We should be changing the legislation on this, NOT BATHROOMS

[Catholicity]

So in a turn of events Oklahoma has decided that sexual assault isn't assault unless it involves certain types of penetration.
This is TRULY backwood/backward legislation. Instead of wasting time crying wolf and legislating NON laws, this is something worth fighting for. I'll let it speak for itself
http://fox4kc.com/2016/04/29/oral-se...s-court-rules/

[Carrikature]

I don't think I understand. They're trying to make it count as 'force' if the other party is intoxicated? I don't see how that would hold up very well.

[Catholicity]

I don't think I understand. They're trying to make it count as 'force' if the other party is intoxicated? I don't see how that would hold up very well.

Apparently the overall rule is "it wasn't assault since you were intoxicated" I don't get it. How much more backward does it get than this?

[Jedidiah]

Ah, life in the once great United States of America.

[Catholicity]

Does anyone else think that the US has gone stupid?

[rogue06]

Does anyone else think that the US has gone stupid?

Look at the last few elections and who the leading candidates for this one are. Case closed.

[Carrikature]

Apparently the overall rule is "it wasn't assault since you were intoxicated" I don't get it. How much more backward does it get than this?

So with a little digging, this is what the statute reads:

Source: Section 888 - Forcible Sodomy

B. The crime of forcible sodomy shall include:

1. Sodomy committed by a person over eighteen (18) years of age upon a person under sixteen (16) years of age; or

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

3. Sodomy accomplished with any person by means of force, violence, or threats of force or violence accompanied by apparent power of execution regardless of the age of the victim or the person committing the crime; or

4. Sodomy committed by a state, county, municipal or political subdivision employee or a contractor or an employee of a contractor of the state, a county, a municipality or political subdivision of this state upon a person who is under the legal custody, supervision or authority of a state agency, a county, a municipality or a political subdivision of this state; or

5. Sodomy committed upon a person who is at least sixteen (16) years of age but less than twenty (20) years of age and is a student of any public or private secondary school, junior high or high school, or public vocational school, with a person who is eighteen (18) years of age or older and is employed by the same school system.

© Copyright Original Source

It looks to boil down to two things: can you give consent and did you give consent. Item #3 is the latter. With the limited details I've found, it appears that the accused claims consent was given. Unless there's video or physical evidence otherwise, the prosecution probably can't prove otherwise. Since the statute doesn't take intoxication into consideration for determining if consent can be given, the action doesn't qualify as forcible sodomy.



I'm honestly not sure what I think about this. The easy answer is just to amend the statute to predicate consent on not being intoxicated. That mostly strikes me as overcompensating, though. It's entirely possible to give consent while intoxicated. It's also a lot easier to take advantage of someone who is intoxicated. I'm not sure that means we should be changing the law. That seems like using too big of a hammer, but I can't pretend to know how big of a nail this really is. It doesn't strike me as a very big one.