• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Oklahoma court rules it's legal to "forcibly sodomize" someone if they're unconscious

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

elrechazado

Banned
Dan said:
So it's a free-for-all to commit forcible sodomy in ways not explicitly described in this legislation?

Good job, assholes.
Click to expand...
In a word, yes. Criminal law is designed to be specific as to provide notice to society of prohibited acts. Generally, conduct that is not explicitly illegal is not punishable. I'm not an expert on this law, but I lost many cases against clearly morally guilty people who were legally not guilty. Murderers go free all the time under the same logic. In this case it seems very clear that the legislature left a glaring gap that doesn't address a need that we have in society to criminalize abhorrent rapist behavior. If it is true that they did not, then it is the way our system is rightly set up that a morally guilty and corrupt person must go free.

Too bad mob justice isn't a thing anymore however. What a scumbag.
 
D

DavidDesu

Member
Could probably give someone a drink filled with poison and since no force was used it isn't murder.

Honestly this ruling just seems.... Like everyone involved is a fucking date rapist or date rape apologist. What the fucking hell.
 
P

PlayALLtheGames

Banned
So I guess just pass another law that makes taking advantage illegal as well and ask this stupid fucking court if that's clear enough for them.
 
T

totowhoa

Banned
elrechazado said:
In a word, yes. Criminal law is designed to be specific as to provide notice to society of prohibited acts. Generally, conduct that is not explicitly illegal is not punishable. I'm not an expert on this law, but I lost many cases against clearly morally guilty people who were legally not guilty. Murderers go free all the time under the same logic. In this case it seems very clear that the legislature left a glaring gap that doesn't address a need that we have in society to criminalize abhorrent rapist behavior. If it is true that they did not, then it is the way our system is rightly set up that a morally guilty and corrupt person must go free.

Too bad mob justice isn't a thing anymore however. What a scumbag.
Click to expand...

This is an awful story, but this is also really good insight too. Do legislatures typically address the legal gaps quickly for more culturally / socially extreme crimes?
 
I

iammeiam

Member
This seems to be the weird case of a morally abhorrent ruling that is technically legally correct. Oklahoma's laws are written shitttily and need to be fixed like yesterday:
Oklahoma has a separate rape statute that protects victims who were too intoxicated to consent to vaginal or anal intercourse, Long noted. But “there are still gaps in the ways laws are written that allow some cases to fall through the cracks,” she said. “This case” – because it did not involve vaginal rape but an oral violation – “seems to be one of them
Click to expand...

They have a special rape law for intoxication, it just doesn't cover this. Oklahoma needs to fix its shit here.
 
E

elrechazado

Banned
totowhoa said:
This is an awful story, but this is also really good insight too. Do legislatures typically address the legal gaps quickly for more culturally / socially extreme crimes?
Click to expand...
Depends. State legislatures are important. Public outcry can get real change to happen. Write or call your state reps, OK folks.
 
S

SolicitorPirate

Member
“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.”
Click to expand...

I am super confused by the Court's reasoning. Unless legislation specifically stated the list was exhaustive, why on earth was the Court concerned about enlarging beyond fair meaning? If anything, this reads like a contraction of reasonable interpretation of the language
 
D

Dennis

Banned
state law doesn’t criminalize oral sex with a victim who is completely unconscious
Click to expand...

Is it possible that they are in fact right on the law even though is sounds nuts?

Change the law pronto.
 
E

evil solrac v3.0

Member
elrechazado said:
In a word, yes. Criminal law is designed to be specific as to provide notice to society of prohibited acts. Generally, conduct that is not explicitly illegal is not punishable. I'm not an expert on this law, but I lost many cases against clearly morally guilty people who were legally not guilty. Murderers go free all the time under the same logic. In this case it seems very clear that the legislature left a glaring gap that doesn't address a need that we have in society to criminalize abhorrent rapist behavior. If it is true that they did not, then it is the way our system is rightly set up that a morally guilty and corrupt person must go free.

Too bad mob justice isn't a thing anymore however. What a scumbag.
Click to expand...

why can't judges then interpret based on the circumstances?
 
S

Stargypsy

Member
I was incredibly angry when I read this earlier. The poor girl. I'm trying to comprehend what she must be feeling and thinking right now.
 
S

SolicitorPirate

Member
iammeiam said:
This seems to be the weird case of a morally abhorrent ruling that is technically legally correct. Oklahoma's laws are written shitttily and need to be fixed like yesterday:


They have a special rape law for intoxication, it just doesn't cover this. Oklahoma needs to fix its shit here.
Click to expand...

But why won't general rape laws apply? Or did the prosecutor fail to charge the defendant under that statute?
 
E

elrechazado

Banned
SolicitorPirate said:
I am super confused by the Court's reasoning. Unless legislation specifically stated the list was exhaustive, why on earth was the Court concerned about enlarging beyond fair meaning?
Click to expand...
This is a fundamental principle of criminal law, and is a good thing. Every crime has specific elements that each must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Most of those require a mens rea (a state of mind usually involving intent - ie: "knowingly" or "recklessly"). Prosecutors don't get to make these up into whatever they want to fit the facts of the case. The system therefore is literally designed so that this outcome must happen in a much higher frequency than the opposite. Ie: "better to let 1000 guilty men go free, than convict one innocent man".

Working as intended. Now get the legislature to work as intended.
 
P

PeakPointMatrix

Member
giphy.gif
 
E

elrechazado

Banned
evil solrac v3.0 said:
why can't judges then interpret based on the circumstances?
Click to expand...
Because that is not in accordance with the rule of law, which is there to ensure that anyone accused of rape or murder or theft all faces the same standard. Judges aren't emperor kings that get to randomly decide what the law is today. If you get a speeding ticket, and the judge is allowed to say that today one of the elements of the speeding statute will be that for red cars it's ten mph lower, you wouldn't be receiving justice, and would have no notice as to what behaviors are acceptable or not.

This regularly leads to outrageous results like the one here. But this is by design and the right outcome under the system of law in place.
 
E

EdibleKnife

Member
So...did these lawmakers literally put no thought into this or do they just completely lack empathy? Like how do these words even get written without the thought of "what if I'm the unconscious one?"
 
S

SolicitorPirate

Member
elrechazado said:
This is a fundamental principle of criminal law, and is a good thing. Every crime has specific elements that each must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Most of those require a mens rea (a state of mind usually involving intent - ie: "knowingly" or "recklessly"). Prosecutors don't get to make these up into whatever they want to fit the facts of the case. The system therefore is literally designed so that this outcome must happen in a much higher frequency than the opposite. Ie: "better to let 1000 guilty men go free, than convict one innocent man".

Working as intended. Now get the legislature to work as intended.
Click to expand...

I may have slept through most my crim classes, but I still remember my mens rea and actus rea well enough to not need them defined :p
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
SolicitorPirate said:
I am super confused by the Court's reasoning. Unless legislation specifically stated the list was exhaustive, why on earth was the Court concerned about enlarging beyond fair meaning? If anything, this reads like a contraction of reasonable interpretation of the language
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat. This sounds like a classic case of using the letter of the law and not the spirit.
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
T

turtle553

Member
GaimeGuy said:
http://www.okcca.net/online/oujis/oujisrvr.jsp?o=250

This seems to fly in the face of the consensus reached by the oklahoma legal community and professionals.

Not to mention the damn statute itself:

http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69419

I mean, if you're unconscious, you can't consent. That's kind of what being unconscious means - you're not aware of or responding to your surroundings.

I just.... what?
Click to expand...

It looks like the only possible scenario in the law that may apply was this one:

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
Click to expand...

It comes down to what unsoundness of mind legally means I guess.

What is UNSOUND MIND?

A person of unsound mind is an adult who from infirmity of mind is incapable of managing himself or his affairs. The term, therefore, includes insane persons, idiots, and imbeciles. Sweet.

Law Dictionary: What is UNSOUND MIND? definition of UNSOUND MIND (Black's Law Dictionary)
Click to expand...
 
G

Gallbaro

Banned
Sounds like the court it either:

1) Making a statement that the law is poorly written.
2) Blaming the victim for getting black-out drunk.
 
Hoho for breakfast

Hoho for breakfast

Member
So what happens in Oklahoma when someone trips and gets knocked out or has some medical condition and passes out? What if they're in a coma? People can just run around dicking others in the mouth? And why stop at the mouth?!

Christ.
 
A

A Link to the Past

Banned
“We will not, in order to justify prosecution of a person for an offense, enlarge a statute beyond the fair meaning of its language.”

The fair meaning is that it's forced if the victim either does not want it or does not have the ability to decline, you chucklefucks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Former Bills punter Matt Araiza who was accused of gang rape cleared after evidence shows he wasn't present during incident: prosecutors
2
86
6K
Nobody_Important replied
MLB suspends Trevor Bauer for 2 seasons for domestic violence
2
50
4K
DeepEnigma replied
Bill Cosby Conviction Overturned
News 2 3 4
160
13K
DeepEnigma replied
Major Credit Cards Stop Allowing Cards To Be Used On Pornhub; Porn Site Outraged
News Drama 2 3
112
10K
Slings and Arrows replied
South Korea Scraps Ban on Abortion
12
761
Insane Metal replied
Top Bottom