ADVERTISEMENT

Stupidest Court Decision I've Read in a Long Time

hollywood

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
26,545
3,292
113
OK, Court of Criminal Appeals has ruled that a perp who admitted forcing his pecker in the mouth of an incredibly intoxicated (and or possibly unconscious) victim, could not be prosecuted under the State's forcible oral sodomy statute, because the legislature did not expressly provide for it.

Their reasoning was that since the Legislature did address it under the state's rape statutes, then clearly they did not intend it to apply to instances of sodomy.

This, despite the fact that the statute clearly reads as follows:

OUJI-CR 4-128: "No person may be convicted of forcible oral sodomy unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:

First, penetration;

Second, of the mouth/vagina of the defendant/victim;

Third, by the mouth/penis of the defendant/victim;

[
Fourth, committed upon a person incapable through mental illness or any unsoundness of mind of giving legal consent]."


I'm having a really hard time understanding their reasoning as clearly a person who is completely inebriated or unconscious has an "unsoundness of mind" and legally unable to give consent.

So basically, you get drunk and/or pass out from any reason, then your mouth is fair game for anyone who may want to stick their penis according to this incredibly stupid opinion.


http://oklahomawatch.org/2016/04/23...esnt-apply-to-cases-with-unconscious-victims/



 
  • Like
Reactions: shortbus
OK, Court of Criminal Appeals has ruled that a perp who admitted forcing his pecker in the mouth of an incredibly intoxicated (and or possibly unconscious) victim, could not be prosecuted under the State's forcible oral sodomy statute, because the legislature did not expressly provide for it.

Their reasoning was that since the Legislature did address it under the state's rape statutes, then clearly they did not intend it to apply to instances of sodomy.

This, despite the fact that the statute clearly reads as follows:

OUJI-CR 4-128: "No person may be convicted of forcible oral sodomy unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:

First, penetration;

Second, of the mouth/vagina of the defendant/victim;

Third, by the mouth/penis of the defendant/victim;

[
Fourth, committed upon a person incapable through mental illness or any unsoundness of mind of giving legal consent]."


I'm having a really hard time understanding their reasoning as clearly a person who is completely inebriated or unconscious has an "unsoundness of mind" and legally unable to give consent.

So basically, you get drunk and/or pass out from any reason, then your mouth is fair game for anyone who may want to stick their penis according to this incredibly stupid opinion.


http://oklahomawatch.org/2016/04/23...esnt-apply-to-cases-with-unconscious-victims/


If only I were back in college!

On a serious note, sounds like a judge needs to try something else for a while, as his understanding of law, and common sense are lacking.
 
Poke2001, it was the Court of Criminal Appeals...... several judges need to get some common sense.

Sometimes when I read a decision like this..... I kind of hope that if someone is going to be the victim in a case like this, perhaps it's best that one of them passes out drunk and finds out later that they ate a bowl of dicks while unconscious. I wonder how they would feel about holding the other party(ies) criminally responsible then?

I don't know how they can just completely gloss over the fact that the State Legislature clearly indicated their intent to protect those who were incapable (for whatever reason) of formulating consent due to any "unsoundness" of mind. Seriously, what's the difference between a person with a low IQ as opposed to the mental capacity of someone who's unconscious? (The person with the low IQ could possibly understand what is going on, for the person who is unconscious that's an impossibility.)
 
Poke2001, it was the Court of Criminal Appeals...... several judges need to get some common sense.

Sometimes when I read a decision like this..... I kind of hope that if someone is going to be the victim in a case like this, perhaps it's best that one of them passes out drunk and finds out later that they ate a bowl of dicks while unconscious. I wonder how they would feel about holding the other party(ies) criminally responsible then?

I don't know how they can just completely gloss over the fact that the State Legislature clearly indicated their intent to protect those who were incapable (for whatever reason) of formulating consent due to any "unsoundness" of mind. Seriously, what's the difference between a person with a low IQ as opposed to the mental capacity of someone who's unconscious? (The person with the low IQ could possibly understand what is going on, for the person who is unconscious that's an impossibility.)
My guess is the court felt no sympathy for the victim because they were drunk and "brought it on themselves". While I believe one has to be careful (don't get passed out drunk in public), that shouldn't allow rape or anything put anywhere...
 
My guess is the court felt no sympathy for the victim because they were drunk and "brought it on themselves". While I believe one has to be careful (don't get passed out drunk in public), that shouldn't allow rape or anything put anywhere...

Sympathy?

If the girls last name is fallin and not ghetto trash this doesn't happen period.

The biggest problem here is lack of accountability all the way around
 
I'm not defending the decision. I'm merely putting my old Defense Counsel cap on and giving a "devil's advocate view" of the ruling. No need to attack me as defending a clear and obvious rapist/forcible sodomist getting away with a crime. Here we go:

-While the facts clearly reflect she was highly intoxicated, the defendant claims that she was conscious at the time of the act and that she initiated and consented to the act;
-The victim says she was so intoxicated that she does not remember anything;
-That means, that what the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant engaged in sodomy with an awake though highly intoxicated individual.....they can't prove she was unconscious at the time of the sodomy.

Given that, you then have the following legal principles you have to consider:

1. The definition of "rape" includes definitions where the victim is incapable due to mental illness or any other unsoundness of mind of giving consent AND where the victim is intoxicated by a narcotic or other anesthetic agent (which presumably would include the anesthetic effects of alcohol) AND where the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act and that fact is know to the accused (squarely where we are in this case, she was too drunk to release what she was doing and the accused arguably knew that).

2. That means, in statutory interpretation rules, that "unsoundness of mind" means something other than intoxicated. It is presumed that different terms used in a statute are there for a reason and not redundant or superfluous.

3. The other, more applicable, terms "intoxication by....." and "unconscious of the nature...." Are NOT in the sodomy definition.

4. Being a criminal, punitive statute, the court must....pursuant to prior well settled statute....be strictly construed in favor of the defendant. Therein the conclusion that circumstances in the case do not meet the definition of "otherwise unsound mind" because that (by statutory definition in the rape statute) is something other than intoxication or some condition where the victim is unconscious of the nature of the act due to being drunk.

Bad laws make bad decisions....and I view the problem as a loophole in the sodomy statute that needs to be addressed by the legislature and not an example of the Court of Criminal Appeals misinterpreting the statute.

Flame away.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: windriverrange
There's no need to flame well reasoned and thoughtful contribution to the discussion.

I marvel at the process
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD
Well, what do you expect?

This is the state where a football star can break a woman's face in 4 places and still rush for a 100 yards a game without fear.

Just for juiciness, was the perp wearing squat tech provided training gear and can be found on the current squat tech roster during the penetration? I think if you are wearing that and have a signed bob stupes Community Chest get out of jail free game card, with a disclaimer to be handled internally, you can also drive drunk and text, run over puppies and kids, and steal beer from convenience stores and actually collect $200 and not go to jail.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT