Justices Void Prison Term Given Gay Teenager in Kansas

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

[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.

[aristeides]

The Supreme Court instructed the Kansas court to reconsider the case in light of Lawrence. Lawrence was not decided on the basis of equal protection.

[MineralMan]

". You seem to want to ignore the law because it was so close to the age of 17."

Actually, I said nothing about ignoring the law. I said that a 17 year sentence was too long for such an offence. I didn't say the kid should get off scot-free. He's already served 3 years.

I also said that some people who commit 2-nd degree murder get a shorter sentence than 17 years. It's a matter of appropriate punishment for the crime.

And yes, I think the sentence for an 18-year old having sex with a 14-year-old should be shorter than for a 40-year-old having sex with a 14-year-old. Appropriate sentencing is what I'm after.

As for murder, that's another story altogether. Oral sex between two boys is not murder...not even close.

[dead]

I was just pointing out that the laws are different for an 18 year old. The two kids in question were both mildly mentally retarded and were 3 years, 1 month apart in age.

Of course it's wrong, but it would be worse if they were twenty years apart in age.

[aristeides]

Supreme Court of the United States LIMON, MATTHEW R. V. KANSAS. No. 02-583. June 27, 2003.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals of Kansas for further consideration in light of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003).

The judgment -- not just the sentence -- was vacated.

[sinkspur]

The Supreme Court instructed the Kansas court to reconsider the case in light of Lawrence.

He's already served three years. Likely the case will now be dismissed.

[MattAMiller]

It must have been because prohibiting sex with this male 14-year-old somehow denied the parties in question the right to express their identities in an intimate way.

No, the sentence was scrapped not the conviction.

[aristeides]

Explain to me how you get that out of the Supreme Court order I quoted in #104.

[MineralMan]

"If he were 30 and poked a 14-yr-old, he would get the 17 years in my court. And in that case, I would not be joking about telling the SCOTUS to shove it and actually add a couple years. It isn't like it would have mattered what I did anyway, as I would be overruled in the end.
"

I don't disagree at all. The problem here is the discrepancy between the sentences for heterosexual vs. homosexual activity. Kansas, like most states, discriminates in heterosexual cases, based on the age difference between the people. In this case, had the victim been a 14-year-old girl, this mentally retarded boy could not have gotten more than 15 months. Since they were of the same sex, he got 17 years. It's just not fair, IMO.

That's my only point in this whole discussion. Fair is fair, and this case was unfairly handled, as the court pointed out clearly.

[AntiGuv]

sigh The sentence is part of the judgment...

[aristeides]

Unless I misunderstand, the Supreme Court vacated the whole judgment, not just the sentence.

[aristeides]

this case was unfairly handled, as the court pointed out clearly.

What court pointed it out? Could you please direct me to the language?

[AntiGuv]

Well, you can easily get it out of reviewing the briefs before the Court, which challenge the constitutionality of the sentence, and not the conviction itself which was never even before the Court. In order to vacate the conviction, then the judgment must be vacated and the case remanded (as it was). If the Kansas court - for some strange reason - chooses to dismiss the conviction altogether, then the conviction will be vacated (by the Kansas court).

[aristeides]

The Supreme Court did instruct the Kansas court to reconsider on the basis of Lawrence, which was not decided on an equal protection basis.

[MineralMan]

"Definitely. I am just a couple years out of HS and the freshman lined up to date the seniors....and I am sure much more to a lot of the guys. Good grief, one freshman girl ran up and hugged me one day.

I was somewhat mystified; I am not Tom Cruise or something."

It was the same 40 years ago, when I was that age. Most 18 year old boys wouldn't pass up a chance for a little fooling around with a freshman girl. Sorry, but it's true. And, in this case, we're not even talking about intercourse. I'd be interested in knowing the stats on the number of 14-year-old girls who have participated in oral sexual activity on the receiving end. I suspect everyone would be shocked. It happened all the time 40 years ago...of that I'm certain. In fact, as today, it was a non-pregnancy-causing activity. There was no readily-available birth control back then. Condoms, in CA, could only be sold by pharmacists, and "for the prevention of disease only." Kids were creative, as they are today.

[weegee]

Many states recognize the obvious fact that it somewhat less offensive for an 18-year-old high school boy to have sex with a 16-year-old high school girl, than it is for a 45-year-old pervert to have sex with an 18-year-old high school girl.

The law turns a blind eye to a 45 year old man (pervert or not) having sex with an 18 year old woman (or man now).

Even a president who commits adultery with a young intern is immune from prosecution over such an affair, regardless of how repugnant it may be. Lying about such an affair is illegal though when it occurs in court (in an attempt to establish a pattern of behavior of sexual harassment and sex with workplace underlings).

[AntiGuv]

It was decided on the basis of due process, which then invokes the 5th Amendment in any relevant trial proceedings (which includes sentencing). If the Kansas courts wish to find their sentencing disparity consistent with Lawrence, then they are free to do so (and send the case on to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals).

[dead]

Ooops. I meant to say 16-year-old girl.

[aristeides]

Is there any case law for sentencing disparities violating due process? Did anybody argue before the court in this Limon case that the sentence violated due process? Why direct a court to reconsider on the basis of a decision that has nothing to do with sentencing disparities?

[AntiGuv]

Yes. The challenge in Limon was brought on the basis of Equal Protection, Due Process, and Cruel & Unusual Punishment - under the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments.

[MineralMan]

"The Supreme Court did instruct the Kansas court to reconsider on the basis of Lawrence, which was not decided on an equal protection basis."

It could be that, since Lawrence essentially wiped out the difference between heterosexual and homosexual activites, under the law, that the court mentioned the case in remanding this separate case.

I think they were warning the Kansas folks that separate sentencing guidelines for hetero and homo sexual activity were going to end up being unconstitutional and were giving notice of that to the KS courts.

Equal justice under the law is an important principle. Apparently, now, there will be no distinction made in sexual cases based on the genders of the people involved.

That's my reading of it, anyhow.