·  Legal News, Analysis, & Commentary

Civil Rights

Oklahoma Judges Decided Orally Raping an Unconscious Victim is OK

— April 29, 2016

In a race to see just who can be the state’s stupidest, most ignorant and bassackwards part of the legal system, the Oklahoma courts may be taking over the lead from the state legislature. Two Oklahoma judges decided orally raping an unconscious victim is OK and the appellate court agreed. The legal system in Oklahoma has lost its damn mind.

In a race to see just who can be the state’s stupidest, most ignorant and bassackwards part of the legal system, the Oklahoma courts may be taking over the lead from the state legislature. Two Oklahoma judges decided orally raping an unconscious victim is OK and the appellate court agreed. The legal system in Oklahoma has lost its damn mind.

As a little background in this amazing race of idiocy, here are some things the “learned” members of Oklahoma’s legislature have tried in recent months:

Now, imagine that the state’s judiciary has done something that outstrips the above in blatant stupidity. Well, it did. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled, 5-0, that a boy who stuck his penis in an unconscious girl’s mouth did not commit forcible sodomy. The “logic” behind this incomprehensibly dumb ruling should make you weep for humanity. According to the court, being drunk and passed out doesn’t mean the victim didn’t consent to performing oral sex.

What the what!? She was drunk and unconscious but was able not only to consent to the act but actually perform it, while unconscious, as evidenced by the results of a rape test performed at a local hospital. The boy’s “DNA” was found around her mouth as well as on her leg. Her blood alcohol content was measured at .341, high enough to result in severe alcohol poisoning.

Here’s the story:

Image courtesy of
Image courtesy of

In 2014, a group of high-school students was drinking alcohol in a local park. The two students involved, a 17-year-old boy and a 16-year-old girl were partaking as well. According to witnesses, the girl was stumbling and falling. She was carried to her rapist’s car by two boys, so that he could drive her home. A boy in the car with the two for a short time said the girl was “unconscious at times.”

The rapist’s story is that it was totally consensual oral sex and that it was her idea. When asked, the last thing the victim remembered was drinking in the park. So, she was either out cold or he was one very unmemorable partner. I’m putting my money on the former.

So, apparently, were the prosecutors who charged the boy with forcible oral sodomy and rape. The judge, however, nixed the rape charge. Why? In Oklahoma, it’s only rape if it involves vaginal or anal penetration. Seriously?! Yep. As there wasn’t any evidence that the boy had vaginally or anally raped the girl, the judge dismissed the rape charge.

A different judge dismissed the forcible oral sodomy charge. Why? Oklahoma law doesn’t specifically say that a drunken individual cannot give consent. Furthermore, as she was unconscious, the victim wasn’t able to resist the rapist’s assault, thus he didn’t employ force. My mind feels like a watermelon at a Gallagher show.

Comedian Gallagher/image courtesy of
Comedian Gallagher/image courtesy of

Despite a valiant appellate attempt by Tulsa County assistant DA Benjamin Fu, the appeals court upheld the lower court.

According to the rapist’s defense attorney, Shannon McMurray, “There was absolutely no evidence of force or him doing anything to make this girl give him oral sex, other than she was too intoxicated to consent.” [Emphasis added.] Are you for real with this crap?! Apparently, yes. The only (barely) redeeming factor for Ms. McMurray here is that she did suggest the lesser charge of sexual battery would have been appropriate.

The appeals court decision states, “Forcible sodomy cannot occur where a victim is so intoxicated as to be completely unconscious at the time of the sexual act of oral copulation.” Unless forced, I am never visiting this state for fear that something in the air or water will make me find actual, real logic in this decision.

Could it get worse? You wouldn’t think so. You’d be wrong, though.

Oklahoma’s rape law recognizes victim intoxication as something that constitutes force. According to Mr. Fu’s argument, ruling that the victim’s drunkenness eliminated the possibility of force, meant the crime was being subjected to an “orifice test.” In other words, all things being equal, if the boy had vaginally or anally penetrated the unconscious girl, the act would be first-degree rape. In fact, under that law, vaginal or anal penetration of an unconscious victim is no different than forcibly raping a conscious victim.

The court, in its “wisdom,” didn’t even think the act was sexual assault of any kind because the rapist’s chosen orifice was the victim’s mouth. I am forced to wonder if any of these judges has children, specifically daughters, and how they would feel if this had happened to one of their kids. Somehow, I think the result would be very different (even though, as we’re all taught, the law should be the same for all).

Mr. Fu analogized this case to one of breaking-and-entering. A B&E is still a B&E if the perpetrator accesses the home via an unlocked door. In Mr. Fu’s analogy, an unconscious woman is the equivalent of a home with its doors unlocked. He made this analogy to point out the stupidity of the court’s ruling. Sadly, I don’t think the court could quite grasp it.

This is a HUGE case of victim-blaming. Oklahoma’s judiciary has completely dehumanized this girl (and all rape victims). In this particular case, according to the court, the victim must assume all responsibility for being orally raped because she had passed out from over-consuming alcohol. It’s also reprehensible in that it is based solely on several outdated, no-longer-recognized ideas surrounding rape, such as:

  • If the victim doesn’t resist, it’s not rape;
  • Drunken victims bear the responsibility for the attack and are untrustworthy; and
  • Being orally raped isn’t as serious or traumatizing as being vaginally or anally raped.

The only silver lining in this otherwise noxious cloud of judicial stupidity and crass moronic, misogynistic behavior is that the appellate ruling is an “unpublished opinion.” This means that no other court in this state’s bassackwards judicial system can cite it as precedent.

That doesn’t help the victim, though. Nor will it do much to encourage other victims to come forward seeking justice. Such rulings, whether precedential or not, have a chilling effect on victims bringing rape charges against their attackers.

Shame on you, Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals! I hope, for the sake of your daughters, wives, sisters, other female relatives and friends that you come to your senses. Imagine this victim was your daughter. Still think your decision is justice?


Oklahoma Court: Making an Unconscious Victim Perform Oral Sex Isn’t Sexual Assault

Join the conversation!