Oklahoma: where some rapes are cool but abortion may be illegal in any circumstance

If the governor signs these bills, I hope the lawsuits will start immediately.

I was stationed in Oklahoma '85 - '92 and the unbending strict conservatism made me crazy. I volunteered for every remote assignment, and it took me years to get the hell out. I don't doubt these shitty bills for one second, though I would have hoped by now there was some awakening of common sense.

Note, that abortion isn't actually illegal in Oklahoma, so I fail to see how punishing doctors who perform a legal operation could possibly be constitutional and would expect the law to be struck down the moment a challenge is issued.

As for the second thing. I just....ugh. I wish violence on the boy and the whole appeals court.

ShaunHorton said:

As for the second thing. I just....ugh. I wish violence on the boy and the whole appeals court.

Click to expand...

Often, outrage over a court's decision is misdirected. I am only going by what is in that article, but this may be one of those times. As I understand it, "forcible" is one of those terms that has a very specific legal definition that may differ from the common-sense layman's definition, so the court's decision appears to be not so much "Orally violating a drunk person isn't rape" but "The law as written does not cover this and we can't declare it does just because it's obviously a bad thing - fix the damn law."

It appears my take is correct:

Regarding That Oklahoma Rape Decision You're Outraged About.

Amadan said:

It appears my take is correct:

Regarding That Oklahoma Rape Decision You're Outraged About.

Click to expand...

Yeah. That was covered in the OP's article. Still, every judge interprets the laws a little differently, and while some follow the letter, some try to follow the spirit. It's still disgusting that in this instance, they've chosen the letter, and set a horrible precedent for other cases.

And I still don't see how it couldn't be unconstitutional to pass a law that punishes people for having a legal procedure.

ShaunHorton said:

Yeah. That was covered in the OP's article. Still, every judge interprets the laws a little differently, and while some follow the letter, some try to follow the spirit. It's still disgusting that in this instance, they've chosen the letter, and set a horrible precedent for other cases.

Click to expand...

It's not that simple. While there is some room for interpretation (which is why we have judges and appeals courts in the first place), it's not just a matter of some judges deciding to "follow the letter" and others deciding to "follow the spirit" as their consciences or personal preferences guide them. If Popehat's summary is correct (and he's usually pretty solid on these things), the court really didn't have a lot of room to interpret otherwise without conjuring law out of thin air just because it should have been there.

Based on the commentary, it appears that the prosecution made the Terry White mistake of charging the defendant with what they wanted to convict him of rather than what they actually could convict him of.

Amadan said:

It's not that simple. While there is some room for interpretation (which is why we have judges and appeals courts in the first place), it's not just a matter of some judges deciding to "follow the letter" and others deciding to "follow the spirit" as their consciences or personal preferences guide them. If Popehat's summary is correct (and he's usually pretty solid on these things), the court really didn't have a lot of room to interpret otherwise without conjuring law out of thin air just because it should have been there.

Click to expand...

My outrage is because the law isn't there. Where have these legislators been for the past 30 years or so if they don't know that forced oral sex can be a thing and it's every bit as traumatizing to victims as other forms of sexual assault?

As for the abortion issue, it seems like more and more states are taking the "toss every roadblock in the path of a legal procedure" approach. I assume they're trying to find chinks in the armor of Roe V Wade or something, or to force another legal showdown. Why they're doing this, and especially why they're leaving no exceptions for rape, incest and for life-threatening situations, I can only guess. I assume it's because they figure it will win them votes, regardless of what the courts eventually decide, but in the meantime, it causes a lot of suffering for women who can't easily go to other states to have abortions. I suppose the trying to ban all abortions approach will make them look like magnaninous compromisers if they eventually back off a bit and allow the kinds of provisions that were considered extremely right wing a decade or two ago--abortion only allowed to save the life of the mother.

It leaves a foul taste in my mouth and makes it very hard to believe that these politicans are doing what they do in good faith or with any concern for the people they claim to be representing (the ones who have uteri, at least).

Roxxsmom said:

It leaves a foul taste in my mouth and makes it very hard to believe that these politicans are doing what they do in good faith or with any concern for the people they claim to be representing (the ones who have uteri, at least).

Click to expand...

The theory is that the electoral process brings the cream of society to the top of the heap. I have a different theory that would explain the foul taste in your mouth. Turds float.

Roxxsmom said:

My outrage is because the law isn't there. Where have these legislators been for the past 30 years or so if they don't know that forced oral sex can be a thing and it's every bit as traumatizing to victims as other forms of sexual assault?

Click to expand...

It's hard to keep current when you put so much of your time and effort into one area:

Oklahoma Republicans Break Record For Proposing The Most Anti-LGBT Bills

Click to expand...

A court cannot simply read crimes into a criminal statute that are not there. This is not on the court. It's on the law (which needs to be changed to include oral sodomy), and on the prosecutor, who apparently could have potentially gone after the attacker on different charges, but didn't.

Consider that giving a court the power to read new crimes into a statute that aren't in fact there could also result in convictions you don't ​like.

Roxxsmom said:

My outrage is because the law isn't there. Where have these legislators been for the past 30 years or so if they don't know that forced oral sex can be a thing and it's every bit as traumatizing to victims as other forms of sexual assault?

Click to expand...

From the link I posted:

Updated to add: In the comments, Al points out that prosecutors could have charged sexual battery:

B. No person shall commit sexual battery on any other person. "Sexual battery" shall mean the intentional touching, mauling or feeling of the body or private parts of any person sixteen (16) years of age or older, in a lewd and lascivious manner:

1. Without the consent of that person;

​

That would be a 10-year maximum sentence instead of a 20-year maximum — not that it matters for a juvenile adjudication. But it looks like this is another case of prosecutors not reading statutes carefully. Thanks, Al.

Click to expand...

That was is response to this comment:

Ken, you make it sound like putting one's penis in the mouth of an unconscious person is currently legal in Oklahoma, which would be a problem in urgent need of legislative attention. However, as best I can tell, that act is already prohibited by 21 O.S. § 1123(B) ("Sexual Battery"), and punishable by "not more than ten (10) years" imprisonment. Wasn't the question here just whether the prosecutor could charge it under 21 O.S. § 888, which provides for up to 20 years imprisonment?

Click to expand...

So, you can argue that the existing law does not treat it seriously enough (and after this case, it will probably be revised), but it is not the case that forced oral sex isn't currently a crime in Oklahoma.

This thread reminds me of this thread: http://absolutewrite.com/forums/sho...-Because-Disabled-Victim-Didn-t-Fight-Him-Off

Sometimes, laws need to be fixed. Sometimes, prosecutors make poor choices. The courts can't act arbitrarily to fix these things.

Well, they can, but that's the kind of stuff that generates successful appeals.

There is a lot of outrage about the case here. They have already started the process of updating the law. Not so much outrage on the abortion thing.

redfalcon said:

There is a lot of outrage about the case here. They have already started the process of updating the law. Not so much outrage on the abortion thing.

Click to expand...

Oh, I've got plenty of that for ya...

Amadan said:

So, you can argue that the existing law does not treat it seriously enough (and after this case, it will probably be revised), but it is not the case that forced oral sex isn't currently a crime in Oklahoma.

Click to expand...

So all the argument about the courts not being able to prosecute a crime that doesn't exist are sort of moot. What happened is, in fact, illegal in OK, if not classified as rape. In fact, OK isn't the only state that has different definitions for different kinds of sexual assault, rightly or wrongly. So it's back in the courts', um, court. Why didn't they prosecute it as sexual battery then? A lesser penalty is better than none at all.

As per the change in OK's abortion laws? If there's no groundswell of outrage, then I assume this means that most of the people living in this state (including women) are just fine with the law as it stands. Sadly, it's down to the people who feel that this is a hardship for women, or potentially dangerous for them, to challenge it in court.

Roxxsmom said:

As per the change in OK's abortion laws? If there's no groundswell of outrage, then I assume this means that most of the people living in this state (including women) are just fine with the law as it stands. Sadly, it's down to the people who feel that this is a hardship for women, or potentially dangerous for them, to challenge it in court.

Click to expand...

Not to pick on you, I promise, but this is a refrain I hear all too frequently. I'm amazed how many people seem to be unaware of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If there's no groundswell of outrage, just perhaps it's because most of the people living in that state (including women) have personal concerns much more pressing than their ability to obtain an abortion.

Most people haven't the luxury of time to seriously consider all the implications of various actions taken by various idiotic politicians. Most people haven't even the luxury of time to become informed voters, which is fundamentally where the whole myth of the informed electorate breaks down. Perhaps in the future post-scarcity world, where all the work is performed by robots and all the goods are distributed evenly by fair-minded arbiters with no interest in personal gain, all people will have the time to hang out in online fora and debate the actions of the ruling class. For now, the vast majority of people haven't the time or energy to give a crap.

That's something we privileged few tend to forget.

Roxxsmom said:

So all the argument about the courts not being able to prosecute a crime that doesn't exist are sort of moot. What happened is, in fact, illegal in OK, if not classified as rape. In fact, OK isn't the only state that has different definitions for different kinds of sexual assault, rightly or wrongly. So it's back in the courts', um, court. Why didn't they prosecute it as sexual battery then? A lesser penalty is better than none at all.

Click to expand...

Because the prosecutor screwed up.

As per the change in OK's abortion laws? If there's no groundswell of outrage, then I assume this means that most of the people living in this state (including women) are just fine with the law as it stands. Sadly, it's down to the people who feel that this is a hardship for women, or potentially dangerous for them, to challenge it in court.

Click to expand...

I think that's overstating the case. It would not surprise me, though, if a majority of people living in that state (including women) are in fact anti-abortion.