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

[WEGADRIVE]

[QUOTE=AnonymaPizza;50217217]Pour me out a glass. I've been trying to leave for years now.[/QUOTE]

What up, oklahomo. (It's wegadrive)

[GisG56]

Although this sucks, Oklahoma seems to be one of those states who are constantly changing their laws, therefore there is hope for a reform on this law. In addition, people can always make a petition. Tbh in my eyes, I see oral sex as a type of sexual assault. I've only linked the word "rape" to actual sex or attempt to force full sex onto someone. This may be wrong idea to have, and if it is, then I should change that. But sexual assault and rape are just as serious as eachother in my eyes. They're both territory that should not be entered, and the law should work to protect victims.

[DogGunn]

[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]

100% agree with your statement.

If such a law was worded as poorly in Australia, the courts don't take such a rigid view of it, and instead look to see what the intention of the law would be.

The idea that oral sex cannot be rape if the victim is unconscious is a non-sense result of the true intention of the law.

I don't blame the courts though. It's the American way to take such a stupidly strict interpretation.

[Kigen]

So, just to update some people.

This was just a overzealous prosecutor trying to tack on sodomy charges. The guy was probably charged with [url=http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69615]sexual battery 21 O.S. § 1123 (b)[/url] (10 years) and a slew of other charges.

[url]http://www.snopes.com/oklahoma-court-rape-ruling/[/url]
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efpUb1-7hoc[/url]

So basically, they blew the actual facts out of context to push their agenda. Because if someone wants to charge someone else with a crime it should be the right statute.

Appeal court ruling:
[url]http://www.ocdw.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/State-v.-RZM.pdf[/url]

Due to the underage status of the defendant, its very hard to see if he was actually convicted of the correct statute.

[Deunan]

[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]
Seems more like a badly written law. As sine lege scripta, stricta et praevia is a very significant cornerstone of criminal law.

[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]

And this is bloody criminal law where interpretation should only be done in favour of the defendant.