Kansas man back in court over consensual underage gay sex

[kweerwolf]

Matthew R. Limon, whose case resulted in the Kansas Supreme Court saying the state can't punish underage sex more harshly if it involves homosexuals, will be back in court next week on a new charge in the same case.

Miami County Attorney David Miller said he filed a charge Friday of unlawful voluntary sexual relations against Limon in the case that resulted in the high court's ruling last month. His first appearance is Wednesday morning before District Judge Richard Smith in Paola.

Miller said his goal is for Limon to be put on parole for up to five years, not to send him back to prison.

<snip>

Because Limon had already served more than four years in prison, he doesn't have to serve any more prison time. But Miller wants Limon to be under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, and he said, "That couldn't happen unless he was recharged and went through the judicial process."

http://www.nyblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=3619

Oh this is just un-fucking-believable ... even for Kansas! This poor kid has been through enough!

[Charlie Brown]

1. After four years in prison, leave him alone n/t

[mitchtv]

2. Someone has to get this boy to Canada,

quicky

[kansasblue]

3. My god! the courts agree he already server toooooo much time!

and now parole.

[Rowdyboy]

4. They just never give up. They hate and hate and hate and hate until

they wear us down because we don't understand how to hate that deeply. However, I'm beginning to learn.

[TaleWgnDg]

5. Here's a comprehensive overview of this case . . .

.

The Kansas Supreme Court Rights a Wrong, Ruling that the State Cannot Penalize a Teenager for Being Gay

By JOANNA GROSSMAN
----
Tuesday, Nov. 01, 2005

Matthew Limon was a resident at a school for developmentally disabled children. A week after he turned eighteen, Limon engaged in oral sex with another boy at the school, who was a month shy of his fifteenth birthday.

According to a stipulation by all parties, the sexual contact was voluntary on both sides (insofar as a minor's sex act can be voluntary). In other words, this was not a case of forcible rape.

Despite his developmental disability, young age, and the fact that the contact was not coerced, the State of Kansas charged Limon with committing sodomy with a male minor and sentenced him to seventeen years in prison. (The sentence was as long as it was in part because Limon had a relevant juvenile criminal history. The punishment also included five years of post-release supervision and registration as a persistent sex offender.)

Had the minor been female, Limon, even with his history, would have been sentenced to at most fifteen months in prison.

But, because the minor was - like Limon -- male, Limon received a sentence more than ten times longer.

Limon has already served five years of that sentence - enduring incarceration three times more lengthy than would have been the case had the minor been female.

Is this disparity in punishment, which depends on whether the unlawful sexual contact is heterosexual or homosexual, unconstitutional?

In a recent opinion, the Kansas Supreme Court said yes. Its ruling both corrects a severe injustice and illustrates the reach of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 2003 opinion regarding state sodomy laws, Lawrence v. Texas.

(hyperlinked cites and resources were omitted by TaleWgnDg)

. . . more at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/grossman/20051101.html
.

The perpetrator, Limon, is developmentally impaired. Additionally, he has had similar sex offenses as a juvenile and was found delinquent ("guilty") of such offenses. The state and the prosecutor may want to incarcerate Limon for a lengthly period of time due to the alleged repetition; however, both the state and the prosecutor must comply with existing law (including constitutional law) and not their kneejerk reactions.

Sadly, Limon may be a victim, himself, of sexual abuse as a young child. Quite often such children become perpetrators of similar crimes as children and as adults. If this is true, then his (medical) condition wasn't appropriately addressed by the state when Limon was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent or by the state in this residential school environment for Limon which was the site of the crime between the two boys.

.

[spancks]

6. What the hell is with this prosecutor?

This is state-funded harassment! For pete's sake hasn't the poor guy suffered enough? What the fuck does this asshole think persecuting a developmentally disabled kid for a consensual bj that happened years ago is going to accomplish?

I wish the people of that county would at least protest over the waste of taxmoney.

David Miller must be a fucking closet case, the way he's badgering this poor guy.