Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
Sign in to follow this  
MarblesMom

Oklahoma Court Decision on Forcible Sodomy -(merged)

Recommended Posts

MarblesMom

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

Here is the article that just left me stunned.  To sum up, a teenage girl was drunk, passed out, and a teenage boy orally raped her.  He was charged and a judge said the state's law on consent/rape doesn't cover oral offenses.

This IS 2016, right?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
libriatrix

After reading the article it sounds like they didn't say the law didn't cover oral offenses but that they said the law didn't cover intoxication making someone unable to consent. I'm bringing this detail up for accuracy, not because it makes the situation any less appalling! 

It's really disgusting that anyone could suggest that someone passed out drunk with no memories after the fact was somehow able to consent to sex, rather than acknowledging that she was sexually assaulted by someone who took advantage of her vulnerable condition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AmazonGrace

The highest criminal court in the state of Oklahoma has ruled that oral sex cannot be classified as rape if an individual is drunk and unconscious.

The decision came after a girl, 16, filed charges against a 17-year-old when a sexual assault examination performed on her at a hospital following a night of heavy drinking found the boy's DNA around her mouth and on the back of her leg.

The girl's blood alcohol level at the time was .34, more than four times the legal limit for driving a vehicle.

Testimony from other teenagers that night said the girl was drunk and stumbling and that two individuals had to carry her to the defendant's car.

The defendant later admitted that the girl performed oral sex on him saying it was her idea. The girl told police she could not remember anything that happened that night. 

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals said in a unanimous decision that '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.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3563972/Oklahoma-court-declares-forced-oral-sex-NOT-rape-person-drunk-passed-ruling-against-girl-16-filed-charges-against-alleged-attacker.html#ixzz47EM823k7
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on FacebookInsert image from URL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doggie

The problem is the wording is wrong and needs fixed. So hopfully they can fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzzard

The opinion is here:

http://www.ocdw.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/State-v.-RZM.pdf

They do not address rape in any way, the issue is the 5 very specific elements required for the offense of forcible sodomy.  

Quote

B. The crime of forcible sodomy shall include:

1. Sodomy committed by a person over eighteen (18) years of age upon a person under sixteen (16) years of age; or

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

3. Sodomy accomplished with any person by means of force, violence, or threats of force or violence accompanied by apparent power of execution regardless of the age of the victim or the person committing the crime; or

4. Sodomy committed by a state, county, municipal or political subdivision employee or a contractor or an employee of a contractor of the state, a county, a municipality or political subdivision of this state upon a person who is under the legal custody, supervision or authority of a state agency, a county, a municipality or a political subdivision of this state; or

5. Sodomy committed upon a person who is at least sixteen (16) years of age but less than twenty (20) years of age and is a student of any public or private secondary school, junior high or high school, or public vocational school, with a person who is eighteen (18) years of age or older and is employed by the same school system.

They need to amend their statute, subsection 2, to include lack of consciousness or add a new subsection entirely on incapacity.  It seems silly to have to include that, but when you particularize elements of a crime you have to meet them.  The way its written, the court is correct in it's ruling.

The defendant was charged with rape in addition to the forcible sodomy, so I presume that charge will proceed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Letgo

What happens in cases where both people are drunk? What if neither has clear memories of what occurred?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzzard

It appears that the legislature intends to amend the statute.

http://www.okhouse.gov/Members/ShowStory.aspx?MediaNewsID=5137

Quote


OKLAHOMA CITY – In light of a Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to refuse to interpret forcible sodomy in cases where the victim is unconscious, state Rep. Scott Biggs is planning to amend his legislation to define forcible sodomy in a way that includes unconscious victims.

“I am horrified by the idea that we would allow these depraved rapists to face a lower charge simply because the victim is unconscious,” said Biggs, R-Chickasha. “I think the judges made a grave error, but if they need more clarification, we are happy to give it to them by fixing the statute. Unfortunately, legal minds often get stuck on questions of semantics, when it is clear to most of us what the intent of the law is.” 

House Bill 2398 requires the Department of Corrections to give notice of the date of release or date of anticipated release of an inmate to the service provider designated by the Attorney General of the Oklahoma Victim Information and Notification Everyday (VINE) service not less than 5 days prior to the release of the inmate. The Department of Corrections is prohibited from releasing the inmate to the community until notification has been provided to VINE.

Biggs said he will remove the current language and replace it to expand the definition of forcible sodomy. In order to do so he will have to reject Senate amendments to the bill and send it to conference committee.

“It was a good bill, but I want to avoid any questions coming up related to logrolling,” Biggs said. “While I felt like a tweak to victim notification was needed, ensuring our laws contain adequate consequences for rapists is simply a higher priority.”

So it sounds like he's just going to delete a victim notification bill and rewrite a statute?  That seems like this will just make a much bigger mess.

2 minutes ago, Letgo said:

What happens in cases where both people are drunk? What if neither has clear memories of what occurred?

Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to any criminal act.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Letgo
On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 10:06 AM, Buzzard said:

Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to any criminal act.  

No, it isn't. But, if the woman is drunk and cannot give informed consent to a sexual act, what about the man? If he is also drinking and neither can recall quite what happened, could a man ever say that he was coerced? What if the man is drinking and the woman isn't? Is he capable of consent? Does the sex of the participant/victim have an influence under the laws?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Petrel
2 hours ago, Letgo said:

No, it isn't. But, if the woman is drunk and cannot give informed consent to a sexual act, what about the man? If he is also drinking and neither can recall quite what happened, could a man ever say that he was coerced? What if the man is drinking and the woman isn't? Is he capable of consent? Does the sex of the participant/victim have an influence under the laws?

Under the law, no.  Under the double standard where it's either considered impossible or humorous for men to be raped, most men would not go to the police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzzard
13 hours ago, Petrel said:

Under the law, no.  Under the double standard where it's either considered impossible or humorous for men to be raped, most men would not go to the police.

It depends on the state. For the most part "rape" is defined as "carnal knowledge" of a female or penetration of a female sex organ without HER consent.  The FBI redefined rape in 2012 from the "carnal knowledge" language and about half the states have amended their statutes to redefine rape to allow a man to be a legal victim, as well as same sex rape.  

Per the FBI:

Quote

Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.