Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl
What? Why?
|
Multiple reasons -from the article.
#1 - The person in question was already a ward of the state(at least in part) due to his mental disabilities. He was living in a somewhat supervised environment already.
"He lived in a home provided by the council, where he developed a sexual relationship with a man called Kieron by the court"
Note that the local council also restrained this Kieron person from being able to associate with "Alan". Since the relationship started in the "council" home, the other person had to have been another ward of the state, or an employee. Since nothing is made of any incidents regarding employees, it is safe to say that Kieron is another state wardee.
#2 - He had already indicated his actions were a danger to others.
"Alan was also accused of making lewd gestures at children in a dentists’ surgery and on a bus"
#3 - Sound reasoning based upon the legal definition of consent:
Mr Justice Mostyn highlighted the fact that the court cannot prevent people from merely making “unwise” decisions, and that a
simple test can be carried out to see if a person is capable of consenting to sex based on the act itself rather than the proposed partner.
The judge said it requires an understanding and awareness of the “mechanics of the act”, “that there are health risks involved” and that sex between a man and a woman may lead to pregnancy.
He said that the psychiatrist thought Alan “believed that babies were delivered by a stork or found under a bush”, and that “sex could give you spots or measles”.
On that basis the judge ruled that Alan did not have the capacity to consent to sex, but also ordered that the council should provide him with sex education “in the hope that he thereby gains that capacity”.
Alan fails to meet the legal standards required to be able to consent to sex. Should that change, I suspect the order will be rescinded or revoked. However, in this case the judge decided correctly based upon the law. The decision is not in error. The only question then becomes, is the law itself flawed? I find the test as defined to be rather reasonable.