home page grim amusements - weblog media relations - media commentary scriptorium - essays dear mr postmanners - humor links

 


 
« at the court today | Main | love, marriage, and politics »

justices void prison term

June 27, 2003

So.

You remember that differential prison term that I mentioned in the last entry? The one that was a result of Kansas having not only a sodomy law but a law that punished homosexual statutory rape much more harshly than heterosexual statutory rape?

Justices Void Prison Term Given Gay Teenager in Kansas (NY Times, June 27, 2003, registration required): 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." [...] 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.

Both the prison sentence and the requirement to register as a sex offender should be voided by the Court's direction. For the moment, in any event. Given that the prison sentence would be a possibility if the law had not treated him differently -- he would likely have gotten probation if the other person had been a female, but a 1-3 year prison term was within the realm of possible sentences -- I would bet that he would be resentenced to time served. Not sure about the registration requirement, however.

Posted by iain at June 27, 2003 06:37 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recent posts

love, marriage, and politics

justices void prison term

at the court today

enemy combattants: los desaparecidos

the gay agenda, redux

the court today

We know what gals like ....

the gay agenda

uncle walter returns! at age 86

blair's problems

Black like me -- but not too black

attacking mecca?

justice in texas

spike spikes spike

philadelphia freedom ... or, you know, maybe not

the house republicans vs ... the republican president?

spike lee vs spike tv

missing weapons and their fallout

flag burning

it's always martha, martha, martha!

nullsoft's null software

bravo: the cable channel that makes fun of gay men so you don't have to!

europe's constitution

bulls and china shops

revenge for justice