Oklahoma: Forced oral sex not rape if victim is unconscious

[Didymus 34,380]

5 minutes ago, YourSweet666 said:

But according to the text, the accused one claimed it was CONSENSUAL, so sexual act DID happen and she has no memory of it (she passed out) so how is that not sexual assault? 

Because she was SUPER drunk and so were the guys.

Have you not had the famous "Where am I and what happened" post-drinking moments? Why would you ever conclude that not remembering things because you drank like a ****ing idiot is enough proof to conclude sexual assault took place? It's perfectly possible for her to have consented to oral sex and then having forgotten about it due to the alcohol's influence. The awkward "I woke up in a stranger's bed and I have no idea what happened" moment is like a classic and surely those aren't all cases of rape.

There's a problem with evidence, surely, but the fact that she doesn't remember does not mean she was unconscious, especially with that much drugs involved.

[lego 44,165]

Just now, Didymus said:

Because she was SUPER drunk and so were the guys.

Have you not had the famous "Where am I and what happened" post-drinking moments? Why would you ever conclude that not remembering things because you drank like a ****ing idiot equals being justified to call out someone else, who is claiming that the act was consensual (which is possible, people! You can commit to sex while drunk if nobody knew that), is enough proof to conclude that it was assault nonetheless?

There's a problem with evidence, surely, but the fact that she doesn't remember does not mean she was unconscious, especially with that much drugs involved.

 

No I haven't and this isn't about me. If she could not give consent, it was not consensual. They had to carry her to the car...

"the girl became incapacitated and unable to walk -- her blood-alcohol level was later found to be four times the legal limit to drive"

And the thread says "forced oral sex not rape if victim is unconscious".

[Didymus 34,380]

8 minutes ago, TiphEret said:

Seriously? Where did I claim I knew what happened? And then you call people out on their reading skills?

You said you were shocked that oral rape was not considered rape. If you weren't talking about the case specifically, then my bad, but there's no way I could've known that, since you interpreted the entire article as a **** you to rape victims even though the actual headline states that the law is being changed. Which is why I didn't read your comment as being about the law change (which is obviously not a **** you to rape victims), but about the case.

So my reading was just fine under the circumstances.

10 minutes ago, TiphEret said:

I said it send the signals that we don't care about victims and it's true?

See, exactly what I said. The article (which you claim to have read) states that this law is going to get fixed, yet you say the news sends signals that nobody cares about the victims even though the article itself is in response to the tidal wave of criticism this hearing received.

So no, it's not true. You should've been happy that OTHER signals were sent this time. People do care, including lawmakers. At least now.

11 minutes ago, TiphEret said:

I am not going to ask if you have been abused because it(s gross but pretend you are a victim, so first it's hard to tell people because they stigmatize you or call you a lair, when you finally do it you can be sure that even the people that are supposed to listen will tell you things such as what were you wearing, were you drinking and what not and when you go to the judge he says, sorry miss but a penis in a mouth is not rape. So yes I am complaining about that law and the outcome, awesome they will change it but for that case it won't have any impact, so if the guys happen to be guilty nothing will happen to them. Do you call that justice? So I am sorry but no maybe you are happy but I am not and yes I think it's true that 90% of the time people don't care about the victims in this case just look at how most of the time people get away with it. 

I don't call it justice because I don't know if they're guilty or not and I don't see any reason why I should have to pretend I do

Once again you have not addressed what judges can do to make sure assault actually took place just based on what people say. It's difficult, yet you present it as perfectly simple: the victim is always right and the guilty party is already guilty before proven to be such.

Do you call that justice?

[Didymus 34,380]

2 minutes ago, YourSweet666 said:

No I haven't and this isn't about me. If she could not give consent, it was not consensual. They had to carry her to the car...

"the girl became incapacitated and unable to walk -- her blood-alcohol level was later found to be four times the legal limit to drive"

And the thread says "forced oral sex not rape if victim is unconscious".

Finally an interesting argument someone brings up!

I noticed that too, but then again, I've been drunk many times and walking is a lot harder than sitting down and not being able to walk does not mean you're not emotionally responsive either. So while that's probably the most compelling piece of evidence, it's also not enough. It's a tough call tbh. I wouldn't want to be in the judge's shoes.

Well, the thread title was absurd since the article says the exact opposite: the laws are changed because opposition against it has arisen. So the title set all things up for failure for sure But based on what I'm reading, it's not even clear if she was unconscious or not. The judge just used the lack of legal intoxication/unconsciousness details to dismiss the case because it couldn't even be established if she was just drunk (and thus had no memory) or unconscious.

But anyway, I don't even see the point of discussing the case, we have like 10% of the details and the ones we have aren't even clear (the sentence about the girl having no memory for instance, not even well written).

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

18 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Because she was SUPER drunk and so were the guys.

Have you not had the famous "Where am I and what happened" post-drinking moments? Why would you ever conclude that not remembering things because you drank like a ****ing idiot is enough proof to conclude sexual assault took place? It's perfectly possible for her to have consented to oral sex and then having forgotten about it due to the alcohol's influence. The awkward "I woke up in a stranger's bed and I have no idea what happened" moment is like a classic and surely those aren't all cases of rape.

There's a problem with evidence, surely, but the fact that she doesn't remember does not mean she was unconscious, especially with that much drugs involved.

Code Section 

Oklahoma Code section 21-1114: First and Second-Degree Rape

What's Prohibited? 

First-degree rape includes:

Rape when the offender is over 18 years old and the victim is less than 14 years old

Rape when the victim is incapable of giving legal consent due to mental illness or unsoundness of mind

Rape where the victim is intoxicated due to a narcotic or anesthetic agent administered by the offender

Rape where the victim is unconscious, and the offender knows that the victim is unconscious, during the sexual intercourse

Rape accomplished by force, violence (or threat of force or violence with the apparent ability to carry out the threat)

Rape by instrumentation that results in bodily harm (regardless of the age of the offender), or

Rape by instrumentation when the victim is less than 14 years old

All other instances of rape qualify as second-degree rape.

Penalties

First-degree rape: Felony. Punishable by death, imprisonment for at least five years, life, or life without parole.

Second-degree rape: Felony. Punishable by imprisonment for between one and 15 years.

- See more at: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/oklahoma-law/oklahoma-rape-and-sexual-assault-laws.html#sthash.Yg2AnJXm.dpuf

The problem is not whether the young man was guilty or not, the problem is that there won't even be a case.

[Didymus 34,380]

8 minutes ago, just4fun said:

legalstufflegalstufflegalstuff

The problem is not whether the young man was guilty or not, the problem is that there won't even be a case.

I don't get how that's a response to what you quoted Genuinely.

We don't know if she was unconscious or not. Anyway, you're wrong about the problem. The law is being changed, so there will be a case in the future.

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

9 minutes ago, Didymus said:

I don't get how that's a response to what you quoted Genuinely.

We don't know if she was unconscious or not. Anyway, still don't get why you came with that, though it's interesting. The law is being changed, so there will be a case in the future.

The only reason there is not a rape trial is because the words in the forced sodomy laws don't contain:

Rape where the victim is intoxicated due to a narcotic or anesthetic agent administered by the offender

Rape where the victim is unconscious, and the offender knows that the victim is unconscious, during the sexual intercourse. 

1 hour ago, Didymus said:

But the girl said she didn't remember anything (including if she was conscious or not). Why is everyone taking her side, acting like she was most definitely assaulted?

Looks like your reverse-Warholian "assault victims aren't heard" dynamic. Ugly.

They're working on the law because they realized it's inadequate, which should be the subject of the discussion. Y'all should be thrilled. This isn't even about whether the girl was assaulted or not, which we clearly don't even have the possibility of knowing. This is about the fact that in another case where a girl would remember she was orally assaulted, this law might make the guilty party immune.

Not surprised anyway. This forum doesn't have a high level of reading comprehension skill.

The fact that she remembers or not has no bearing on a rape case. It does however throws a forcible sodomy case out of the courts. This is the outrage people are expressing on this thread. This isn't about people taking her side or his side.

The sentence that I bolded and underlined in your quote make no sense what so ever. Not remembering rape doesn't mean you weren't raped (thats the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard). This whole story is about the case being thrown out because she was intoxicated and unconscious.

I think maybe its you who has the reading comprehension skills problem.

Also the NYTimes says she was intoxicated to the point of unconsciousness. So can we throw out the argument that she wasn't unconscious.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/us/oklahoma-court-ruling-in-rape-case-spurs-calls-to-change-state-laws.html?_r=0

 

[Didymus 34,380]

Just now, just4fun said:

I think maybe its you who has the reading comprehension skills problem.

No, the whole story is about how this case inspired the law to change. Point blank. Everyone expressing their rage didn't get that the law is already changing because it's ****ing crazy (like I have admitted it is from the beginning).

Based on what I could see in the article, there was no clear-cut evidence for rape, and though I agree (with the lawmaker in the article) that the case shouldn't be dismissed, I dismiss(ed) the idea that we already know the story, which is that the girl was actually assaulted and people don't listen to her (the entire first page of the thread).

[TiphEret 1,320]

52 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Once again you have not addressed what judges can do to make sure assault actually took place just based on what people say. It's difficult, yet you present it as perfectly simple: the victim is always right and the guilty party is already guilty before proven to be such.

Do you call that justice?

No I don't but you know you keep missing my point, it's being tiresome and you clearly stated in your previous post we have problem with our reading skills so yes you are entirely right every point you make is just perfect and I guess I will end here because it's going nowhere. Shame on me for having an personal opinion and daring to post my reaction on a pop forum without using the proper rules of rhetoric, thinking that it was ok to express how I felt instead of covering every point in this article, I didn't know this was an essay, my bad. Have a lovely day

[Didymus 34,380]

Just now, TiphEret said:

No I don't but you know you keep missing my point, it's being tiresome and you clearly stated in your previous post we have problem with our reading skills so yes you are entirely right every point you make is just perfect and I guess I will end here because it's going nowhere. Shame on me for having an personal opinion and daring to post my reaction on a pop forum without using the proper rules of rhetoric, thinking that it was ok to express how I felt instead of covering every point in this article, I didn't know this was an essay, my bad. Have a lovely day

Whut? What's your point? I thought I did reply to everything you said, genuinely.

And hey! I'm not policing you, I was just trying to get people to discuss the article which was about how the law is changing. The first replies all made it seem that the law was still in place and was being defended by some judge, when really a lawmaker was criticizing it. I didn't want readers coming in here to get wrong info.

Never did I say or imply that you're not allowed to post your opinion.

Jesus, what happened here.. You especially should know I have no bad intentions with stuff I write and I try to understand people's perspective and my first post wasn't even that ****ing bad

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

8 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Based on what I could see in the article, there was no clear-cut evidence for rape

Thank you for your opinion Judge Judy.

 

[Didymus 34,380]

1 minute ago, just4fun said:

Thank you for your opinion Judge Judy.

Oh PLEASE!

I'm doing the opposite of being Judge Judy. Nearly everyone else, including you, claim to know what happened and I'm saying we don't know **** because the article is vague as **** and the girl doesn't remember anything.

So keep your ****ing inaccurate, desperate disses to yourself and reply to the actual points of my post (which contradict your claims about me, well, sorry for that, but if you don't wanna acknowledge that then just don't post anything at all).

[monstereo 1,232]

38 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Oh PLEASE!

I'm doing the opposite of being Judge Judy. Nearly everyone else, including you, claim to know what happened and I'm saying we don't know **** because the article is vague as **** and the girl doesn't remember anything.

So keep your ****ing inaccurate, desperate disses to yourself and reply to the actual points of my post (which contradict your claims about me, well, sorry for that, but if you don't wanna acknowledge that then just don't post anything at all).

This