Nicklas Johnson · morons.org - Matthew Limon 17-year Sentence Upheld

Morons in the News: Matthew Limon 17-year Sentence Upheld

Please Support our Featured Partners!

YouHaveBO.com: The Internet's Premier Anonymous BO Notification Service
Want Your Link Here?: Find out how to get free advertising with our partnership program!
Overheard in SF: Heard inbetween the rabbit squeezing and the carrot munching

Had Matthew Limon or the young man he engaged in oral sex with been female, his maximum sentence would have been 15 months. A Kansas appeals court has upheld his sentence of 17 years.
Posted by spatula on Jan. 30, 2004 10:48 UTC
21 comments from readers. Join the discussion!

The Kansas court of appeals has upheld the 17-year sentence of Matthew Limon for having oral sex with an underaged boy. Had Matthew or the other young man been female, Matthew's maximum sentence would have been 15 months. ( read more) Last year after its decision in Lawrence v Texas, the US Supreme Court referred the case back to the Kansas court, which then decided that Lawerence v Texas did not apply to Limon's case, since both plantiffs in Lawrence v Texas were adults.

Dissenting judge G. Joseph Pierron wrote that the only difference in sentencing was based solely upon the sex of the victim which made the law unconstitutional.

A statement or press release from the ACLU isn't immediately available on their web site, but I have requested a statement from them and will post it here as soon as I receive it.

---Nick

Find similar articles

Enter an alias. If your chosen alias is already registered, you will be prompted to enter another one. Maximum length: 40 characters. HTML not allowed.

If you are registered, enter your password to be logged in.
Keep me logged in on this computer
Enter your message. Some HTML is permitted including the p,br,a,strong and em tags. CSS attributes and javascript are not allowed. You may leave blank lines to denote paragraphs or use the paragraph tag. If you use the paragraph tag for one paragraph, you must use it for all of them. Maximum length is 8192 characters.

Press the Post button to post your message now, or use the Preview button to preview your posting. If you used any HTML, you must preview once before posting.

Posted by mlcastle from New York, NY on Jan. 30, 2004 10:54

Note to Kansas judges: Usually when the Supreme Court tells you to review your decision, it's because they think you're wrong.

Gishra: Exactly. Basically, it's the court saying "you're wrong, but since we used to...

Posted by INCyr from the 6th circle of hell on Jan. 30, 2004 10:57

Poor guy... Sometimes (most of the time?) I hate the judicial system in this country.

Reynard: "Justice is always served, but sometimes it ends up as the Blue Plate Special"...

Posted by libc on Jan. 30, 2004 10:58

Damn!

Here is a link to the text of the court's written opinion: http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/ctapp/2004/20040130/85898.htm

Burn Bush: At least someone is thinking...everyone should read the dissenting opinion....

Posted by spatula from the morons.org lair on Jan. 30, 2004 11:00

I forgot to mention that the Kansas court of appeal is an unelected conservative activist court that wears black robes.

Therlin: I suggest they change them to white robes and cone hats.

Randomschmoe: Well, that'd make sense....if this were a white guy we were discussing...

Therlin: who is not a white guy?

Posted by Big Pansy on Jan. 30, 2004 11:08

If a case is appealed to the SC, and they send it back for review, can it be appealed again?

Aeryl: That is what habeas corpus is for, if I am not mistaken.

Posted by spatula from the morons.org lair on Jan. 30, 2004 11:17

I phoned the ACLU press folks; they're about to do a press release and they've added me to the distribution list to get that. I'll hopefully have something soon.

Posted by Chris Hampton on Jan. 30, 2004 12:26

Our release is now online here, fyi:

http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=14838&c=41 --- Chris Hampton, Public Education Associate ACLU Lesbian & Gay Rights and AIDS Projects

Posted by Kitsune from Its Heated Den With a T1 on Jan. 30, 2004 12:58

I can't express my outrage in any verbal language at the moment. Gays are not a supressed minority my ass. (see an earlier article, can't remember the reference).

Posted by Burn Bush on Jan. 30, 2004 16:31

The law is in need of some spirit...

Lord_Nougat: Yeah, combustible spirits.

Posted by Augure3VI from Richland on Jan. 31, 2004 01:56

Do convicted child molesters get that long? I doubt that Jackson will even get 17 months for all the boys he played with.

Posted by satan on Jan. 31, 2004 09:07

this is what scares the hell out of me "The legislature could well have considered that same-sex sexual acts between males might increase their risk of contracting certain infectious diseases. ... Accordingly, we determine that K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 21-3522(a)(2) is rationally related to the State's legitimate interest in public health." -- them Gays be spreading the AIDS.... (shakes head) -- (bangs head on desk) -- stupid Kansas.

Posted by adrian on Jan. 31, 2004 23:15

What can you expect from the home state of "Rev." Fred Phelps! I'm sure that Attorney General Phill Kline and the court of appeal judges are disciples of Phelps.

Posted by Randomschmoe on Feb. 02, 2004 10:24

It's really strange how the judicial system of America works. And how more often than not, it's not all it's cracked up to be. Maybe one day this really will be the land of equal opportunity...

Maybe.