Silent Chief
Member
I dunno, but play it safe. Lock the door before you go to bed.
-
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
- Thread starter Jackpot
- Start date
- Status
I dunno, but play it safe. Lock the door before you go to bed.
Ray Wonder
Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
I read the article thinking that there's no way it's as bad as it sounds. Lol yeah it is as bad as it sounds.
7DollarHagane
Banned
So is this the result of a dumb judge who just threw their hands up and said they can't prosecute or the result of a slimy defense attorney who found a loophole in the law and forced the judges' hand?
Because I can see it happening either way. Maybe the defendant was some rich kid with a good lawyer from his parents who got him off on a loophole.
Because I can see it happening either way. Maybe the defendant was some rich kid with a good lawyer from his parents who got him off on a loophole.
This is seriously what it sounds like. Did Oklahoma just legalize drunk anal rape?
Well if you drink the Devils juice I guess.
Sickboy007
Member
Why doesn't the US have federal laws on this kind of stuff like any other civilized country?
I was just wondering this. Surely the SCOTUS would never let this fly
TheRedSnifit
Member
LegendofLex
Member
My first thought: "Even Oklahoma can't be tha-"
oh.
oh.
Lightning Count
Member
This is ridiculous, the Supreme Court needs to overturn this shit at a Federal level and invalidate this insane law.
The US is going fucking backwards rapidly.
The US is going fucking backwards rapidly.
Violence Jack
Member
I remember when a similar rape case happened at my college involving a pair of well-known baseball players. The defense's only case was that the girl had passed out from drinking, so therefore it wasn't rape. Of course they were found guilty and are rotting away in a jail cell. Never did I think this would be a valid excuse in any court of law in this country in fucking 2016.
TheRedSnifit
Member
There's no law that actually says you can rape unconscious people. The state has a specific law that states you cannot "sodomize" people who are so intoxicated that they cannot consent (this includes unconscious people). However, the law specifies vaginal/anal intercourse; since this specific rape was oral, it gets off on a technicality. The state should obviously rewrite this law, but I'm willing to believe that this was an oversight rather than an active attempt to screw over rape victims.
I don't get these "US is backwards herp derp" comments. Hundreds of rapists in Germany, for example, get of scott-free because the law requires the victim to be able to show physical injuries such as bruises in court. Even the most backwards US state is relatively liberal when it comes to these laws.
TheRedSnifit
Member
It's nice to know that I post on the same forum as people who believe that rape is an adequate punishment for legislative oversights. Good on you, sir.
Hey, it's not rape, they're sleeping, bro.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Fair enough. But can we at least give them time to maybe rewrite the laws before you organize the rape-gangs? It's only been one day.
DrunkShogun
Member
So don't go Oklahoma is the lesson from this article. Half the things I hear from the USA seems like a joke.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Wasn't it just a few months ago that one of your courts let sixty or so rapists and child molesters get off with cautions?
they have ONE WEEK. I think at some point terrorist law comes into play.
i can train a dolphin you know...
Thats TWO day s too long.
QuantumZebra
Member
Nuke it from orbit - its the only way to be sure
just kidding fellow Oklahomans... I would recommend getting out of your state ASAP though
Spine_Ripper
Member
Haven't seen this in a while. Fucking perfect. This is ridiculous.
SirClinksAlot
Member
Because "states rights" is still a thing. Its moronic.
Fallout-NL
Member
perfect
roflwaffles
Member
I dont know why anyone would live in the midwest or the south.
Guess the US is just full of backwards, uncivilized people.
Or it just has a different political and legal system, but whatever.
LouisaFerre
Member
Yeah, I think this is pretty fucked that it resulted in something like this happening. However, a lot of times people don't seem to understand that the role of the judicial body isn't to make the law or change it, but to determine whether or not the language of it applies to this specific situation. It's fucked up that this is essentially legal but there's a difference between the court being ruled by archaic laws with big loopholes and the government just being evil. The legal system isn't just one monolithic entity, and rulings like this end up happening in the system when the legislature doesn't properly account for a situation before it goes to court. I just hope that people start pushing for laws that don't allow this kind of shit.
radioactivez0r
Member
I think this specific point went unnoticed by a lot of people, that there is a law regarding unconsciousness but it manages to only specify two types of assault and therefore can't be leveraged in this situation. Honestly, the fact when it was written they were like "what kinds of ways could someone force themselves on another? vaginal, anal, that's it right?" bums me out.
I can even understand the whole sodomy technicality. So it's not forcible sodomy. In this case it's forced oral sex. Would that still not be rape then regardless of the sodomy factor which is unfortunately poorly written in their laws? The defense was able to exploit one technicality but how is it not a rape case anyhow?
I haven't read the law for the state but I would imagine they define forcible sex as vaginal only. Sounds like they haven't updated the law since it was originally written to include any kind of penetration rather than painting themselves into a corner with old verbage.
It sucks that this victim wasn't given justice because a clever defense attorney successfully argued a technicality when the intent of the law is clear. This will no doubt get pushed through legislation to correct the verbiage.
What's ridiculous is people posting that the state just legalized rape. No they didn't. Someone exploited a loophole based on outdated language. Some sleazy lawyer just made a career for himself over a rape victim because of a technicality.
What's weird to me is that sodomy is usually defined as non-vaginal sex anyway. So why would they use the term "sodomy" and then define it as vaginal/anal sex and ignore oral?
Guys, the laws are right here:
Forcible Sodomy (v1) http://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2015/title-21/section-21-888v1/
Forcible Sodomy (v2) http://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2015/title-21/section-21-888v2/
Rape: http://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2015/title-21/section-21-1111/
The rape statute includes a provision for unconsciousness separate from the provision regarding mental illness or unsoundness of mind.
The metal illness/unsoundness of mind provision is in the forcible sodomy statute, but there is no provision for unconsciousness.
The courts seem to interpet each of these provisions as mutually exclusive, unfortunately.
There is no definition of "unsoundness of mind" in OK criminal law (Title 21) - the only statutory definition of this term is in Title 15 (contract law) http://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2015/title-15/section-15-16/
And from title 30..
So I guess going by the lens these judges are using to interpet the law, it's impossible for a minor to be incapacitated or of unsound mind, it's impossible to use force against someone who is unconscious, "mental ilness or unsoundness of mind" is redundant, and it's okay to fuck someone against their will, as long as you do it in the mouth, not the ass or vagina. There is no force used in the very act of violating someone's bodily autonomy without their consent. :|
This is why literalists like Scalia and (apparently) those on the OK Supreme Court are awful. They're nothing but contrarians who twist legal verbosity into exclusiveness of meaning, intent, and consequence - even though the determination of such things is an ambiguity of language, and thus, should be subject to interpretation (ideally by, you know, judges deemed to be wise enough to think on their own), not defined by some strict and arbitrary linguistic rigidity.
It's not like a panel of 5 people sat down at one point in time and wrote every single aspect of the OK legal code at once. Different people write and vote on different portions of the law at different times. Things aren't going to be uniform (IE: the apparent power of execution being "apparent" in forcible sodomy, vs being "apparent to the victim or another person" (Does this mean a witness? A jury? An expert called to the stand?) in rape.)
Forcible Sodomy (v1) http://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2015/title-21/section-21-888v1/
Forcible Sodomy (v2) http://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2015/title-21/section-21-888v2/
Rape: http://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2015/title-21/section-21-1111/
The rape statute includes a provision for unconsciousness separate from the provision regarding mental illness or unsoundness of mind.
The metal illness/unsoundness of mind provision is in the forcible sodomy statute, but there is no provision for unconsciousness.
The courts seem to interpet each of these provisions as mutually exclusive, unfortunately.
There is no definition of "unsoundness of mind" in OK criminal law (Title 21) - the only statutory definition of this term is in Title 15 (contract law) http://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2015/title-15/section-15-16/
And from title 30..
So I guess going by the lens these judges are using to interpet the law, it's impossible for a minor to be incapacitated or of unsound mind, it's impossible to use force against someone who is unconscious, "mental ilness or unsoundness of mind" is redundant, and it's okay to fuck someone against their will, as long as you do it in the mouth, not the ass or vagina. There is no force used in the very act of violating someone's bodily autonomy without their consent. :|
This is why literalists like Scalia and (apparently) those on the OK Supreme Court are awful. They're nothing but contrarians who twist legal verbosity into exclusiveness of meaning, intent, and consequence - even though the determination of such things is an ambiguity of language, and thus, should be subject to interpretation (ideally by, you know, judges deemed to be wise enough to think on their own), not defined by some strict and arbitrary linguistic rigidity.
It's not like a panel of 5 people sat down at one point in time and wrote every single aspect of the OK legal code at once. Different people write and vote on different portions of the law at different times. Things aren't going to be uniform (IE: the apparent power of execution being "apparent" in forcible sodomy, vs being "apparent to the victim or another person" (Does this mean a witness? A jury? An expert called to the stand?) in rape.)
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Ok OK, new update to the law. "You can't put your dick into unconscious people." One and done. It's even vague enough to cover your earholes in case someone else gets a clever idea.
Or, alternatively, judges could apply a bit of common sense. You don't have to specifically cover every orifice.
Or, alternatively, judges could apply a bit of common sense. You don't have to specifically cover every orifice.
What? How? I mean this is not trying to secretly pass down a suspicious law hoping no one sees through the bullshit. This is straight out saying it's not a crime to put your dick in someone's mouth as long as they are completely unable to do anything about it. Unanimous? Someone has them by the balls. I can't think of any other reasoning.
Reminds me of Bill Clinton asking what the definition of "is" is. That when asked if he is involved in an improper relationship that he wasn't because he wasn't inside anyone the moment the question was asked.
Goose_Se7en
Banned
Some of these red States really scare the shit outta me. Backwards thinking, backwards people.
What has my country come to?
What has my country come to?
This is exactly what happened to me. But nope, it actually is somehow worse than the title even implies.
But that's exactly what they did.
Aaronrules380
Member
Can the EU courts overturn the laws of individual member nations when they don't have any international implications? The way the US works is honestly more like the EU than any individual EU member nation, with those being more akin to individual states.
Also, this whole situation is disgusting and absurd
Miggytronz
Member
Zing!!
Nah, just that's it's totally ok to get someone drunk, have them pass out and fuck 'em in the mouth. No biggie.
TheRedSnifit
Member
I want you to imagine, for a minute, the federal government goes into New York and says they now have the same laws as, say, Texas.
There would be rioting in the streets.
The presumption that there is one optimal set of laws and that everyone should follow them is not one that Americans make. Texans and New Yorkers would hate having all each others' laws, so we don't make them. There are some outliers where there are horrible results like this, but it's ultimately the most efficient way of governing such a large and diverse country.
Sickboy007
Member
Yes.
- Status