“The statute subject to this challenge, commonly referred to as the Romeo and Juliet statute, applies to voluntary sexual intercourse, sodomy, or lewd touching when, at the time of the incident, (1) the victim is a child of 14 or 15; (2) the offender is less than 19 years of age and less than 4 years older than the victim; (3) the victim and offender are the only ones involved; and (4) the victim and offender are members of the opposite sex. K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 21-3522. Limon’s conduct meets all of the elements of the Romeo and Juliet statute except the one limiting application to acts between members of the opposite sex.”

So to say that the Kansas Supreme Court 1) ignored the law under which he was charged, and ruled unconstitional a second law under which he wasn’t charged seems inaccurate.

There also seems to be a bit of talking past each other on the notion of “consensual.” I don’t think anyone is saying that a 14-year-old, especially a retarded one, is capable of full consent to sex. That’s why there’s an age of consent. Still, there is a difference between a 14-year-old who says “Go ahead” and one who doesn’t. That is probably what the non-Steve parties to the discussion mean when they say this was “consensual.”

Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri are a single metropolitan area bisected by the state line:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=kansas+city&spn=0.118837,0.258316&hl=en

It may be blindingly obvious to you and the genuises over at Volokh, Steve, but humor me: Kindly back it up with something more than “because I said so,” if you don’t mind. I don’t find it obvious in the least.

“Children are by definition in their formative years” tells us absolutely nothing.

http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/supct/2005/20051021/85898.htm

To summarize it for you (though, since you ‘know the case’ presumably you already know where you were wrong below-this means you lied, n’est pas?).

“Steve- I don’t read Volokh on principle. But I know the case. It’s State v. Limon. And the facts are these:

1) Both boys are retarded. They lived in a state-run residence for developmentally disabled boys.

Correct

2) The boys were 18 and 15, not 19 and 14 – a 3-year difference, not 5.

The boys were 18 and 14. See the first few pages of the decision, linked above (you ‘know the case,’ so this was a knowing lie?)

3) Limon, the older boy, performed fellatio on the younger boy. He did not “rape” him.

I don’t know your age or gender, but if you ever perform oral sex on a developmentally disabled 14 year old girl, I would warrant you would be charged with ‘rape’ (or, its legal equivalent, sexual assault). Another lie, perhaps? And there is commentary on the Volokh Conspiracy suggesting that the younger boy complained, the man stopped, and the younger boy then complained to his parents. If this is true (and admittedly, I don’t know if it is), how is this not forcible assault (i.e. ‘rape’). Note that this skips the question of whether a 14 year old is capable consensual sex with an adult, much less a retarded 14 year old (of either sex).

4) The younger boy told investigators that the act was consensual. The state has never denied this.

See above. If it was consensual, how was a crime even determined-how was a charge even brought up? And, again-can a retarded 14 year old even offer consent?

5) Limon was charged with statutory rape, not forcible rape.

Limon was charged with sodomy, not statutory or forcible rape (another lie?)

6) If Limon had had any sort of sex with a girl no more than 4 years younger than himself, his maximum sentence would have been 15 months.

Limon was charged the extended time because of the circumstances of the case- this was the 3rd time he had been charged with ‘aggravated criminal sodomy’ (see the link with the discussion of the status of the defendent-he was a ‘Category B’ defendent because of the two prior convictions).

So Limon had been charged for criminal aggravated assault three times. Care to guess what the charge would have been for THREE convictions for the criminal aggravated assault against 14 year old girls? Retarded 14 year old girls? Do you know it would be 15 months?

(Mistakes or lies? There are so many of them, I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt-maybe you’re simply mistaken over and over and over…)

7) Limon was sentenced to 17 years in prison.
Your second one right.

8) The Kansas Supreme Court held that the sex of the victim could not be considered in determining the sentence of a defendant convicted of statutory rape.

Nope. As mentioned, Limon wasn’t charged with statutory rape-criminal sodomy. And the Romeo and Juliet law wasn’t even the law under which Limon was originally convicted (Romeo and Juliet Law is K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 21-3522). He was convicted for criminal sodomy (K.S.A. 21-3505(a)(2)). So again, he wasn’t even charged with statutory rape-it was criminal sodomy. The Kansas Supreme Court changed the law under which the defendant was charged in order to find that the sex of the victim could not be used in determining the length of the sentence. The Kansas Supreme Court also ignored the previous convictions of the defendent in orde to make the crime analogous to a Romeo and Juliet conviction. See the link for details.

So, the defendent was charged with one crime (his third conviction). In order to establish an equal protection problem (and throw out the conviction), the Kansas Supreme Court 1) ignored the law under which he was charged, and ruled unconstitional a second law under which he wasn’t charged, 2) ignored two previous convictions, and 3) ruled that sexual contact with a mentally disabled (‘retarded’) 14 year old is ‘consensual.’ This doesn’t even address the finding by a Kansas lower court (see the link) that same sex sexual abuse of minors is inherently more dangerous than opposite sex sexual abuse of minors, due to concerns with the immature sexual identity of 14- (retarded 14-)
year olds.

“So, Steve, the next time you want to get all huffy and self-righteous about something, how about knowing what the fuck you are talking about before you open your shitty little mouth.”

Please read the link. To review your mistakes: 1) the defendant was in fact 18, and the victim was in fact 14. 2) noone was charged under the Romeo and Juliet law. 3) Noone was charged with statutory rape. The defendant was charged with criminal sodomy. 4) In order to make it look like the case was just a ‘Romeo and Juliet’ Case, the Kansas Supreme Court ignored two previous convictions for criminal sodomy. 5) You, and the Kansas Supreme Court, are making the assumption that sexual consent is even possible for a retarded 14 year old (male or female). You probably don’t have children, and almost definitely don’t have ‘retarded’ children. 5) One finding of the lower court (that the Kansas Supreme Court overruled) was that same sex assault is be definition worse than opposite sex assault on children, due to the fact that children are by definition in their formative years (whether developmentally disabled or healthy). I find this statement utterly convincing-I would guess you do not. (to paraphrase a commentator on the Volokh Conspiracy-this is so obvious you’d have to be a lawyer or an academic to not see it).

So it sounds like the Kansas Supreme Court did exactly what I was suggesting-imposing its will on those pesky citizens/rubes in Kansas. They had to distort the facts of the case to do so (ignore the mental capacity of the victim, ignore the lower courts finding on relative harm by same-sex sexual assault, ignored the prior convictions of the defendent), they had to actually ignore the charges (criminal sodomy) and substitute a different law (the so-called Romeo and Juliet law), but by god, they made Kansas safe for pedophiles.

Note there are plenty of problems with the case-the most obvious being the question of whether a retarded 18-year old is capable of knowingly committing a crime. This seems an entirely reasonable means to attack the case. But the Kansas Supreme Court didn’t use it.

Please review the link. Then come back and use ‘fuck’ and ‘shitty’ again. It makes you sound wise.

Steve

I know, I know, this misses the point you were after, though. (Still, did CT really need a THIRD post on the Guiness ad?)

They put that on coffee cups? Blimey. “Hey, kid, your parents maybe didn’t want to have you. Ever thought about that before? Huh?” And it’s not as though your typical coffeeshop denizen is particularly high on self esteem anyway…

He wanted you alive and created you for a purpose.
Hmm. God as Boba Fett. “Will he live? He’s worth nothing to me dead.”

1) Both boys are retarded. They lived in a state-run residence for developmentally disabled boys.
2) The boys were 18 and 15, not 19 and 14 – a 3-year difference, not 5.
3) Limon, the older boy, performed fellatio on the younger boy. He did not “rape” him.
4) The younger boy told investigators that the act was consensual. The state has never denied this.
5) Limon was charged with statutory rape, not forcible rape.
6) If Limon had had any sort of sex with a girl no more than 4 years younger than himself, his maximum sentence would have been 15 months.
7) Limon was sentenced to 17 years in prison.
8) The Kansas Supreme Court held that the sex of the victim could not be considered in determining the sentence of a defendant convicted of statutory rape.

So, Steve, the next time you want to get all huffy and self-righteous about something, how about knowing what the fuck you are talking about before you open your shitty little mouth.

Well, you know, I started it, and I’m not sure I’ve ever even been to Kansas—I may have driven through once on my way to somewhere else about 20 years ago, but I’m not certain. I don’t have any kind of vested interest, anyway. (Though if I were going to defend Kansas City, I’d start with Charlie Parker, Barbecue, and “Mr Bridge” and “Mrs Bridge”—underappreciated works of genius, IMHO).

Anyway, my point, though, is that to float the idea that a commercial featuring evolution or a gay film would be beyond the pale everywhere in Kansas seems to me to display a lazy, simplemindedness that is supposed to characterize those bible-thumping knuckle-draggers on the other side rather than sophisticated, nuanced thinkers like the denizens of CT.

And sneering at Kansas in general not only ignores progressives there (of which I’m sure there are a non-trivial number), it seems to me that it tends to push Kansans in the middle in the opposite direction one might like them to move.

Derision for the creationists themselves? Yeah, OK. Sneering at the whole state as an irredeemable outpost of ‘Jesusland’? Nah.

…or start drinking better beer.

Steve