Photopin

Old laws or new laws, some laws are just totally bullshit. Especially when it comes to the outdated sex laws of blaming the victim of rape because they are drunk. Recently in Oklahoma, a young man was charged with rape in a case of oral sodomy. After the verdict, Old MacDonald needed to go back to the farm.

Court Ruling

Photopin

Get this. An Oklahoman judge ruled that a young man was not guilty of rape since the young lady was passed out drunk. (Yes, oral sodomy is possible) Go ahead. I’ll give you a couple of seconds to stop shaking your head in disbelief. Nothing like blaming the victim. Who was the young man? The son of a millionaire?

Consent

Photopin

The legal decision hinged upon the victim not being able to give consent. Instead of ruling that consent was not able to be given due to unconsciousness, it was ruled that the victim was not in a position to NOT give consent. In this case, a double negative should not mean a yes.

Upheld On Appeal

Photopin

It couldn’t get any more bullshit, right? Wrong. Bullshit comes in quantity. The appellate court upheld the decision. Unanimously! Instead of one clueless lawgiver, we now have several. The bullshit just keeps getting deeper and deeper. Please, someone bring me a shovel.

See No Evil?

Photopin

Question is, are these dolls not seeing, hearing or speaking of the crime or do they just not believe their own senses of what the courts decided? For me, it is the latter. But, burying our heads in the sand will not make the bullshit go away.

The Law

Photopin

Part of the problem does involve the law itself. Oklahoma does have a law on the books that makes it illegal for a woman to be taken advantage of while drunk—”for vaginal or anal intercourse.” But, this was oral sodomy, remember? While the original statute lists several factors that could mean ‘force’ in committing sodomy it does not include being too drunk to say no. Whatever happened to the phrase “including but not limited to?” Is this a case of where the law makers had a few too many lunchtime martinis before coming back to work? But, here is the kicker. The appellate court ruled that the correct charge should have been “unlawful touching.” Sorry, but this is just bullshit. Even the cows on the farm are laughing at us. The superior lifeform of the planet? Moo.

What is the legal system guilty of?

Additional Image: Visualize US

Comments

comments