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.So it's a free-for-all to commit forcible sodomy in ways not explicitly described in this legislation?
Good job, assholes.
Yes the original ruling was affirmed by this court. I don't know if Oklahoma Supreme Court is next or if there is potentially another avenue available hopefully on the federal level.My understanding is that this is the appeals verdict.
Oklahoma pls
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.
You folks really don't want to believe the South is real.
This was UNANIMOUSLY DECIDED.
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
Depends. State legislatures are important. Public outcry can get real change to happen. Write or call your state reps, OK folks.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?
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.
state law doesnt criminalize oral sex with a victim who is completely unconscious
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.
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.
No matter how many times I read this, my mind refuses to process it.The ruling, a unanimous decision by the states criminal appeals court
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".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?
But why won't general rape laws apply? Or did the prosecutor fail to charge the defendant under that statute?
Shit like this is the reason we need to use some common fucking sense when interpreting some of these laws. How disgusting.
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.why can't judges then interpret based on the circumstances?
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.
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
Fair enough doubt most people in the thread are familiar.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
You chose the right door
The other door would have gotten you banned
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?
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
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)
What about murdering someone while they were asleep. It's not like they can tell me they don't want to be murdered when they are sleeping.
I wouldn't be surprised if unsound mind also has a very specific legal definition under OK law.It looks like the only possible scenario in the law that may apply was this one:
It comes down to what unsoundness of mind legally means I guess.