17 Years in Jail for Consensual Blowjob

File under 'Justice For All.' Via Salon. Remind yourself that this is the year 2005, and not, say, 1762.

On Feb. 16, 2000, Matthew Limon gave his boyfriend a blowjob and got himself a 17-year prison sentence. The boys were residents at the Lakemary Center, a school for developmentally delayed youngsters in Paola, Kan. It's generous, perhaps, to call them boyfriends. What they did was more akin to sexual experimentation, two boys in a dormitory at night, messing around. Matthew had just turned 18 the week before, and his partner was just shy of his 15th birthday. The younger boy, identified only as M.A.R., consented to the sex, but changed his mind. As soon as he asked Matthew to stop, Matthew did, and M.A.R. has always been steadfast in his statement that what happened was consensual. How the police were brought in, why they were called, isn't clear. Someone from the center complained and the trial was based on stipulated facts — one paragraph stating that on that night in February, the boys engaged in consensual oral sex. That single paragraph was the basis for the 17-year sentence.

Kansas' statutory rape law prohibits "criminal sodomy" (including oral sex) with teenagers younger than 16. If the object of Matthew's affection had been female, however, Kansas would have afforded him the benefit of its romantically named "Romeo and Juliet" statute, designed precisely for kids like him, kids who have consensual sex with other kids. In Kansas, and in many other states, when two teenagers have heterosexual sex, even the dreaded sodomy, the penalties are relatively mild. If Matthew had had consensual sex with a girl, and the state had prosecuted him at all, the longest sentence they could have given him was 15 months. Instead, because Matthew had sex with another boy, and only because he had sex with another boy, he has spent the past five years in Ellsworth Correctional Facility in central Kansas.

The Supreme Court has directed the state court to take another look at the case in light of Lawrence v. Texas, which I wrote about earlier this month. Meanwhile, Limon is still behind bars — no picnic for anyone, much less for a young man convicted of a gay sex offense.

Young men like Matthew are prime targets in jail. Gay prisoners are more than twice as likely to be the victims of rape in prison, and young gay men are particularly vulnerable. Worse, the rate of HIV infection among the prison population is higher than in the general population, so prison rape carries with it the added risk of HIV transmission.

I wonder if the men and women in the DA's office are well and truly proud of themselves for having prosecuted Limon to the full extent of the law — before he could strike again with more dastardly acts of pleasuring willing recipients.

Comments

[Eric]

Hold the phone for just a second.

This is an 18 year old who had sex with a 14 year old. No matter what sex they are, this is a crime in most states. The public takes a dim view of sex offenders not being prosecuted, no matter what the extenuating circumstances. Had the facility or the police or the prosecutors given this kid a "pass" then there would be hell to pay later if he had another encounter with a juvenile. These are serious liability issues - money talks, threat to money speaks quite loudly.

Is 17 years too much? Absolutely. But look at the facts: 18 vs 14 is bad. The fact that consent was revoked (let's just assume that a 14yo can consent legally) is bad. Developmentally disabilities on both sides make it worse and more complicated.

Had these guys been adults I would be horrified at any criminal prosecution. Had they been the same age as juveniles I would agree that any jail time is too harsh, but this was a legal adult having sex with a young teen and at the end of the ‘encounter’ it was no longer consensual.

I'm all for the government saying out of people's bedrooms and the other case you cited was an absolute travesty. I would not, however, be using this case to try and convince anyone. This case is just sad all the way around.

Or so it seems to me.

[not a dhimmi]

Yeah, an 18 year old going to jail for having sex with a 14 year old, that's terrible. Just like this case down South, right? A little after-school special intergen love, and the cops arrest this teacher as if he's a criminal or something...

http://www.wftv.com/news/4411474/detail.html

[Joe]

I dont think the point is that the kid was punished. The point is that he got a 17 year sentence because he committed the act on another boy, whereas if he had committed the act on a girl of the same age he would have had a maximum sentence of 15 months.

[billy-jay]

I look forward to the day when prosecutors are imprisoned for cases like this.

[Eric]

Joe,

I did understand the point. The sentence was wrong and is shameful.

I don't condone discrimination of homosexuals or most activities between consenting adults. These were not consenting adults. Both victim and suspect are mentally impaired to at least a small extent. Were either competent to legally consent?

The law said the 14 year old was not mature enough to consent. If the law needs to be changed to a lower age then contact your state representatives. I doubt you'll get many politicians to sponser such a bill or a majority of voters in any state to pass the bill.

Am I outraged by the 17 year sentence? Absolutely. Would I think a 15 month sentence would be appropriate if the suspect were not developmentally disabled or if the victim had been a girl? No way. Fifteen months (less some for good behavior) is a slap on the wrist.

If an adult male or female has sex with my 14 year old daughter or son, especially if that 14 year old is developmentally disabled, I would lean much more toward the 17 year inprisonment option.

Again, that's just me.

[John Lopez]

...And Lon Horiuchi is *still* walking free.

[nelson]

I guess I have to disagree with Eric. 14 and 18 both seem pretty immature to me, regardless of their legal status. If I had a 14 year old child who had sex with an 18 year old, and it was clearly consensual, I am in favor of a slap on the wrist.

Disclaimer: being single and having no children, my opinion may weigh less than that of a parent.

[Mike]

14 is entirely immature. 18 isn't. Either age has the possibility of being mature enough or too immature. Doesn't matter. 17 years is ridiculous. AS long as it was entirely consensual, the 18 year old deserves at maximum a minimum security, less than a month sentence. Probably some community service and lessons as to why jailbait is called such.

[.alphamonkey.]

18 years is the arbitrary legal age we've decided should be considered 'adult', but I don't think there's anyone here who truly believes that an 18 year old is mature. That's neither here nor there.

"15 months? That's a slap on the wrist." Ever done hard time? I'm guessing no. Just for a moment try to put yourself in the position of being a gay, developmentally delayed, TEENAGER whose next door neighbor is now a convicted felon who might have committed any number of crimes. Now try to imagine the constant horror and fear of being raped, beaten, stabbed, or killed for simply being who you are where you are. Slap on the wrist, my ass.

Save the Old Testament stuff for the Big Guy, buddy, and try to show a little compassion and empathy. It's a well known fact that otherwise reasonable adults become mildly retarded when it comes to the subject of teens and sex, but 17 years for a consensual blow-job (which the kid stopped when it was indicated that it was no longer desired, no less.) is nothing short of an complete affront to the idea that adults are here to protect our children.

[Bongo]

If I'm not mistaken, they were both developmentally delayed. It doesn't say how much, or if the boys were indeed mentally of the same age. I think judging Matthew as an adult because he's existed on this planet for 18 years, and not considering his mental age at all, is disingenous.

[Eric]

Yes, yes, and yes again. This kid got the shaft (sorry, terrible pun). Undeniably and extremely unfortunately. 15 months would be very bad (no, I do not wish to experience it) and 17 years is a crime against humanity.

I'll even withdraw my prior comment about how I would feel about it happening to my own kid. Upon further reflection I'd probably just never want to see the older kid again.

What I still firmly stand behind and what I find disingenuous is the author of the original story stretching the 14 year old to "almost 15," especially when he is developmentally disabled, and then lessen the 18 year old's responsibility because he too is developmentally disabled. One cannot have it both ways.

This case was blown out of proportion (also a bad pun) by right-wing puritanical prosecutors and judges. The 18 year old should not have been "made an example" by the courts but by the same token he should not be made an example with regard to anything else.

I'm not suggesting that the kid is some sort of Nazi (unlike Ann Coulter, who I believe might own a twisty cross or two). He should have got some counselling and a stern lecture about the age of consent - that's it.