Oklahoma Court Rules That This Sex Act Isn’t Rape If The Victim Is Drunk (VIDEO)


A recent court ruling in Oklahoma has many people outraged — not just over the ruling itself, but over the fact that, under Oklahoma law, it was also correct. Now state lawmakers are vowing to fix the problem.

The ruling comes in an appeal of a lower court dismissal of an oral sodomy charge against a teenage defendant. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled on March 24 that the judge was correct in his dismissal of the charge because intoxication isn’t one of the criteria the law uses to describe the crime.

Subscribe to our Youtube Channel

The incident occurred two years ago when a 17-year-old boy allegedly forced a 16-year-old girl to perform oral sex on him after drinking and smoking marijuana in a Tulsa park. The girl, who was too intoxicated to walk, was carried to the boy’s car by friends where the alleged assault occurred. The boy told police that the girl had consented to the act, but she said that she had no memory of it. The boy was charged with first-degree rape and forcible oral sodomy. The rape charge was dismissed due to lack of evidence. A judge then threw out the oral sodomy charge because of the way the law was written.

The lead prosecutor on the case, Benjamin Fu, said that the ruling was ridiculous:

I don’t believe that our legislators or our citizens believe that we as prosecutors or as a public should be focusing on the conduct or choices that a victim made in order to determine whether or not an assailant should face criminal liability.

In other words, the way the law is written now, it allows for the argument that a victim who was forced to have oral sex was “asking for it” by allowing him or herself to become too intoxicated to say “no,” or to fight off an assailant. Oklahoma’s rape law clearly mentions that a rape can occur if a victim is too drunk or high to give consent. But the oral sodomy law is different, and that same provision doesn’t exist.

Oklahoma state representative Scott Biggs has promised a legislative fix for the law, as early as within the week. Biggs posted the following on his Facebook page on April 28:

Scott Biggs Facebook

Biggs also told CNN this:

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. Unfortunately, legal minds often get stuck on questions of semantics, when it is clear to most of us what the intent of the law is.

Interpreting the law by considering the clear intent of the legislature is what saved the Affordable Care Act when the U.S. Supreme Court heard King v. Burwell last year. Failure to do the same thing by a court in Oklahoma has allowed an alleged perpetrator to walk free.

Here’s a report, via KTUL:

Featured image via Return Of Kings

Terms of Service

Leave a Reply