Page 1 of 2
Blow me Oklahoma
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:38 am
by Gob
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appeals court, is sparking outrage among critics who say the judicial system was engaged in victim-blaming and buying outdated notions about rape.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.”
Benjamin Fu, the Tulsa County district attorney leading the case, said the ruling had him “completely gobsmacked”.
Re: Blow me Oklahoma
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:52 am
by Scooter
You can't blame the court if the words of the statute don't encompass the actions at issue. That's something for the Oklahoma legislature to fix, if it weren't otherwise occupied
threatening the livelihood of doctors who perform abortions.
Re: Blow me Oklahoma
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:53 pm
by Big RR
If the judge gave a correct reading of the statute Scooter (and he may well have), I agree with you.
Re: Blow me Oklahoma
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:20 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
Where are those fine legal words "including but not limited to:" when you need them?
Re: Blow me Oklahoma
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:39 pm
by Sue U
This is some complete and total bullshit. The statute defines "forcible sodomy" as occurring where the victim is "incapable through mental illness or any unsoundness of mind of giving legal consent." See 21 OK Stat § 21-888v2. Someone who is intoxicated to the point of unconsciousness is clearly incapable of giving legal consent. The court's ruling gives free rein to perverts to abuse anyone incapacitated by alcohol or drugs, as well as comatose patients and those with injuries or other conditions rendering them unconscious. There was absolutely no need for the court to reach such an absurd and frankly cruel result.
Re: Blow me Oklahoma
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:04 pm
by Scooter
I don't know, I can see the court's reasoning. "Unsoundness of mind" suggests something very different to me than intoxication and/or unconsciousness. I would prefer that the statute be written more expansively i.e. "incapable of giving legal consent", period, without the qualifications, but that is not what the legislature did.
And, to be clear, I am someone who believes that intoxication vitiates consent to sexual activity. I just wish that the statute in this instance did not choose to specify only certain situations where consent is vitiated in a way that allowed for the exclusion of others.
Re: Blow me Oklahoma
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:31 pm
by Big RR
Sue--
Someone who is intoxicated to the point of unconsciousness is clearly incapable of giving legal consent.
But as Scooter said, is the incapacity to consent due to an "unsoundness of mind". I think we would have to see how the OK courts have construed the statute, but I doubt the courts have construed intoxication as creating an "unsoundness of mind" (and wonder whether such an interpretation would open the door to using intoxication as a defense to other crimes).
I agree it should not be permitted, but I also think this might be a case where the statute just doesn't cover it. ay least that's the reasoning I think the judge used. I would hope the legislature amends the law quickly.
ETA:
The court's ruling gives free rein to perverts to abuse anyone incapacitated by alcohol or drugs, as well as comatose patients and those with injuries or other conditions rendering them unconscious.
I agree on the alcohol and the drugs, but would think a court might view unconsciousness due to a medical condition/injury as being due to an unsoundness of mind.
Re: Blow me Oklahoma
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:34 pm
by Sue U
I don't think the statute actually limits the crime in the way you suggest. Here's
a link to the statute. It specifically says, in relevant part:
B. The crime of forcible sodomy shall include:
***
2. Sodomy committed upon a person incapable through mental illness or any unsoundness of mind of giving legal consent regardless of the age of the person committing the crime; or
***
The statutory definition includes "
any unsoundness of mind" rendering a person incapable of giving legal consent. Whether that "unsoundness" is due to disease, injury, intoxication or any other causative factor is not specified as a limitation; in fact, the very wording of the statute suggests the opposite: "mental illness
or any unsoundness." Use of the disjunctive "or" would reasonably mean any and all causative factors
other than mental illness. What kind of "unsoundness" does it suggest to you that falls outside the facts of this case?
Re: Blow me Oklahoma
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:44 pm
by Big RR
Sue, from a 1996 OK case, Statler v OK, ct crim app.
http://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/co ... 11672.html
in discussing first degree rape (which has essentially the same language):
"Clearly, the term "unsoundness of mind" is limited to those situations in which the victim is either a mentally ill person or a mentally deficient person. The term does not contemplate those situations in which a victim is unable to consent simply because of unconsciousness. "
Indeed, the case goes on to state that there is a second degree rape statute that is designed to cover other unconscious situations, and said rape of an unconscious person is not first degree rape. Why the sodomy statute doesn't contain the same language is beyond me.
I have not checked the case any further, but it came up quickly in a simple google search.
Re: Blow me Oklahoma
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:10 pm
by Sue U
"Clearly, the term "unsoundness of mind" is limited to those situations in which the victim is either a mentally ill person or a mentally deficient person. The term does not contemplate those situations in which a victim is unable to consent simply because of unconsciousness. "
Again, that is some total bullshit right there, because under the statutory definition, "unsoundness of mind" specifically does NOT include a mentally ill person; mental illness is explicitly noted as something other than "any [other] unsoundness." If the plain language of "any unsoundness" is being defined by the court as "only some congenital pathology resulting in mental deficiency," then the problem is with the court, not the statute.
Re: Blow me Oklahoma
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:33 pm
by Big RR
Perhaps, but it is the law in Oklahoma at least since 1996 and the judge is bound by it; it would be far better for the legislature to amend the sodomy law to reflect unconsciousness the way it did with the rape law. You know, better to light a candle...
Re: Blow me Oklahoma
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:58 pm
by Long Run
This is one time it makes sense that people are flying off the panhandle over a stupid law.
Re: Blow me Oklahoma
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 5:20 pm
by Joe Guy
I agree. It's unacceptable that a judge ruled that it's Okie to have sex with an unconscious person.
Re: Blow me Oklahoma
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 5:21 pm
by Big RR
No, that would be second degree rape; but it is not a crime to sodomize an unconscious person. You just can't make these things up.
Re: Blow me Oklahoma
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 5:24 pm
by Scooter
The question is whether the judge (actually judges, the trial judge and a unanimous appeals court) should have ruled it a crime when it does not appear at all clear that the legislature intended it to be one.,
Re: Blow me Oklahoma
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 5:24 pm
by Long Run
The sooner the legislature fixes this, the better.
Re: Blow me Oklahoma
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 5:26 pm
by Scooter
Once they get done with trying to legislate women into perpetual incubators, they might decide to get around to it.
Re: Blow me Oklahoma
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 5:29 pm
by Long Run
Things usually don't happen quickly when you're living on Tulsa time.
Re: Blow me Oklahoma
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 5:31 pm
by Big RR
Especially when you want to turn time backwards.
Re: Blow me Oklahoma
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 5:54 pm
by Sue U
All joking aside, this is all kinds of fucked up. Does anyone with two or more functioning brain cells seriously believe the Oklahoma legislature actually intended that forcing oral sex on an unconscious person should be excluded from its criminal code? Or that the statute is actually written so narrowly as to truly doubt whether it is within the scope of prohibited conduct? This is just wrong wrong wrong stupid stupid wrong.