Justices Void Prison Term Given Gay Teenager in Kansas

New York Times ^ | June 27, 2003 | DAVID STOUT

[kristinn]

Different crimes with different outcomes. Up until yesterday, society had a compelling interest in stopping homosexual recruitment of young boys and girls. No longer.

[jwalsh07]

We live in interesting times, John. :)

Interesting is not the adjective I would use.

[weegee]

The law makes no distinction between the ages in number of days, it refers to the ages in YEARS.

If you think that such laws are arbitrary, why don't you contact your legislators to change the law and set punishment for perps who are greater than 1000 days older than the victim.

We are a nation of laws (with quite a few lawbreakers).

[weegee]

Suppose "Matthew" was "Matilda" instead. I wonder how many FReepers would be posting comments like "Where were these 18 year old girls giving BJs when I was 14?" In both cases, the acts are sinful; but, some people are OK with some sins. That's how we get goofy laws like these.

I've seen that logic from some FReepers on other threads. It helps support the notion that rape of a boy by a woman is less traumatic that rape of a boy by a man.

[weegee]

“Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.”

This case is ripe for a Supreme Court appeal:

Boy suspected of committing incest (The boy is 17, the woman is 22)

Incest between consenting partners should not be a felony in California < /sarcasm >

[AntiGuv]

Yep, I just posted this in another thread: On reading the Opinion of the Court, it does not - on its face - stop short of encompassing consensual incest by adults. There will probably be a future case which decides this issue, in light of Lawrence. The state will probably have to show compelling interest aside from mere disapproval of incestual relations. Most likely, the state will be able to do so, but not necessarily.

[weegee]

Nope. Forget that "consenting adults" rubbish!

As the case is being made on this thread, it will be between consenting sex partners even if they are under the age of consent (provided they are within 4 years of age difference).

[AntiGuv]

I cannot be bothered with that interpretation any further, because I've already posted several dozen replies. Nothing in the Court's decision challenges age of consent laws or Limon's statutory rape conviction - but only the sentencing disparity. If you choose to insist otherwise, go right ahead.

The case that is being made in this thread has no consequence beyond the fantasies of those imagining that case in this thread....

[spunkets]

Thanks.

[spunkets]

"The law makes no distinction between the ages in number of days, it refers to the ages in YEARS."

19 is the age of statutory rape in KS, he was charged as adult, because it was a same sex act. " If you think that such laws are arbitrary, why don't you contact your legislators to change the law and set punishment for perps who are greater than 1000 days older than the victim."

There are 3 branches to the fed and state govts for balance of power purposes. The courts have amongst their duties the duty to judge cruel punishment, as I have done here.

[aristeides]

Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times agrees with me that the Supreme Court vacated the Kansas court's conviction of Limon and that it told the Kansas court to reconsider both the conviction and the sentence in light of Lawrence. Justices Extend Decision on Gay Rights and Equality.

[AntiGuv]

Linda Greenhouse is wrong. Period. Which partly explains why she's a journalist and not a lawyer. As this Washington Post article makes clear:

Gay Rights Ruling Affects Kan. Case

The Supreme Court announced yesterday the first ripple effect of its landmark decision on gay rights, ordering a Kansas court to reconsider its approval of a 17-year sentence meted out to an 18-year-old man for having consensual sex with a 14-year-old boy.

Without comment or published dissent, the court vacated the Kansas Court of Appeals' ruling last year that Matthew Limon's sentence was constitutional even though the same conduct between two persons of different sexes would have received a far lighter penalty under Kansas law.

In fact, as that excerpt makes clear, there was never even a slightest issue of vacating the original conviction, because the Kansas ruling under appeal itself only dealt with the constitutionality of the sentence disparity. To reiterate yet again, the conviction has not been vacated no matter how many ways you figure out to suggest otherwise.

[AntiGuv]

Ping to #312.

[subterfuge]

"No, the Kansas law had a long term because it was homosexual statutory rape. As others have pointed out, an identical situation - but with a female minor - would have resulted in a sentence of 15 months, not 17 years. All the court should have done, is vacate the sentence and send the case back for re-sentencing in a fashion blind to the sexes of the rapist and victim. "

I agree the sentence may be a little much, but what many fail to address is that when molestation occurs and it is perpetrated by a member of the same sex it is much more traumatic than the natural, normal hetero, ah, coupling. My point is that a homosexual molestation SHOULD carry a heavier penalty, IMO, fwiw.