Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

[UnderseaLcpl]

Don't be a jackass, Maddog.

[the_tyrant]

For a taste of the future, watch Idiocracy!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
great movie

[Gerald]

Sci-Fi movie..

[MaddogK]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Also classy.

Just having some fun, I intentionally left it ambiguous. Call it 'fishing', no offense meant.

I also am ignorant of molecular biology, quantum physics, trek lore, a few other things.

[CaptainHaplo]

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 Should that change, I suspect the order will be rescinded or revoked.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.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

What I want to know is who are his partners? It all sounds like there's a line of lonely women formed up outside his house, waiting their turn with the stud-muffin. This is wierd.

Insert Reece GF photo here


On a serious note, was this concensual or is he a predator?

Multiple reasons -from the article.

Really?

He lived in a home provided by the council

So that would be a council house.

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,

oh dear.

Since the relationship started in the "council" home, the other person had to have been another ward of the state, or an employee.

Oh dear oh dear.

it is safe to say that Kieron is another state wardee

oh really deary deary me.

With the care in the community measures first introduced under Thatcher due to the wish to sell off state mental hospitals to private developers "council homes" for mildly retarded people with a low IQ are usually just ordinary council houses on ordinary council housing estates done as part of "care in the community"

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Okay, so why is this case in the courts? The warders assumed responsibility. If there's a problem, the state should be on trial for failure to properly handle its charges.

#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"

So? Where were his warders? If they were aware of his nature then why were they not preventing such acts? If they were present, why does it matter? Children see lewd things all the time, even from other children, and we trust their guardians to keep them in check. When that doesn't work, we hold the guardians accountable.

#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.

Then my original point on this stance remains valid. If you are willing to accept that definition as a premise for sexual responsibility, then you must also ban any sex act that results in an undesireable outcome. There is a globe-spanning army of unwilling parents and STD victims who would readily attest to that fact.

What differentiates a mentally-deficient adult from a hormone-crazed youth? The capacity for understanding? Obviously not, given the tremendous number of inadvertent outcomes amongst consenting adults who fit the definition of consent. A test may determine mental competence, but it has nothing to do with what actually ends up happening.

This judgement is borne of fear and the unwillingness to accept the sovereignty of the individual, as well as a disregard for the accountability of the state.

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”.

And that's the basis needed for establishing a legal precedence to ban people from sex? I'll hold my breath as generations of mentally-competent people continue to ignore sex-ed. Let's wait and see how that works out.

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.

Aye, there's the question. Just because it is the law does not mean that it is right. IMO, if the state is the ward, it should be the party under judgement, not the rights of individuals.

[Platapus]

In Virginia our last sterilization under the eugenics law was in 1969. Not all that long ago.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

On a serious note, was this concensual or is he a predator?

According to the article he has a consensual relationship with another man. He doesn't appear to be a predator or anything.

According to the article he has a consensual relationship with another man.

Could this story really just be the end result from that he was living in a council flat granted to him as a single person and was found to be cohabiting?

[tater]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Ah, so I am disqualified from the discussion based upon my occupation. Very well, you may have it as you like it. If I were a smaller man, I'd ask what it is that you do, and then use it against you in a similar manner. Fortunately for you, I am that that type of person.

Not at all disqualified. I did not say that at all, nor did I mean that.

The point was merely to use the "fitness" definition from evolutionary biology or population genetics, that's all. Just like "theory" in other discussions we've had here before. If someone uses the dictionary definition, then an observed fact like evolution can become "just a theory" since the scientific definition of theory is so very much more specific than the dictionary version. The scientific fitness definitions include reproduction (sometimes as math (relative abundance of a genotype, etc)).

The definition is important in this case I think because social darwinists (who misuse the language of evolutionary biology) will in effect use the dictionary definition to weed out the "weak" with terrible consequences.

If my writing was poor enough to give offense (quite possible for me) then I apologize, sincerely. No offense was meant, I didn't read what I wrote in that way at all, or I would have written it differently. I am not a biologist, but I entertained paleontology for a while in school (and took classes)—then ended up working with a bunch of paleontologists for about 10 years.