Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: aristeides
The sky actually is falling. Yesterday, in Limon, the Supreme Court vacated the sentence of someone who had homosexually molested a 14-year-old boy, on the basis of Lawrence. So much for Lawrence just being about ending the criminal prosecution of sex between consenting adults.

How about the rest of the story though Aristiedes. The molestor was a mentally delayed man of the age of 18 years old and 1 week. If the victim was a 14 year old girl, he would have received 15 months in prison, but Kansas differentiated between molesting a girl, or molesting a boy, and sentenced him to 17 years instead of the 15 months. The Supreme Court in no way said it was illegal, or unconstitutional to write laws sentencing everybody to 17 years in jail for statutory rape, but that the sentences must be equal.

Again, if Kansas wants to give everybody a 17 year sentence for this offense, they are free to do so.

35 posted on 06/28/2003 8:01:30 AM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: dogbyte12; kristinn
I also didn't mention that the 14-year-old victim too was, as you put it, "mentally delayed." Doesn't that make the case worse? I also didn't mention that the perp had a prior.

And are you denying that Limon shows that, whatever Kennedy said in Lawrence, the Supreme Court has no intention of limiting the effects of Lawrence to cases involving consenting adults?

42 posted on 06/28/2003 8:05:03 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: dogbyte12
Again, if Kansas wants to give everybody a 17 year sentence for this offense, they are free to do so.

Are you sure? Mightn't that interfere with the essential expression of identity?

Anyway, the details do nothing to refute my point that Limon shows Lawrence doesn't just have implications for sex between consenting adults.

50 posted on 06/28/2003 8:09:17 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: dogbyte12
You cannot with a straight face equate a teenaged boy coming on to a teenaged girl with a teenaged boy forcing deviant and unnatural attentions on another boy. To advocate similar penalties, you have to equate the actions.

While I doubt that Justice Kennedy went so far as to suggest anything so ludicrous; it does show the danger that whatever the Supreme Court did decide, will be deliberately stretched by those with an anti-social agenda.

Frankly, I have not read the decision. But if it was premised upon "privacy," that is 9th Amendment rights--which are protected against Federal intrusion--under some theory of applicability to the States, also--that would not seem to rule out dealing harshly with those who flaunt the conduct that the 6 Justices declared private. Actually, protections from illegal searches, meant that sodomy laws were not actually being enforced, anyway, against those who actually kept their conduct private.

I guess I should stop my keyboard, until I actually see the decision. I would like to suggest a way around it; but without reading it, that would be really foolish. Of course, I can state the completely obvious: This is one more reason for Conservatives to dig their heels in and fight any appointment to the Federal Bench for anyone who is not honorably committed to traditional Constitutional values. And we are not going to be able to stop such appointments, unless we find a lot more men with the strong character of the late Strom Thurmond--who more than any other man was responsible for what Conservatives we do have on the Federal Bench--to send to the Senate.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

283 posted on 06/28/2003 11:12:24 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: dogbyte12
How about the rest of the story though Aristiedes. The molestor was a mentally delayed man of the age of 18 years old and 1 week. If the victim was a 14 year old girl, he would have received 15 months in prison, but Kansas differentiated between molesting a girl, or molesting a boy, and sentenced him to 17 years instead of the 15 months. The Supreme Court in no way said it was illegal, or unconstitutional to write laws sentencing everybody to 17 years in jail for statutory rape, but that the sentences must be equal.

Part of the offense of a rape is the psychic insult upon the raped party. The homosexual aspect makes that insult worse, and Lawrence can't change that. It may not be enough worse to make it worth a 17 year prison sentence, but to say it isn't worse at all, well, buggers reality (pardon the metaphor).

570 posted on 06/28/2003 10:52:28 PM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: dogbyte12
Part of the offense of a rape [or a molestation] is the psychic insult upon the raped [or molested] party.
571 posted on 06/28/2003 10:54:29 PM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson