Huh?

To be honest, I don't understand the laws in this country. A boy gets 17 years of prison for having consensual sex with another boy (can you say homophobia quick enough) -- Sodomy law my ass (pardon the puns). If sodomy law is to be enforced, a lot of adults (straight, gay, whatever) are going to be in big trouble. Besides, are they going to arrest and jail all the teenage boys who have sex with teenage girls and get them pregnant? We'd better build a lot of prisons! No, because according to the article, the laws "allows" that under the "Romeo and Juiet" clause. Talk about hypocrites.

Even if there's such a law, the court and the judge show immense bigotry by enforcing it, and sentencing the boy not probation, not 18 months, not 2 years, but 17 years. And this boy is going to be tarnised forever as a sex offender by having oral sex with his boyfriend?

Meanwhile, child molesting priests go free...

Sometimes there are things in this country that make me sick to my stomach.

Thank God I don't live in Kansas.

If I may play devil's advocate for a moment, the Romeo & Juliet statute only applies if both parties are under 18 (ie neither is an adult).

It is illegal to bum your boyfriend or pets in Kansas even if you're all adults; however, the pertinent issue is Kansas Statute 21-3505(a)(2), which states that "sodomy with a child who is 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age" is a felony, unless you're a married couple. Doesn't matter whether you're gay, straight or a cauliflower.

In this instance, an 18-year-old indulged a 14-year-old. It's a cut and dried case, regardless of gender, and the penalty for an adult who has sex with a child in Kansas is a long time in jail.

three seven said:

In this instance, an 18-year-old indulged a 14-year-old. It's a cut and dried case, regardless of gender, and the penalty for an adult who has sex with a child in Kansas is a long time in jail.

Click to expand...

There are some very strange laws regarding sex in this country and many other countries: http://www.dribbleglass.com/subpages/strange/sexlaws.htm

I'm not sure how reliable these are, but check it out. For the record, I don't think a law stating adults shouldn't have sex with children is strange

In Georgia, a man was sentenced to five years in prison for engaging in oral sex. With his wife. With her consent. In their home.

Click to expand...

The fun is in imagining the scenario that led to the law being passed in the first place. Especially this one...

It is illegal for any member of the Nevada legislature to conduct official business wearing a penis costume while the legislature is in session.

Click to expand...

And I especially love the imagery here...

No female shall appear in a bathing suit on any highway within this state unless she be armed with a club.

Click to expand...

LOL, that's exactly what I was thinking when I read this:

It is illegal for any member of the Nevada legislature to conduct official business wearing a penis costume while the legislature is in session.

Click to expand...

Um, who did this... and WHY?

In terms of preventing older and younger youths going at it, not locking them up at night in the same dorm would be a start, methinks the younger kids should be in their own area.


But perhaps that is a whole other can of worms.

Yes, it is a whole other can of worms, but apparently

scullars said:

this law is based on homophobia than the need to protect children.

Click to expand...

so we needn't open it.

I would think a politician would be applauded for sporting such a costume since he'd be showing his consistuancy his true self.

Back to Kansas, did you know that state law doesn't consider a greyhound a dog? Reason: if you treated them humanely it'd cut into the dog track revenue.

Hmmm, does that mean we can date them?

three seven said:

If I may play devil's advocate for a moment, the Romeo & Juliet statute only applies if both parties are under 18 (ie neither is an adult).

It is illegal to bum your boyfriend or pets in Kansas even if you're all adults; however, the pertinent issue is Kansas Statute 21-3505(a)(2), which states that "sodomy with a child who is 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age" is a felony, unless you're a married couple. Doesn't matter whether you're gay, straight or a cauliflower.

In this instance, an 18-year-old indulged a 14-year-old. It's a cut and dried case, regardless of gender, and the penalty for an adult who has sex with a child in Kansas is a long time in jail.

Click to expand...

OK, I'll buy that, and I'd even go along and say "yeah, the kid is a predator" (rolling eyes) even though I still think 17 years is harsh for this case, for a 17yo kid -- his life is completely ruined... especially if they have been boyfriends since the kids are both under 18... could it be they arrest him AFTER he turned 18?

It's just weird.

And yeah, the man got sentenced for having oral sex with his wife. Sheesh. But the law is there: oral sex is considered sodomy, consenting or not.

Ray, you're missing the point. This took place when the elder boy was 18, and the younger boy 14. Adult and child, full stop. And from the article, it didn't sound to me like this had been an ongoing affair.

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.

Click to expand...

I was under the impression this was the first encounter, since the younger boy asked him to stop. But it could have been a repeat occurrence. Makes you wonder how he would have been treated had it happened a week earlier?

Well, I guess I don't know enough about the case to make any judgment. My impression is that they were both under 18 when they became lovers. The younger boy is 15, isn't he? But anyway, coming back to Scullar's original point -- there were real predators out there who got lesser sentences, and priests who got away for molesting boys and girls... and get maybe 5 years with probation. The judge who sentenced this boy to 17 years must have an axe to grind, don't you think?

Edit: just saw Sara's post. See... I think someone wants to get Matthew REALLY bad. They were lovers before Matthew turned 18. As soon as Matthew turned 18, they stopped. But it didn't stop them from arresting him and putting him away for 17 years.

Someone is definitely going after blood here (the younger boy's parents, perhaps?) I think they were waiting for him to turn 18 -- before then they couldn't do anything and the parents were probably desperate...

Ray, you're reading it wrong. M.A.R. asked Matthew to stop what he was doing, not to stop being his boyfriend because he'd turned 18. There's no indication whatsoever that they were in any kind of relationship.

And I'd also disagree with you in that even if I read Scullars' OP (and, indeed, yours) as a comment on the apparent disparity in the sentencing of paedophiles rather than an accusation of homophobia, the fact that he's 18 and doesn't hang around school gates is irrelevant. Whether or not he's a 'true predator', he broke a clearly-defined law and the sentence imposed falls within the bounds set for such an offense.

I really don't see the argument here.

maestrowork said:

I think they were waiting for him to turn 18 -- before then they couldn't do anything and the parents were probably desperate...

Click to expand...

This isn't the case either - the Romeo & Juliet statute only applies between heterosexual couples, so if Matthew was under 18 it would still be illegal. In fact, that statute only applies up to the age of consent between heterosexual couples, which is 16, so whichever way you look at it, there's no defence.

The gender issue, I can agree, is arguably unfair, but it has no bearing on the case.

I just see things as shades of grays, that's all. Again, we don't know what really goes on in and outside of that courthouse. But I think to say "he is going to jail for 17 years because he clearly broke a law" is simplicist and unfair. I don't see it as black and white and "end of discussion."

That's how I am, I suppose.

Many of us would be going to jail for things we do. For example, I think in PA there's still a sodomy law. I wonder how many people are going to go to jail for that...

maestrowork said:

I think in PA there's still a sodomy law. I wonder how many people are going to go to jail for that...

Click to expand...

Which PA are we talking about here?


Oh, and I agree, the law isn't always black and white. But where it involves an adult having sex with a child, I'm afraid I believe it is. I know if that were one of my kids, 17 years would be just the start of that guy's problems...

maestrowork said:

Many of us would be going to jail for things we do. For example, I think in PA there's still a sodomy law. I wonder how many people are going to go to jail for that...

Click to expand...

Indeed! How many of us are going to jail for this one?

In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania it is illegal to have sex with a truck driver inside a tollbooth.

Click to expand...

EDIT: Yes, Three. And with the younger boy being a 14 yr old, I can see how the parents would go after the strongest penalty. It's hard to judge this case without knowing all the facts (for me at least).

For the younger boy's parents, I can understand they want the toughest penalties (it doesn't matter if the boy consented or not -- the argument is that he wouldn't have known... of course, when I was 14, I knew what I was doing... )

For the older boy's parents, though, it's another story. Here you have your just-turned-18 son going to jail for 17 years. By the time he gets out, he would be 35 years old and FOREVER a sex offender. I wonder how we're going to think if he were one of our kids...

Is this fair? We could argue whether the 17-yo boy should know better, or whether the 14/15yo is all that innocent... we don't know, since we're not there.

I hope we'd spend more time on catching real pedophiles.

For the older boy's parents, though, it's another story. Here you have your just-turned-18 son going to jail for 17 years. By the time he gets out, he would be 35 years old and FOREVER a sex offender. I wonder how we're going to think if he were one of our kids....

Click to expand...

Right. 17 years is ludicrous. I'm not sure what kind of sentence, if any would be appropriate in this case. I wish we knew ALL the facts! I'm sure the parents will appeal the sentence, I know I would if he were my son.

I don't think it's a case of innocence. Really. 14 year olds today know what they're doing. As much as parents would like to think they don't, 14 year olds are doing some naughty sh!t.

I hope we'd spend more time on catching real pedophiles.

Click to expand...

Me, too.

I know I was, and I knew exactly what I was doing.

Seriously, here we are putting someone like him in jail for 17 years. Meanwhile, a 17yo who committed a murder would be tried as a juvenile and probably get away with a much milder sentence. Something is definitely wrong with our judicial system.

Well said, Scullars.

It's essentially this: there is absolutely NO way a straight man would receive so ridiculous a punishment for the same thing. He'd be punished, surely, for decorum's sake; but afterwards, I don't doubt the judge would invite him over for a beer and pat him on the back for baggin' a youngin'.

One might also keep in mind that (and I don't mean to generalize here, but this type of prejudice DOES exist) with the Marcus-Dixon case, in spite of his heterosexuality, the dude may have received that sort of sentence because it was an interracial thing.

I wouldn't exactly argue the complete veritability of such a supposition, but one should take that sort of thing into account, considering the world we live in.

Do you think it would have been different in either case, were both the participants heterosexual and white (if not at least the same ethnicity)?

Man, this drives me up the f**king wall. Why does everything have to come down to "because he's gay" or "because he's black" or whatever your particular agenda is this week? Like it or not, the justice system does not revolve around your ethnicity or sexuality. Plenty of straight white guys have spent decades in jail for crimes they didn't commit, and does the rest of the straight white world scream discrimination? No, of course not. We scream injustice along with everyone else.

Yes, 17 years is a harsh penalty and yes, he probably could have been prosecuted under some misdemeanor and served a week and a half, but the fact remains that if you don't want to do the time, you've always got the option of not doing the crime.

For every crime on the statute books, there is a maximum sentence that the judge can hand down. If the maximum for having sex with an emotionally challenged minor is 17 years, so be it.

And Ray, a 17-year-old being tried as a juvenile is entirely irrelevant. Please get it out of your head that the defendant in this case was 17 years old - he was not, no matter how many times you say he was!

FFS, am I the only one who sees an adult sucking a child's **** here? Does it have to be photographed and plastered across the internet before anyone sees a problem with it? Boy or girl, a 14-year-old is a vulnerable creature, no matter how much they might think they know what they're doing. And all your wink-wink-nudge-nudge comments, Ray, are in unbelievably poor taste.

In Coral Gables, FL there was law that prohibited more than 3 unrelated women to share a home (a free standing structure, apartments were okay); reason: it promoted prostitution. That law made it impossible for sorority houses to exist at UM, despite the fact that there were many fraternity houses. Silly, isn't it.

I would like to be able to agree with those who say the sentence of 17 years was too harsh, for it certainly will ruin his life. The question is, however, would that sentence be too harsh for a 40-year old who had "consensual sex" with a 14 year old? I personally don't think so. But can we differntiate crimes by ages beyond the adult/child dichotomy? Talk about a can of worms! Of course, what's good for the goose...if adults who are just barely so are subjected to the full sentencing guidelines, then it would be consistent to claim that children should never be tried as adults, no matter how close they are to their birthday of legality.

Just my 3 cents,
Rob