STAY AWAY FROM OKLAHOMA!! A little-known Oklahoma law goes too far when it comes to giving rights to rapists – INSTEAD OF THE VICTIMS. Currently, in the State of Oklahoma, if a rape victim is unconscious and a rapist commits forcible oral sodomy on the victim, the case will be rejected in Oklahoma courts!
Republican Representative Scott Biggs (R-Chickasha), has now introduced specific language into an existing bill that would amend Oklahoma’s forcible oral sodomy law to include instances in which the victim is unconscious or intoxicated. Biggs is quoted as saying that “I am horrified by the idea that we would allow these depraved rapists to face a lower charge simply because the victim is unconscious. I think the judges made a grave error, but if they need more clarification, we are happy to give it to them by fixing the statute.”
House Bill 2398, introduced by Republican Representative Scott Biggs (R-Chickasha) will, effectively, change and amend the definition of ‘sexual consent’ in the State of Oklahoma to include language that states ‘consent cannot be given by a person who is asleep, physically incapacitates by drugs or alcohol, or is under duress of any kind, or is being threatened or forced to perform a sexual act.
Rape & Sodomy Charges Were Filed, Then Dropped
Rape and sodomy charges were filed against a 17-year-old boy in April 2015 in the Tulsa County (OK) District Attorney’s Office but the case was rejected. But, on March 24, the Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that because of the way Oklahoma’s sodomy law is written, “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.”
That decision, penned in Tulsa, Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, goes completely AGAINST a national trend to INCREASE enforcement of sexual assault laws and make the rules of sexual consent much tougher than they are now. It seems as though Oklahoma is ‘sucking hind tit’ when it comes to getting on the national trend bandwagon with specific regards to sodomy laws protecting VICTIMS, because Oklahoma’s CURRENT sodomy law protect the RAPIST!!!
There’s A Rape Loophole in Oklahoma’s Sodomy Laws
With such a law (or LACK of a solid, victim-protective law) in Oklahoma, it seems glaringly obvious that safety and security of the women in the State of Oklahoma (and others less likely able protect themselves from sexual predators) is in grave danger – and being outright ignored.
How such a lack of substance in a sexual assault or rape charge could be allowed to exist is completely and totally beyond us here at Truth Uncensored. The RAPE LOOPHOLE is so horrendous and egregious in nature, even the most open-minded liberal’s head would spin in wonder and amazement at it.
Oklahoma’s Rape Laws Leave a LOT To Be Desired
What this comes down to, Ladies and Gentlemen, is that while Oklahoma’s Rape Law states a rape ‘can occur when the victim is intoxicated or unconscious’, the forcible sodomy law contains NO SUCH LANGUAGE! Talk about a RAPE LOOPHOLE!!
To prove our point, the Oklahoma appeals court, in the sodomy and rape case of the 17 year old boy in April of 2015, actually ruled that because the law lacks that provision, the defendant could not be prosecuted. ‘Wow’ is all I can say, at this point.
In a ‘unpublished opinion’ (meaning that the opinion could not be used to set a legal precedent), the Oklahoma appeals court stated that “We will not, in order to justify prosecution of a person for an offense, enlarge a statute beyond the fair meaning of its language.” How utterly disgusting and vile of them.
The Court’s Interpretation is “Insane”, “Dangerous” and “Offensive”
“I told the court that this (argument) is absurd,” said Benjamin Fu, Tulsa County Assistant District Attorney (and Director of the office’s Special Victims Unit) In a scathing reprimand of the court’s decision. Fu had said that the court’s decision (and interpretation) was ‘insane’, ‘dangerous’ and ‘offensive’, making a point of the fact that the courts had, in fact, had the authority and ability to consider and determine that the legislation did, in fact, intend to include acts of rape and sodomy whereby intoxication (by drugs or alcohol) of the victim was a factor.
OK’s Rape & Sodomy Laws Don’t Cover Unconsciousness or Intoxication
Initially, prosecutors in the case had originally charged the boy (whose name, along with the name of the victim, are being withheld due to their ages and status of the sexual assault charge) with first-degree rape and forcible oral sodomy, however, the charges were dismissed because there was no evidence showing he had raped the girl, even though court records PROVE that sexual assault examination was conducted and the defendant’s DNA WAS FOUND ON HER.
The defendant in this case, having been interviewed by the police in this case, stated that the victim had engaged in consensual oral sex with him, but the girl told police she could not remember anything after being at the park that night.
The Legislature Is Not To Blame, It’s The Court Who Is To Blame
Tulsa County District Court Judge Patrick Pickerill dismissed the forcible oral sodomy charge b3ecause he, basically, didn’t want to ‘create a crime where a crime did not exist’. Fu said he blames the judge’s interpretation of the statute. and NOT the Legislature, for not having had the foresight to address this issue earlier.
Even the defendant’s attorney, Shannon McMurray, said that prosecutors in the had had handled the case ‘poorly’ and that a charge of sexual battery would have been more appropriate. It’s nice when the counsel for the defense schools the prosecutors on how to prosecute a case. Wow.
McMurray was quoted as saying that “(The Prosecutors) were trying to substitute one element for the other, meaning intoxication in the rape statute, when there was absolutely no evidence of force or him doing anything to make this girl give him oral sex other than she was too intoxicated to consent.” He continued by saying that “The court agreed what the state was attempting to do was rewrite statute and add an element. You can’t substitute force with intoxication under the law.”
Rape is Rape In My Book
I don’t know about YOU folks, but in my book, rape is rape. The MAIN problem that I have with this case lies simply in the fact that this crazy legal interpretation could easily open the door for others convicted under similar circumstances to be freed if they appeal.
As a matter of fact, this same argument is already being used in cases which are similar in nature, which makes it harder for some sexual assault victims to come forward and report the crime.
After all, isn’t a sexual assault victim going through enough trauma and grief anyway?! “Their (sexual assault victims’) biggest fear is that people they tell the story to won’t understand or will judge them for their behavior. If they had that concern, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed that, 5-0.”
Stay the Heck Away From Oklahoma If You Are A Woman
In My Opinion: The Liberal Left’s recent efforts to indoctrinate the rest of our country with their sexual promiscuity and egregious behavior is reprehensible – at est. Recent stories regarding transgender bathroom issues proves that point clearly. Now, we find that in the State of Oklahoma, a rape victim is not even (fully) protected by the laws of that state, opening the door to widespread and rampant sexually degenerate behaviors. My advice to women? STAY THE HECK AWAY FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA – it’s open season on vulnerable people when it comes to rape and sodomy!
Sources:
OklahomaWatch.org
ArticlesFactory.com
Oklahoma State Courts Network
Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
Title 21. Crimes and Punishments
Chapter 45 – Rape, Abduction, Carnal Abuse, and Seduction of Children
Section 1111 – Rape Defined
T-shirt time! I see one that reads “CONSENT TO ANY AND ALL SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITHDRAWN BY DEFAULT”.
Now, is there a corresponding “justifiable homicide doctrine” arising from sexual assault, like unto the 1976 movie “Lipstick” (you know, the one with the weird music in the RAPE scene).