Matthew Limon of Kansas is currently serving a 17 year prison sentence.
The crime? Limon performed oral sex on a 14 year, 11 month old male when he was 18. Statutory rape.
Here’s the catch: Under Kansas “Romeo and Juliet” law, if he had consensual sexual relations with a female of the same age, he would have only gotten a year in jail.
http://www.aclu.org/news/NewsPrint.cfm?ID=9141&c=100
Needless to say, this strikes me as being slightly unfair.
It raises equal protection issues, to be sure. Let’s see how the Court comes out on Lawrence; that may affect the presumptive validity of the law.
Seventeen years for oral sex?!
Most (more serious) sexual assault cases don’t get sentences that long, do they?
Yes, there is something seriously messed up with that. Seventeen years. My gosh.
Though I too am troubled by the length of the sentence and the gender disparity here, allow me to be the first person to point out that it’s a bad thing for an adult to have sex, consensual or not, with a 14-year-old. That is, after all, why it is a crime.
I don’t see a problem here. Generally, a 14 year old male isn’t as mature as a 14-year old female. There are cases where equality of the sexes does not apply.
Quite regardless of the genders involved, I am just shocked at the length of that sentence.
It may be, but considering they were both teenagers and the difference in age was approximately 3 years, I don’t think it warrants a 17 year prison sentence.
If this sentence stands, Limon will have spent half of his life behind bars.
That was my first reaction, too. But for more detail, check out this story from abcnews.com. A couple of things are noteworthy:
The Romeo and Juliet provision is an exception to the general law against sex with a minor. The exception applies when a teen younger than 19 engages in voluntary sexual intercourse, sodomy or lewd touching with a teen between the ages of 14 and 16, provided the teens are of the opposite sex. Because Limon engaged in homsexual sex acts, the exception did not apply to him. Thus, he was convicted under the general provision that would also apply if, for example, Limon had been 19 and had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend.
Limon wasn’t giving oral sex to his 14 year old boyfriend. He was giving oral sex to a 14 year old that was living with him in a residential center for developmentally disabled youths.
This was apparently Limon’s third offense:
I think the discrepancy between homosexual and heterosexual sodomy is entirely unfair, but hopefully that explains the 17 year sentence.
I submit that Limon is developmentally disabled and should not be treated as an 18 y.o. no matter what his chronological age is.
From the ABC news article:
And locking somebody up for 16 additional years than they would if they were heterosexual, draining tax payer money and ruining that persons life benefits society… how?
Cite?
What leads you to this conclusion? Do you have any studies showing that 14 year old female is more “mature” than a 14 year old male?
Was Limon developmentally disabled himself?
I wondered the same thing myself, but couldn’t find anything definitively saying either way. But it appears that Limon was living in the same facility for developmentally disabled children, so the implication would be that he is.
I am ambivalent about some of this—not about the discrepancy of the male-male vs. male-female sex laws (which are completely unfair). But, about why the hell this guy was not better supervised in this group home? What he did was rape. It was his third offense. And while he is (presumably) developmentally disabled, it doesn’t mean that he isn’t still liable for his own actions.
He sounds like he’s pretty “high functioning” (that’s a term we sometimes use) and therefore he probably knows right from wrong. (I don’t know this for a fact, of course, I’m just supposing.) Does that mean that he should be given the same sentence as non-developmentally disabled person? Probably not. But I don’t think he should be given a free pass.
I know of some developmentally disabled people who are sexual predators. They need to be removed from society, for the safety of society. Probably it would be more appropriate for them to be put in a mental health institution (some of these places are very nice), but they should not be allowed to walk free.
You know, the more I think of it, the more this sort of thing pisses me off. Pardon me while I read between the lines (and I am making a LOT of assumptions here) but I’ve heard tales of “clients” (or “patients”, we use many terms) who are constantly victimising other residents of their group homes. And nothing is done. I remember hearing a tale of a certain very violent client who had a habit of BITING other people. Biting them bad—taking off body parts (like ears). And this person did this to MANY clients before something effective was eventually done to stop him. And this pisses me off. Why does the State (or whatever institution is overseeing these particular group homes) STOP the abuse and nip it in the bud? Why allow it to keep happening and happening?
The answer I’ve gotten from supervisors (I have asked this question to supervisors) is (basically), “Well what do you want us to do? Punish them? Remove them from the other clients? We can’t! That would be wrong!” And my answer to that is NO, I don’t want these abusers and violent clients to be “punished”, because a lot of them really don’t know right from wrong and cannot control their impulses. But I do think that they should be removed from an environment where they can victimize others. I mean, would you want your kid to share a residence with a violent person who bit, or raped? Are not these other clients entitled to protection?
Sorry for the rant, but I see this situation as (possibly) being something that could have been very easily avoided if the powers that be just got their shit together.
Oh, I should probably clarify my previous post. I work with the developmentally disabled.
So do I. I’ve even worked with a DD sexual predator before. I think calling this incident “rape” may be a little strong. By all accounts it was mutually consensual (and yes, I know that consent is a dicey issue when it comes to DD teenagers). It may have been inappropriate, and I agree that Limon should have been better supervised if it was known that he had this history.
17 years for a DD kid blowing his friend just seems unbelievably excessive, though. If had done the same to a female resident of the same age he would have only gotten one year. Is that fair. Is homosexual sex that much worse than heterosexual? If the act was really “rape” then why wouldn’t a female “victim” be entitled to the same protection as a male?
Oh yeah. No arguments there.
But do we know that the 14 year old is his “friend”? Are both these boys equally “abled” (or whatever term you want to use)? Any information on that?
All the googling I did on it said that they were friends and that it was consensual. The fourteen year old was actually a month shy of his fifteenth birthday (not that it matters that much) and Limon was a week past eighteen. So, really, take away a month or so and we’ve got a seventeen year old blowing a fifteen year old. Still inappropriate in a DD residential school, but certainly not the crime of the century. I agree with you that the staff of this residence need to be on the hook a little more here, but I really think this is something which would be better handled within the school and between the families rather than by a criminal court.
I haven’t been able to find anything about their relative abilities, and we both know that can be significant. I’m sure we’ve both seen cases of a higher functioning person being able to manipulate or exploit a lower functioning peer. That may be the case here, but i can’t find specifics. Even if that is the case, though, I think seventeen years is ridiculous.
(BTW, if this had a been a staff-person or any other normally-abled adult I’d say throw the book at him.).