UK Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

We're approaching critical levels of WTF here, Cap'n; I'm not sure the engine will hold!

...is this even a new thing? Im pretty sure I read about this stuff occuring before.

Don't worry, OP. As soon as Hitler gets mentioned, this will be stopped from spreading.

And Britian says America is messed up?

What. I mean, huh? I mean, what? I mean, I'm confused.

What. o_O

Probably the strangest court order I've seen in a while.

I wonder how this Kieron feels about this.

edited 7th Feb '11 11:31:03 AM by Tzetze

I'm not sure I objectively disagree with the judge's conclusions, although I can easily see the slippery slope implications and agree that they would be distasteful. I mean, we restrict people's right to do things on the basis of mental incapacity all the time; it's not like this is somehow extraordinary.

Quote from the guy himself, "sex could give you spots or measles". This was cited as evidence that he didn't understand the concept of sex being dangerous for your health.

I would argue that it was the opposite.

He also thinks babies are delivered by stork. So... is he parroting what he's been told? With an IQ of 48, he's well below the capacity needed to function usefully in society.

I.. You know, I'm not sure what to even say about this except.. Wow.

...yeah, I'm not touching this with a ten-foot pole.

I really just don't know what to think here. I'm completely morally outraged that such rulings can and may be passed down, and yet I understand why it was perfectly.

For the moment, I'm going to go with my civil libertarian side and scream and wave my arms in futility.

I will reiterate: we restrict civil freedoms all the time on the basis of mental incapacity. What makes this case different, other than that it's about having sex? Not necessarily relevant, but it strikes me as highly unlikely given the particulars that this man would ever sire children anyway.

He also thinks babies are delivered by stork. So... is he parroting what he's been told? With an IQ of 48, he's well below the capacity needed to function usefully in society.

Er. Not too sure about the latter sentence, specifically its relevance to whether or not a man (or woman) should be allowed to consent to sex or not.

As for the first part, yes I suspect he's parroting what he's been told to an extent. But the psychiatrist is quoted as thinking that Alan believes these things - maybe he believes them uncritically and naively, but still I'd assume "belief" to imply an active embracing of the thought.

At first I assumed he was gay so the thing about storks didn't matter, as he couldn't get anyone pregnant.

However (a) his sexuality appears more fluid than that (given the lewd gestures at children), (b) I can imagine complications applying labels of sexuality to people who barely understand what's going on at any given time, including potential abuse issues.

So. It's tricky. All I can say is I'm glad I didn't have any part in the decision-making on this extremely difficult issue...

edited 7th Feb '11 12:09:50 PM by mmysqueeant

I'm sorry but I can't quite see what the problem is. The guy's got the mental capacity of a child, therefore the usual rules regarding the age of consent don't apply. It isn't about eugenics or anything like that (which would be a moot point in this case anyway since it's a same sex relationship), it's about protecting someone from being taken advantage of or making really bad mistakes because they don't know any better. That said, I have to admit that the tendency in the UK to lump children and vulnerable adults together with regards to how they are treated (ie "they can't take care of themselves, therefore they must be protected") can get a bit out of hand sometimes.

1. You don't treat children like mentally-challenged adults and vice versa. Children have a functional learning capability, mentally-challenged adults by definition do not. I hope they can educate this man, but even if they can't, banning him from sex is a bizarre and counterproductive way to convince someone mentally-challenged that...well, whatever the hell they're trying to convince him.
2. This was raised by a local village council, not originally by mental health professionals. I am a wee bit skeptical about how the case was presented to the justice. Just because you're a functioning adult who can make informed consenting decisions about your life and someone else isn't, that doesn't mean you're qualified to make informed consenting decisions for them.

If a 13 year old has sex with a 13 year old, is that illegal?

If this man has sex with another man with a low IQ, is that illegal?

Honestly, I don't see the problem either. This man has an IQ of 48 and barely has any idea of what sex actually entails. We shouldn't allow him to have sex for the same reason we don't allow ten-year-olds to have sex: he isn't capable of giving informed consent.

Actually sex between a 13 year old and a 13 year old is legal here. As is sex is legal for a 10 year old, so long as the partner is between 8-12.

Don't see the problem. This isn't a shocking new precedent. It's illegal for individuals to have sex with him because he's mentally a small child, and with an IQ of 48, which is fairly major retardation, he won't ever grow beyond that. For the same reason you can't fuck a 5 year old, you can't fuck him.

And, as a note, it's not like he'd get arrested if he had sex (though his partner probably would). Because of his condition, there's absolutely no possibility that he'd be considered capable of understanding the nature of his actions, and thus guilty of a crime.

edited 7th Feb '11 1:13:45 PM by Miijhal

Right, the court judgement basically means he needs to be supervised so he won't have sex with anyone. As you pointed out, he cannot consent to sex.

One thing to remember, though, is that even though he has the mental ability of a child, he's not a child. He clearly has a sex drive. Is it fair to deprive him of something he desires, in the interests of protecting him? Couldn't they monitor his relationship rather than cutting it off completely?

What if he desires to kill people, or fly the Space Shuttle? This is a settled argument; the legal system may deprive individuals of freedoms if they are incapable of using them responsibly or without endangering themselves or others.

It strikes me that the same amount of effort required to ensure he does not have sex could also permit them ensure he doesn't have irresponsible sex.

One could say that the right to fulfill a sex drive (in a way that doesn't harm anyone else) would be considered a basic human right while the right to fulfill a murderous drive isn't.