The logic being if they're unconscious then no force could have been needed to rape them. It's like the most literal interpretation of what constitutes forcible sodomy. Rape case dismissed as a result.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/27/oral-sex-rape-ruling-tulsa-oklahoma-alcohol-consent
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/27/oral-sex-rape-ruling-tulsa-oklahoma-alcohol-consent
Oklahoma court: oral sex is not rape if victim is unconscious from drinking
The ruling sparked outrage among critics who argue the judicial system engaged in victim-blaming and upholding outdated notions about rape and sexual assault
An Oklahoma court has stunned local prosecutors with a declaration that state law doesnt criminalize oral sex with a victim who is completely unconscious.
The ruling, a unanimous decision by the states criminal appeals court, is sparking outrage among critics who say the judicial system was engaged in victim-blaming and buying outdated notions about rape.
But legal experts and victims advocates said they viewed the ruling as a sign of something larger: the troubling gaps that still exist between the nations patchwork of laws and evolving ideas about rape and consent.
The case involved allegations that a 17-year-old boy assaulted a girl, 16, after volunteering to give her a ride home. The two had been drinking in a Tulsa park with a group of friends when it became clear that the girl was badly intoxicated. Witnesses recalled that she had to be carried into the defendants car. Another boy, who briefly rode in the car, recalled her coming in and out of consciousness.
Tests would later confirm that the young mans DNA was found on the back of her leg and around her mouth. The boy claimed to investigators that the girl had consented to performing oral sex. The girl said she didnt have any memories after leaving the park. Tulsa County prosecutors charged the young man with forcible oral sodomy.
But the trial judge dismissed the case. And the appeals court ruling, on 24 March, affirmed that prosecutors could not apply the law to a victim who was incapacitated by alcohol.
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.
Benjamin Fu, the Tulsa County district attorney leading the case, said the ruling had him completely gobsmacked.
The plain meaning of forcible oral sodomy, of using force, includes taking advantage of a victim who was too intoxicated to consent, Fu said. I dont believe that anybody, until that day, believed that the state of the law was that this kind of conduct was ambiguous, much less legal. And I dont think the law was a loophole until the court decided it was. To focus on why the victim was unable to consent, he continued, puts the victim at fault.