In Kansas: 17 Years For Gay Oral Sex With A Minor

goofyfish

goofyfish

Analog By Birth, Digital By Design
Valued Senior Member
Fifteen months for straights…
The Kansas Court of Appeals for a second time upheld the 17-year prison sentence of a youth who, at age 18, engaged in oral sex with a 14-year-old boy. For the same crime, if it had involved an act between an 18-year-old male and a 14-year-old girl, the sentence would have been 13 to 15 months.

In finding that the different treatment was valid, the state court commented in its 2-1 decision:

"The Legislature could have reasonably determined that to prevent the gradual deterioration of the sexual morality approved by a majority of Kansans, it would encourage and preserve the traditional sexual mores of society." (Full text here)
Click to expand...
Any sex between an adult and a minor is immoral and should be illegal. Punishments for such should be in complete disregard to sexual orientation. 17 years for all of them, homo or hetero. Of course, killing another human being for being a conceited dumbass too annoyed to stop at a stop sign, lands you in jail for a full fucking 100 days - if you are white, Republican, and powerful.

And can someone please explain what is meant by “traditional sexual Mores”? America is becoming more disgusting and pathetic on a daily basis and this slide into a cesspool of self-righteousness is gathering momentum.

:m: Peace.
 
I can't help but wonder what the punishment would have been if it had been an 18 year old girl giving a 14 year old boy a BJ? Anyone else think none?

States like Kansas are backward, and they stay that way because any intelligent freethinker who can leave, will do just that.
Don't forget that Topeka, KA is the home of the God Hates Fags Westboro Baptist Church .

I love that Onion story.
 
Last edited:
what if both the 18 yr old and the 14 yr old were girls?
Click to expand...
I think it would have been required that the accused re-enact the events that took place so the judge and jury could get a better grip on the reality of the crime, and it would be televised on the spice channel. At least I assume this is what would happen, if not I'm outraged.

I can't say that I am outraged over sentences for gay oral sex with a minor being too harsh. If it seems a bit rough just DON'T have gay oral sex with a minor, is that SUCH a hard law to obey?
Who here honestly feels this law is a burden that infringes on their lifestyle? Who read this article and had to collect themselves and take deep breaths so as not to fly off the handle?
I could live with this law, I'd find a way to get by, if it became detrimental to the quality of my life I'd move to a different state.
 
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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/27/p...tml?ex=1075870800&en=e337af5704080047&ei=5070

In rejecting his appeal, the Judge said:

"The question we must address is whether the Legislature can punish those adults who engage in heterosexual sodomy with a child less severely than those adults who engage in homosexual sodomy with a child. The answer is yes," Green wrote.

Further, Green wrote that the Romeo and Juliet law was designed to discourage voluntary sexual behavior that deviates from traditional sexual mores.

Limon, 21, has served three years and four months at the Ellsworth Correctional Facility. His earliest possible release date would be October 2014.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/7839429.htm
 
monkey:
So, did the 14 year old want oral sex or not?
Click to expand...

Read the article - "developmentally disabled" is pc-speak for "retarded", so it's not like he could have given meaningful consent. That said, 'tards probably like blowjobs just as much as everyone else. Probably drool all over when they come.

Dr. Lou:
I can't say that I am outraged over sentences for gay oral sex with a minor being too harsh. If it seems a bit rough just DON'T have gay oral sex with a minor, is that SUCH a hard law to obey?
Click to expand...

'Xactly. Just like statutory rape laws being harsh - you don't like it, keep it in your pants. Is that so hard - er - difficult?
 
oooh ok i see. 14 yr old girls aren't minors but boys of that age are because people want the girl to have sex (with them or for a camera). you people are fucking sick.
 
This doesn't affect me one bit. I like women, and the only way I would have sex with an underage one is if she looked older and purposely deceived me. Of course that could still land me in jail. I guess these days you'd better check ID's.
But this is still wrong.

Posted by Zedo on Sep 02 2003 01:34:42 UTC

I work for the agency at which Matthew Limon lived. Matt and his 15 year old dorm mate are both developmentally disabled. The 15 year old is 16 now and continues to intice other males. Matt came from an abusive family and was basically performing as asked. At the time of the arrest, he was 3 days and 18 years old - hence the designation as "adult". He was arrested and charged with SODOMY -- not statatory rape. I am ashamed to be a Kansan. This case is a travesty of justice -- especially considering that the younger of these two males is the higher functioning and more aggressive of the two. I feel pity for Matt -- he is doing hard time at the state pen. Jusitce has NOT be served.
Click to expand...

http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?id=3868

If that is true, and I have little reason to doubt that it is, is anyone safer now that this "predator" has been locked up until 2014? If it had happened a week earlier, there would have been no crime. They are both retarded, evidently the older of the two more so. I'm sure the prosecutors knew all of this, but chose to give the kid the works anyway for political reasons, and maybe out of a frustrated desire to jail all gays.
 
Looking back to a now-obsolete standard, Bowers v. Hardwick, the majority, in ruling for the states' right to make antisodomy laws, reached back to 15th century English common law for a precedent. And yes, "traditional sexual mores" was part of the majority's reasoning.
 
It's times like these I'm glad I'm not an American, particularly from Kansas.
 
Xev said:
monkey:
Read the article - "developmentally disabled" is pc-speak for "retarded", so it's not like he could have given meaningful consent. That said, 'tards probably like blowjobs just as much as everyone else. Probably drool all over when they come.
Click to expand...
smelly X:
The link was not working anymore.
And you brain has the same problem.
 
This is a difficult issue for me, you see, because at one time it's another grain of sand on the mountain of reasons to hate American conservatives, yet on the other hand, it is those same conservatives who protect our rights to wield fully automatic assault rifles, (Legal once more this September, will you be camping outside your local gun retailer like I will?) Which I fully advocate buying large quantities of for the expressed purpose of shooting every crack-brained conservative lunatic rambling on about public morals that you come across. Sort of a paradox isn't it?

Xev and Dr. Lou, on one level yes, you’re right, if this sort of law is actually going to amount to a genuine problem for any of us, we should probably be re-examining our lives, however in rare cases this law can be used to apply an entirely unjust sentence. Yes, I know that the sentence would be applied to a CRIMINAL and maybe in some people’s worlds that issue is sort of black and white, you are either a criminal or you aren’t, but one of the principals that this nation was founded on was reasonable punishment for the crime committed. . . anything less than that would be cruel and unusual. I realize that this idea certainly hasn’t been followed with very much care, and in many places we flat out flaunt the fact that we ignore it, but that doesn’t make it right, and that’s what I believe we are chiefly concerned with here: doing the right thing, the JUST thing, and in this case that has not been done, and can not be done under application of this law as it stands.

Just another double standard designed to create a culture of hatred and bigotry in US culture. Thanks Kansas, we love you.
 
Hooo boy. This kid was the victem of some corrupt politics nothing more. Now I'm not saying that this nation needs a violent revolution to set it strait, but those judges do have thier positions for life... so that does limit the number of ways they can be gotten rid of. When the limp wristed rainbow colored revolution comes, kansas will be the first against the wall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top