Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl
However, I'm resigned to my usual Lockean stance on this one. Anyone who has intercourse with this man is doing so out of their own free will and is therefore accepting the consequences. Unless he becomes a rapist or something, the court has no place restricting his rights on the grounds that it is necessary to protect others, for any reason.
|
The problem here is your making the assumption that the person or people involved are doing so not only with a free will, but also with a fairly reasonable understanding of the situation.
They may see a person mentally deficient, think he isn't getting any (or whatever reason they find), and without him cognitavly able to convey correct information, they may place themselves at risk without proper knowledge that he is obligated (but unable) to convey.
Given the man's mental inability to make proper decisions regarding sexuality, it is entirely possible that this is also an action designed to assist in protecting society. If he cannot figure out when and how it is safe to "do it", how can he be expected to be capable of understanding the repercussions of refusing a "no" from a partner - who upon saying no becomes a victim if he fails to stop?
Slippery slope? Perhaps - but tell that to the woman or man that is his first victim. Personal rights end when they infringe on another's rights. The question should be - is he a sufficient enough danger to himself and society to be limited - and if such then I agree - he should be a ward of the state or responsible adult.