Posted on 06/27/2003 12:59:10 PM PDT by Stingray51
WASHINGTON, June 27 — In one of the first consequences of its landmark ruling on gay rights on Thursday, the Supreme Court today set aside the lengthy prison sentence imposed on a gay Kansas teenager for having had sex with a younger boy.
In a brief order with little elaboration, the court vacated the 17-year sentence imposed in 2000 on the defendant, Matthew Limon, and returned the case to the Kansas courts "for further consideration in light of Lawrence v. Texas."
The case of Lawrence v. Texas, which was decided on Thursday and overturned an Texas antisodomy law, upheld the constitutional right of gay people to engage in sexual activity in private.
The court's directive today that the Kansas courts reconsider the Limon case with Lawrence v. Texas in mind was tantamount to an instruction to set aside the prison term imposed on Mr. Limon, and perhaps to take a close look at what has been called the state's "Romeo and Juliet Law."
The statute gained that nickname in some legal circles because it regards oral sex differently when it involves heterosexual teenage couples, as opposed to youths of the same sex.
When one member of the couple is aged 14 to 16 and the other is older, the act is statutory rape under the Kansas law and the most common penalty is probation if the two are heterosexual. But probation is not available to same-sex teenage couples.
Matthew Limon was one week past his 18th birthday in early 2000 when he performed oral sex on a 14-year-old boy at the center for developmentally disabled young people where they both lived. No violence or coercion was involved.
Had Mr. Limon performed oral sex on a 14-year-old girl, he could have received a prison sentence of about 15 months, and possibly just probation. Instead, he is now about three years into a 17-year sentence in the Ellsworth Correctional Facility. Under his sentence, he was also ordered to register as a sex offender upon his release.
The American Civil Liberties Union has rallied behind Mr. Limon's case. The organization says it is not challenging a state's right to punish older teenagers for having sex with younger ones, but rather that the rules should not be different for same-sex couples and heterosexual couples.
Show me where the 14th amendment prohibits states making any distinctions between people under its jurisdiction? It does prohibit distinctions based on race.
It's not separate sentencing guidelines that are at issue. It's separate criminal laws, one for homosexuals and one for heterosexuals.
Consent's not relevant. They were both minors in a nuthouse and there was an absence of force. You were going to add 5 years to the 17 for something that's not all that unexpected in any like facility...to a 17 y/o that KS already knew was nuts. Why not just cut his head off and stick it on a post in the nuthouse yard to deter the others?
Thanks
I don't think so. He was convicted under a law which SCOTUS is now apparently saying cannot stand.
I support that argument. Unconsented sex ought to be punished harshly without regard to the sexes of the rapist and victim.
Those of you who live in deathly fear of homosexuals and homosexuality will be hard-pressed to explain why a man who rapes a man should suffer a harsher sentence than one who rapes a woman. But please, go ahead and try; the rhetorical gymnastics will be entertaining.
LOL, first words out of your mouth, homophobe.
You lost already Geek.
This guy has done 3 years, maybe it should be more. But, all the court is saying, is that if he had sex with a 14 year old girl, it would have been 15 months.
The court is specifically not saying that you can't increase the sentence to 17 years if you so choose. Only that it has to apply to everybody. The Kansas legislature is quite free and able to change the law to reflect that if they so choose.
Right, that makes him a major not a minor. You with me here?
I'm well aware of that. Just goes to show the weirdness of the Court's opinion. We're getting strict scrutiny ramifications from a decision that wasn't based on strict scrutiny. Go figure.
Not really, because they were peers in a juvy. It's not like he's an adult predator. The only reason I posted on the thread in the first place was because he got 17 years and someone boasted they'd add another 5. 17 years is big time overkill, hence my comments on big hearts and heads on pikes.
This is what you said. It is a fallacious statement. And minors are not legally able to give consent so you are wrong there as well.
Actually I agree that 17 years is too long a sentence if the 18 year old was developmentally impaired. But that's not the issue.
The issue is can homosexual rape be deserving of a more severe penalty than heterosexual rape. My opinion is yes because while rape is a crime deserving a major penalty, I believe that homosexual rape is one level above heterosexual rape in consequence to the victim.
You can do better than that.
But, clearly, you'd agree with a law which states that anyone named "Walsh" shall suffer life imprisonment for any crime. That's fair, right, just like punishing homosexual rape more severly than heterosexual rape?
Wow ... I'd be interested in the response you'd get from your mother, your sister, your wife or girlfriend, any woman you work with or know from church, if you ever brought this up for a general discussion with them.
Please, let us know how it goes.
Oh indeed. In my younger days I would have reacted and suggested unisexual gymnastics. Now days, it make me laugh.
But, clearly, you'd agree with a law which states that anyone named "Walsh" shall suffer life imprisonment for any crime.
Of course, as long as it was legislated by the courts and not the duly eleceted representatives of the people.
That's fair, right, just like punishing homosexual rape more severly than heterosexual rape?
Can you provide evidence that the trauma to the victim is the same for heterosexual and homosexual rape?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.