Oral sex isn't rape if the victim's passed out drunk, Oklahoma court rules

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Original poster
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,408
I'm at a loss for words.


An Oklahoma court has some strange opinions when it comes to rape law or, more specifically, what circumstances of an assault do and don't legally constitute sexual assault.

A Tulsa County judge dismissed the case, which involved two high school students, last November on the grounds that Oklahoma statutes do not criminalize forcing an unconscious person to perform oral sex.

Tulsa County District Attorney's Office appealed that ruling in March – and it was again struck down by an Oklahoma court.

The decision has sparked anger among many who say it just feeds a system of victim blaming, wherein a whole set of criteria — alcohol consumption, behavior, sexual history, clothing at the time of the assault — throws the legitimacy of a person's claim of rape into question.

In this case, a 17-year-old boy – identified in court documents as RZM – offered to drive a 16-year old girl home after the two had been drinking and smoking pot in a Tulsa park with a group of friends. Witnesses at the park described the girl as drinking a large quantity of vodka, and becoming very intoxicated. A boy who briefly rode in the car recalled her going in and out of consciousness.

RZM dropped the girl off at her grandmother's house. At that point, she was completely unconscious and taken to hospital. There, a blood test showed her alcohol content to be above 0.34, which placed her in the category of severe alcohol poisoning.

She reportedly woke up as hospital staff were conducting a sexual assault exam. Those tests found the presence of RZM's DNA around her mouth and on the back of her leg.

RZM claimed that she had consented to perform oral sex, but the girl had no memories of any of that happening, and couldn't reven remember getting into his car. RZM was charged by Tulsa County prosecutors with forcible oral sodomy.

"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 court determined.

In other words, if you're passed out drunk and someone forces you to perform oral sex, that person isn't acting illegally, according to the law as interpreted by the court. The law lists a number of circumstances which do constitute rape. But that specific instance isn't one of them.

The appeals court ruled unanimously that, because of that loophole, the defendant couldn't be prosecuted.

Benjamin Fu, Tulsa County's assistant district attorney prosecuting the case and director of the bureau's special victims unit, told Oklahoma Watch that the court's interpretation of the law was "insane", "dangerous", and "offensive." "I told the court that this [argument] is absurd," Fu said. "And their response was essentially, 'We're not going to create a crime where one does not exist."

Fu added that the court does have the authority to determine whether the statute can encompass intoxication and unconsciousness.

Shannon McMurray, the defendant's attorney, was not available for comment. She did tell investigative journalism website Oklahoma Watch that she believed the case's prosecutors took the wrong line of argument by focusing on forcible sodomy instead of the lesser crime of unwanted touching.

"There was absolutely no evidence of force or him doing anything to make this girl give him oral sex," McMurray said. "Other than she was too intoxicated to consent."
https://news.vice.com/article/if-youre-passed-out-drunk-and-forced-to-perform-oral-sex-it-isnt-rape-oklahoma-court-rules?utm_source=vicenewstwitter
 

thermodynamic

Suspended
May 3, 2009
1,336
1,175
USA
Maybe the goal is to induce vomiting... *SMH*

What's worse is if a person has genital herpes - it is not unknown for that virus, nowadays, to go between mouth and genital regions. In the past, that was not possible, but thanks to too many casual filthbags who never disclose their status or are such sociopaths that it's okay to spread and say "Just take a pill", the virus has mutated and either HSV strain can infect both regions.
 

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,605
"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 court determined.
They need to change that ASAP!!! That is complete *uckery!!!!




In other words, if you're passed out drunk and someone forces you to perform oral sex, that person isn't acting illegally, according to the law as interpreted by the court. The law lists a number of circumstances which do constitute rape. But that specific instance isn't one of them.
How can someone passed out perform oral sex? Do they mean a conscious but incoherent zombie like state?
 

Renzatic

Suspended
the perpetrator was also drunk/high.
It should probably still classify as rape, since she wasn't aware enough to even give stupid, drunk consent to someone else equally stupidly drunk.

Though it probably wouldn't have ended up a conviction even without the crass justification from the court, since she could've done the deed at any time during the night. When two very drunk people willingly do something very stupid together that doesn't end up with anything hurt but pride, the fault is usually mutual.
 

chown33

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 9, 2009
8,362
4,346
Pumpkindale
It should probably still classify as rape, since she wasn't aware enough to even give stupid, drunk consent to someone else equally stupidly drunk.

Though it probably wouldn't have ended up a conviction even without the crass justification from the court, since she could've done the deed at any time during the night. When two very drunk people willingly do something very stupid together that doesn't end up with anything hurt but pride, the fault is usually mutual.
That seems like a reasonable position.

So what the hell is it doing in PRSI?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,980
Criminal Mexi Midget
It should probably still classify as rape, since she wasn't aware enough to even give stupid, drunk consent to someone else equally stupidly drunk.

Though it probably wouldn't have ended up a conviction even without the crass justification from the court, since she could've done the deed at any time during the night. When two very drunk people willingly do something very stupid together that doesn't end up with anything hurt but pride, the fault is usually mutual.
bringing vodka over to our meeting :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Renzatic

Renzatic

Suspended
bringing vodka over to our meeting :D
I thought we signed that perpetual consent agreement...

...together.
[doublepost=1461982131][/doublepost]
I'm at a loss forced oral copulation is not a crime in Oklahoma. But forced oral cop is not rape as I would define it from a California perspective.
If not rape, what would it be considered? Is there a legal division between sexual assault, and outright rape?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda