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

[axelord157]

[URL="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/27/oral-sex-rape-ruling-tulsa-oklahoma-alcohol-consent"]SOURCE[/URL]

[QUOTE]An [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/oklahoma"]Oklahoma[/URL] court has stunned local prosecutors with a declaration that state law doesn’t criminalize oral sex with a victim who is completely unconscious. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]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appeals court, is sparking outrage among critics who say the judicial system was engaged in victim-blaming and buying outdated notions about rape.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]“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.”[/QUOTE]

WHAT THE FUCK. This is a dangerous precedent.

[fpro]

Leaving Oklahoma was one of, if not the best decision of my life.

[sb27]

[QUOTE=axelord157;50216557][URL="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/27/oral-sex-rape-ruling-tulsa-oklahoma-alcohol-consent"]SOURCE[/URL]

WHAT THE FUCK. This is a dangerous precedent.[/QUOTE]

A precedent that will be overridden by a higher court.

Edit:

The court said it won't make this a precedent, so that it won't stand when the rape crime legislation is updated.

[Govna]

Ah Oklahoma, you're still terrible I see.

[AntonioR]

Well, you can't blame them if the law is not written properly. The law is just a bunch of words on a paper open for interpretation, it has nothing to do with justice or what is right.

[proboardslol]

Yo fuck you Oklahoma Court, and fuck you Oklahoma legislature for that gross oversight. What the fuck are they paying either of you for?

[WEGADRIVE]

ill pay someone back if they can buy me a plain ticket out of this state :v:

[Mr. Someguy]

[quote]An Oklahoma court has stunned local prosecutors with a declaration that [u]state law doesn’t criminalize[/u] oral sex with a victim who is completely unconscious.[/quote]

I don't see why everyone's blaming the court, all they did was say "this is technically not against the law". They don't make the law, they interpret and enforce it. Blame their legislators for leaving this horrible loophole in their sexual abuse laws.

[Flak]

I'm realizing there are more Oklahomans on Facepunch because of something awful.

[Chonch]

[QUOTE=axelord157;50216557]WHAT THE FUCK. This is a dangerous precedent.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]“We will not...enlarge a statute beyond the fair meaning of its language.”[/QUOTE]
The point of the ruling is to not set a precedent by making a decision either way. The law here is murky and undefined, and the court is simply choosing to take on a strict interpretation. Is the effect deplorable? Perhaps.

[FunnyGamer]

Nice title, you're really on a roll axelord.

[vnc]

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;50217025]Nice title, you're really on a roll axelord.[/QUOTE]

That is, verbatim, the title of the article

[GarrettFox]

The courts point out these holes in legislation in order to get them fixed. They are, by design, bound by the law.

This is, as fucked up as it sounds, the system operating as intended. I imagine it will be addressed without fanfare at the next opportunity.

[FunnyGamer]

[QUOTE=QUILTBAG;50217167]That is, verbatim, the title of the article[/QUOTE]

Whoops! Clicked through and scrolled too fast. Sorry.

[AnonymaPizza]

[QUOTE=false prophet;50216611]Leaving Oklahoma was one of, if not the best decision of my life.[/QUOTE]

Pour me out a glass. I've been trying to leave for years now.

[sadpineapple]

what the fuck is this ass-backwards ruling?
[QUOTE]"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"[/QUOTE]
WHAT
[B]WHAT[/B]

im gonna kick every ass responsible for this shit
ALL OF THEM ARE GOING TO CATCH THESE HANDS

[matt000024]

don't blame the ruling, they're just doing their job. blame the stupid ass legislators that left this loophole in lmao.

[GordonZombie]

Well this is a loophole which needs to be amended quickly.

[Zeke129]

Since Oklahoma legislators are apparently braindead, does that mean people can just go blow them now?

[Zolofto]

[QUOTE=Zeke129;50217582]Since Oklahoma legislators are apparently braindead, does that mean people can just go blow them now?[/QUOTE]

I think this is what they want

[Ravenholme]

Oof, okay, I was prepared to put on my moral outrage hat and ride in to berate the lawmakers but I actually see what the problem is now.

It isn't legally rape by the definition currently in law, which is all that they're saying. Hence all the stuff about not using it to set a precedent, it seems they're instead hoping to use the case instead to point out that this loophole needs closing.

Distasteful, but not the court's fault, just the law needing bringing up to date.

[Chaitin]

That loophole could have easily been fixed by the court. They are common law judges for god sake (american judges and their obsession with strict interpretation).

[Gook Nukem]

[QUOTE=Chaitin;50220608]That loophole could have easily been fixed by the court. They are common law judges for god sake (american judges and their obsession with strict interpretation).[/QUOTE]

Strict interpretation is the best way to go. The only problem with this is vague legislation.

[Tools]

I'd think being fucked in the face would be a more horrifying way of rape than being plowed down below..
Imagine waking up to that, still uncontrollably drunk and now barely able to breath because some creep is forcing himself down your throat..

utterly disgusting ruling from the law.

[soulharvester]

[QUOTE=Chaitin;50220608]That loophole could have easily been fixed by the court. They are common law judges for god sake (american judges and their obsession with strict interpretation).[/QUOTE]

It is the judges job to interpret law, not to write it. By making it a glaring issue they pave the road to a swift amending of the law through the proper process.

[That Deer]

Ok, so it's not rape, but it's still illegal, right?

Right?

[Map in a box]

It'd be a misuse of power if they said otherwise but they're likely(well, this article is an example) bringing it up as a want for change

[Sableye]

[QUOTE=soulharvester;50223759]It is the judges job to interpret law, not to write it. By making it a glaring issue they pave the road to a swift amending of the law through the proper process.[/QUOTE]

You would think so but conservatives have torpedoed more important stuff for less

This is the state that brought us Jim inhofe

[Harley!]

You'll be safe unless you like to get blackout drunk every day.

And if you do, you deserve whatever you get.

[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Gmmick Account" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

[Katska]

[QUOTE=Harley!;50225382]And if you do, you deserve whatever you get.[/QUOTE]

No.

There is absolutely no circumstance in which rape is acceptable, and it is with extreme regret that I find myself in yet another situation where I have to tell this to another human being.

[editline]29th April 2016[/editline]

I hope you're trolling