happened if a male teacher was going on a sex rampage with 17 year old girl students
I would normally say there is not crime also.
Except for the blatant sex discrimination both here in the comments, as well as in actual reality and penalties.
Just replace the woman teacher here with a man teacher, who did exactly the same thing.
Would you all be so forgiving and apologist?
I don’t think so.
Recall the judge for allowing the plea bargain even if there wasn’t enough evidence to convict.
The psychopaths in government can make anything “illegal”, but doing so does not make anything a crime.
Where is the victim if there was a crime?
“Alston performed sex acts on five 17-year-old boys between September and November of that year. Some of those incidents occurred on the school’s campus, according to officials.”
I read from this she performed oral sex on the boys. They are 17 – not children. Ridiculous to charge her with rape IMO. However, she should not be teaching.
If the boys were 17 then no crime. Except there is a civil disobedience offense to humanity here on the part of the so called 17 year old “boys”. They were having sex with a rather overweight person who might attract flies and that is about it. They were probably trying to get better grades or perhaps into their senior year so they might graduate and not be drop outs. She gave away some sex. So be it. This is not a crime. If a 17 year old boy cannot get laid in the shade with some other high school girl then they need a cathouse in that town. And, they needs some food stamps which will be acceptable for payment at the cathouse.
So many people lose their minds when sex is involved…….
What is the point of making her register as a sex offender? So that she can’t even get a job at Walmart and has to go on welfare? The original purpose of the S.O. Registries was to provide notice to parents that a pedophile was living in their neighborhood, so that they could protect their young children. If this woman is on a Registry identifying her as having sex with 17 y/o males, especially where the age of consent in many states is16, it only serves to render her unemployable and serves absolutely no purpose in protecting the public.
What is the point of making him register as a sex offender? So that he can’t even get a job at Walmart and has to go on welfare? The original purpose of the S.O. Registries was to provide notice to parents that a pedophile was living in their neighborhood, so that they could protect their young children. If this man is on a Registry identifying him as having sex with 17 y/o females, especially where the age of consent in many states is 16, it only serves to render him unemployable and serves absolutely no purpose in protecting the public.
Except that he could do it again.
The gender discrimination in your comment is palpable.
If it was a male teacher doing this with 17 girls, would you have the same comment?
First, it’s not possible for her to do this again, as she is no longer a teacher. Second, as the U.S. Supreme Court has held, there are legitimate reasons for the states to treat teen males differently than teen females when it comes to sex. One obvious difference is that teen females can become pregnant and have to drop out of school, while the male goes off to college or otherwise lives his life as before while the girl is saddled with the responsibility of a child for 18 years. Secondly, the social consequences are different. You know as well as I do that the five 17 y/o males who had sex with their 24 y/o teacher were all bragging and high-fiving, while the consequences for a teen girl most likely would have been shaming and social ostracism. So as long as the consequences of premarital sex for teen males and females remain entirely different, they are not “similarly situated” and the courts and legislatures are entirely correct in recognizing these differences and acting accordingly.
TIN – it is a fallacy to thing females who get pregnant have to drop out of school. I have taught many pregnant teen over the years. And even the ‘regular’ schools are getting into the idea that they should continue to teach them. We made arrangements for them when they would birth and take some time with the baby before coming back to school.
Paul, even if they don’t drop out, there’s no denying that having a baby will have a huge impact on the girl’s life, in every respect. The male, on the other hand, goes on his merry way. The law does not treat people equally in situations where they are not in fact equal.
Agree with TIN saying, “The law does not treat people equally in situations where they are not in fact equal.” The problem is that there is a false equality paradigm that attempts to treat gender and race and religion as all equal. They are not all equal. Gender diversity, race diversity, and religious diversity is real. When the law attempts to treat them all as the same, and creates special classes for them to be treated as such, a lot of confusion and civil unrest happens because the law is not based in reality.
TIN – the man does not go on his merry way. Sheriff Joe picks up dead-beat dads on Mothers Day. It is round-up time. And many a pregnant woman has chased down the male for child support for 18-22 years.
Tin: you may want to read up on these 2 links :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/
Basically if you as a man are raped by a woman and that woman gives birth, you can be required to pay child support to the rapist. so yeah, he’ll be on his merry way to drop out of school and get some uneducated work position to pay that child support or go to jail…
I don’t think you understand the concept of child support. It is not some type of lottery payout for the mother. It’s to buy food, clothing and shelter for a minor child, who is completely innocent of whatever circumstances brought him or her into the world. If a teen male fathers a child, it is his child and needs to eat, so he and/or his parents need to share that responsibility. There was a time when deadbeats let the taxpayers support their children. Then the taxpayers got fed up because they had their own children to support and DNA came along, so yeah, if you father a child, you’re going to have to financially support it. If you can’t pay, don’t play.
Money is fungible, TIN.
Divorce suits are modally a decision to replace a marriage-based economy with a child-support based one.
If a teen male fathers a child, it is his child and needs to eat, so he and/or his parents need to share that responsibility.
That’s an acceptable principle. First that child needs to avoid the ministrations of perverted gynecologists sucking its brains out.
One class of people can not have different rights than others.
Also if you care to actually read the Constitution you will see that the
Supreme court was not given the right to determine what our rights are.
Marburry v Madison 1804 was a power grab.
There is nothing wrong with what she did from a moral perspective. Historically humans have been considered adults around the age of 14. A few US states still reflect that fact.
The psychos in our legislatures writing their “laws” on paper can not change history or fact.
God gave us our rights, not the legislature.
Historically humans have been considered adults around the age of 14.
In your imagination only.
I am hopeful that there is more to this story than we have here; otherwise I would have to say that there is a lot of inappropriate bias bekng used.
I propose the prosecutor’s case had a defect of some kind and he and the defense recognized this and bargained a lesser sentence.
Uh, yeah…..the defect being that there were no victims. 17 y/o males and a 24 y/o female? Nobody’s going to get upset about that except the boys’ mamas. She shouldn’t be a teacher anymore, of course, but I’m sure she’s been fired and her license revoked. Beyond that…..nothing going on, folks….move along.
If the Sec. Of the Navy can name a ship after a guy who had a thing for underage teenage boys, I guess she can get a pass for having the same penchant.
If this damages her career as a teacher, maybe she can join the Navy and get a ship named after her.
Anyone that had sex with her (?) probably didn’t want to testify publicly for fear of becoming a social outcast.
If she had been male she would have done jail time.
Reblogged this on Truth Troubles: Why people hate the truths' of the real world.