Topic: Oklahoma court: oral sex is not rape if victim is unconscious from drinking (Read 611 times)

Lol it is not right and its not good because it was still an abuse even though it was just an oral sex it doesnt even mean that the girl that drunk is giving a permission to a man to do that . It is wrong because of that most of the guy will take advantage on a girl that is influenced by an alcohol and gets too much drunked .

Losing in court when nobody was injured or harmed, and when there was no damage to the property of anyone, is rape by the court.

   Well to use our "common sense" yes, they are right, it is not a rape case.  And she just agreed to what the boy wants to do with her.  Atleast the boy asked permission.  And what if the girl's mouth is wide open at that time cause she was so drunk and unconscious.  lol

I can't help but think that this decision might should be tested on the members of the appeals court who made the decision.  Maybe have a couple state troopers standing around to insure that your rights to non-rape of the Justices was upheld?

Hey, invite them in on the fun, too.

Hmmm... this decision seems to me like a guaranteed free ride for all wannabe and practising rapists. Perhaps we'll see the emergence of rape-tourism in Oklahoma. That will be good for the local economy, I guess :/.

My point, exactly. However, we don't need legal code as much as we need people filing claims for wrongdoing against other people. Why?

We could get away with having almost no law whatsoever if everyone filed a lawful claim in court against everyone who wronged him. Soon, the people would come to understand what right and wrong was, and they would do what was right without the legal code. In addition, the juries would learn about jury nullification, and they would put down any legal code - like the stupid Oklahoma one - that did wrong to people.



EDIT: As it is, the lawyers in OK will scramble to adjust the code so that people don't go to the juries for relief, so the juries don't find out about jury nullification.

Why shouldn't the juries find out about jury nullification? Because if they do, they will do away with the legal code, government will lose a ton of its control, judges and attorneys and Congress will lose a lot of money, the people will find out how to stop paying IRS taxes by jury nullification, the Federal Reserve Bank will collapse, our soldiers from around the world will come home, and there will be peace and prosperity for all, especially America.

The title is misleading. The problem here is a poorly written law, not that Oklahoma thinks raping drunk women in the mouth is ok. The law needs to be amended to include such situations instead of defining it only "by force".

From a legal standpoint, no. The laws have to be followed literally. If they are not, anyone can interpret anything into the laws. And none of us would like other people trampling on our rights by interpreting things into the laws that were not written there.

In this case, you will find that the legal codes were simply inadequate for the job. Nobody conceived of something like this happening when they wrote the legal codes. The legal codes were not written adequately because of this. The thing that should be changed is the wording of the codes so that this doesn't happen again in the future.

As I said above, the girl - or her parents - if she has been harmed or damaged, can take the boy - or his parents - to court with a lawful claim of wrongdoing - harm or damage. The legal end of things would only judge based on the claim of harm or damage, not on legal code. A jury trial could be required, as allowed by the 6th and 7th Amendments (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment and https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/seventh_amendment), and you and I know exactly what the jury would decide.

this is too ridiculous to handle .. rape is rape whether you are councious or not.. you are sexually abused so rapist must be punished over his horrible actions for sure..

I think that ruling occured because she was intoxicated .34 is high, and she had consent to being intoxicated and plus they were minors maybe detention would be ok. And i think the girl and the boy will go to rehab??.

And the title is misleading.

So if a girl is drunk, you're allowed to stick your dick in her mouth? That doesn't sounds right. Although, in the case mentioned above, it is possible that she did agree to give bj(possibly under the influence) but later denied to escape the embarrassment?

where's the harm if she doesnt remember it

The point is that you can't depend on the government and the court and the attorney to give you justice. You need to file a claim of wrongdoing against the guy, and let a jury decide who is right. In your claim, make your rules of court to state that the judge is simply a moderator of the court, and can make no decisions regarding the case. Why? Because State law, as has been shown, doesn't cover the wrongdoing. Let the jury decide.

Really? unless the victim enjoys it probably the court will just close the case.

Thus, rapist would give the victims sleeping pills in able to get their victims 

Oklahoma court: oral sex is not rape if victim is unconscious from drinking

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/27/oral-sex-rape-ruling-tulsa-oklahoma-alcohol-consent

<< An Oklahoma court has stunned local prosecutors with a declaration that state law doesn’t criminalize oral sex with a victim who is completely unconscious. The ruling, a unanimous decision by the state's criminal appeals court, is sparking outrage among critics who say the judicial system was engaged in victim-blaming and buying outdated notions about rape. But legal experts and victims' advocates said they viewed the ruling as a sign of something larger: the troubling gaps that still exist between the nation's patchwork of laws and evolving ideas about rape and consent.

The case involved allegations that a 17-year-old boy assaulted a girl, 16, after volunteering to give her a ride home. The two had been drinking in a Tulsa park with a group of friends when it became clear that the girl was badly intoxicated. Witnesses recalled that she had to be carried into the defendant's car. Another boy, who briefly rode in the car, recalled her coming in and out of consciousness. The boy later brought the girl to her grandmother’s house. Still unconscious, the girl was taken to a hospital, where a test put her blood alcohol content above .34. She awoke as staff were conducting a sexual assault examination.

Tests would later confirm that the young man's DNA was found on the back of her leg and around her mouth. The boy claimed to investigators that the girl had consented to performing oral sex. The girl said she didn't have any memories after leaving the park. Tulsa County prosecutors charged the young man with forcible oral sodomy. But the trial judge dismissed the case. And the appeals court ruling, on 24 March, affirmed that prosecutors could not apply the law to a victim who was incapacitated by alcohol.

"Forcible sodomy cannot occur where a victim is so intoxicated as to be completely unconscious at the time of the sexual act of oral copulation", the decision read. Its reasoning, the court said, was that the statute listed several circumstances that constitute force, and yet was silent on incapacitation due to the victim drinking alcohol. "We will not, in order to justify prosecution of a person for an offense, enlarge a statute beyond the fair meaning of its language." >>