Matthew Limon Freed

[Trojan]

Matthew Limon, convicted of sodomy involving a minor was freed from a 17 year prison sentence in Kansas after serving 5 years for engaging in sodomy with a 14 year old boy at a home for the mentally disabled. Limon was 18 at the time of the incident and was also a resident of the home. The reactionaries in the state government disregarded the "Romeo & Juliet" law for Limon because the act was homosexual. The law states persons that are close in age, but straddling the legal age for sex are given a repreive from heavy sentencing. That is for heterosexuals only. If Limon had bedded a 14 year old girl he would have recieved 15months in jail, not 17 years in a maximum security prison. Christians and conservatives pressed for an even longer sentence for Limon but lost as the state supreme court ruled he was wrongfully given a much longer sentence solely because he is homosexual. Limon was released to his family tonight in western Kansas. No doubt there will be an effort by the Cotton Mather Troupe running the state to burn him at stake. I'm interested in what you all think. I wish I knew how to post articles but if you google his name more information is available.

[Trojan]

www.thekansascitychannel.com has coverage of the case. (Their story is before his release tonight.)

[wildernesse]

I think that besides the homosexual angle, people are also probably uncomfortable with the idea of mentally disabled people having sexual relations of any type. Historically, we have not been very open to "feeble-minded" people having control of any type over their sexuality.

[Ensign Steve]

I'm not usually one to deflect personal accountability, but isn't one of the points of living in a home for the mentally disabled that there is some sort of supervision? Possibly the boys were young lovers; if so, good for them. But if the older one was a sexual predator who supposedly deserved 15 years in prison, why wasn't the young, mentally challenged victim protected from such abuse by his caretakers?

[Adora]

Whilst I think jailtime was appropriate, I don't believe in the discrimination shown here between sexual acts deemed "heterosexual" and those deemed otherwise.

[viscousmemories]

I spent some time last night reading various articles on this subject at the ACLU. They have a lot of info given that they've been fighting the case for a few years.

This case background they have there hasn't been updated to reflect his victory yet, and it touches on the constitutional basis for the defense.

I don't know enough about this specific case to give an opinion on it, but I believe in equal protection for gays.

[livius drusus]

Go back to Russia, pinko.

[viscousmemories]

[Trojan]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

I'm not usually one to deflect personal accountability, but isn't one of the points of living in a home for the mentally disabled that there is some sort of supervision? Possibly the boys were young lovers; if so, good for them. But if the older one was a sexual predator who supposedly deserved 15 years in prison, why wasn't the young, mentally challenged victim protected from such abuse by his caretakers?

I see your points about possible lack of supervision and the motives of the older boy. It could be the younger one was the instigator. A single act of oral sex turns into a 17 year sentence! The case has been all over the news in this area with cheesy local news crews asking militant Christians what THEY think, and then asking gay bar patrons what THEY think. It boils down to institutionalized discrimination against gays imo and it's a good thing he's finally been freed. Now prepare for picketing at the family home to resume by the Christian Fred Phelps and his church of haters in Topeka.

[Trojan]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I spent some time last night reading various articles on this subject at the ACLU. They have a lot of info given that they've been fighting the case for a few years.

This case background they have there hasn't been updated to reflect his victory yet, and it touches on the constitutional basis for the defense.

I don't know enough about this specific case to give an opinion on it, but I believe in equal protection for gays.

I was hoping someone would find more material on this case than I could find. Local news just plays the extreme views in the story. Thanks for the info.

[Talulah]

I read a lot about this case when it first came out publically. Apparently, the 14 yo at first said it was consentual, then he changed his story later on. Mathew Limon had been caught doing much the same before with other boys before, but the evidence suggests that he and the younger boy were going at it consentually. Both boys are mentally retarded. Seems like I read one time he operated on a 13-14 age level. I am not sure about the estimated age level of the younger one.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by Trojan

I see your points about possible lack of supervision and the motives of the older boy. It could be the younger one was the instigator. A single act of oral sex turns into a 17 year sentence!

My actual point (which I knew was completely unclear when I originally posted) is that they punished the wrong guy. I think "society" (to use a conveniently broad brush) was wrong to so severely punish the 18-year-old, mentally disabled boy, and leave the home completely off the hook. The moral outrage is like totally misplaced. If the victim was injured in any other way due to the neglect of his caretakers, "society" would have held the home accountable. But since it was the big, bad, (teenaged, disabled) sodomite, it's pretty obvious where the moral outrage is going to end up. Unfortunately.

[Trojan]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

My actual point (which I knew was completely unclear when I originally posted) is that they punished the wrong guy. I think "society" (to use a conveniently broad brush) was wrong to so severely punish the 18-year-old, mentally disabled boy, and leave the home completely off the hook. The moral outrage is like totally misplaced. If the victim was injured in any other way due to the neglect of his caretakers, "society" would have held the home accountable. But since it was the big, bad, (teenaged, disabled) sodomite, it's pretty obvious where the moral outrage is going to end up. Unfortunately.

The oldest kid had engaged in homo activity before. Who knows how many people with all sorts of problems are inside that facility but if I had a child in that place and he was exposed to a person with a history of PREYING on younger males I would be livid and the facility would feel the wrath of me and state investigators. But he was not preying on the other kid. It was consensual and the story only changed after the youngest kid was coached into saying otherwise, then re-election hungry prosecutors, rancid conservative politicians and religious militants could use the case to advance their agenda. An agenda based on theocratic dictatorship. Gays are a widely despised and easy target in these parts. I believe Limon is due significant compensation for the years that were stolen from him. I also think the prosecutor in this case should be disbarred and fined into poverty. (With the money going to PFLAG!)

[viscousmemories]

I was just looking for another old thread, and found this one on the subject of Matthew Limon's conviction.