Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

ShooterSF · 10-02-2011 01:41PM

28064212 wrote: »

How many of those are orphans? This man has no guardian. And how many of those are engaging in sexual behaviour with adults? I've already stated that nothing I've said relates to two people of equal levels of informed consent

So if one finds a 12 year old genius and teaches them about the birds and the bees should they be able to give informed consent?

10-02-2011 01:48PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Ah, the old "answer a question with a question" ploy. You should work for Cowen.

Ah the old "completely ignore the points raised" tactic.

I thought it was implied by my questions, but yes, if they were orphans and/or engaging in sex with adults, I would expect the state to intervene.

ShooterSF wrote: »

So if one finds a 12 year old genius and teaches them about the birds and the bees should they be able to give informed consent?

The age of consent is stating that anyone under that age is incapable of giving informed consent, regardless of what education they've been given.

ShooterSF · 10-02-2011 02:01PM

28064212 wrote: »

The age of consent is stating that anyone under that age is incapable of giving informed consent, regardless of what education they've been given.

I know the law but why have some arbitrary age of consent if our concern is whether someone can make an informed consent? Are you saying that a persons age should have a baring(sp?) on the issue?

10-02-2011 02:10PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

I know the law but why have some arbitrary age of consent if our concern is whether someone can make an informed consent? Are you saying that a persons age should have a baring(sp?) on the issue?

I don't particularly agree with the concept of an age of consent. However, doing it on a case by case basis for the whole population is completely unfeasible. So, as a society, we've picked a minimum age, below which people are considered incapable of giving informed consent. It's a very broad brush, and people either side of the line should be on the other on a case by case basis, but by-and-large, it works for the vast majority of the population. For the ones that fall between the cracks, the legal system acts like it has above

jackiebaron · 10-02-2011 02:11PM

28064212 wrote: »

Ah the old "completely ignore the points raised" tactic.

I thought it was implied by my questions, but yes, if they were orphans and/or engaging in sex with adults, I would expect the state to intervene.

The age of consent is stating that anyone under that age is incapable of giving informed consent, regardless of what education they've been given.

So the state should only intervene if the parties are orphans or having sex with over 18-year-olds. What would be your recommendation for the multitudes of others who don't fall into either of these categories and whose parents or guardians can't or won't keep them locked up until they themselves reach your all-hallowed "age of consent"?
And in the case of the orphans and those having sex with adults you still haven't answered my question at all. You threw in a wishy washy "I'd expect the state to intervene" .... what do you mean by that? Slap on the wrist and say "stop shagging"? Restraining orders?
Would you or would you not sanction that they all be placed under around the clock supervision or in detention like the 41 year old?

10-02-2011 02:31PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

So the state should only intervene if the parties are orphans or having sex with over 18-year-olds. What would be your recommendation for the multitudes of others who don't fall into either of these categories and whose parents or guardians can't or won't keep them locked up until they themselves reach your all-hallowed "age of consent"?

What about them? I've made absolutely no mention of them other than to say I don't know. It has absolutely no relevance to this case whatsoever. Go start a thread on it if you want

jackiebaron wrote: »

And in the case of the orphans and those having sex with adults you still haven't answered my question at all. You threw in a wishy washy "I'd expect the state to intervene" .... what do you mean by that? Slap on the wrist and say "stop shagging"? Restraining orders?

Ehh, it's called statutory rape. It carries a maximum jail sentence of life for the perpetrator. I think that falls under the definition of "intervening"

jackiebaron wrote: »

Would you or would you not sanction that they all be placed under around the clock supervision or in detention like the 41 year old?

Have you read the article? He is not "in detention". He is living in a council provided house, beause he has no-one to care for him. He can not function normally so he needs supervision. Or do you want to just throw him out on the street? He's an "adult" after all, he can take care of himself

drkpower · 10-02-2011 03:27PM

Terry wrote: »

At the end of the day, this judge has prevented a man from having sex because of his IQ.
IQ tests do not measure common sense.
I've an IQ of 180 or 170 or something. I can't remember because I've drank so much beer over the past 20 years that my brain cells are ****ed.

IQ tests do not measure common sense, and common sense is the most important thing when it comes to sexual relationships.

The judge is a dick.

Why is it that people make such strident expressions of opinion, without first even trying to understand the actual facts, or reading beyond the first few lines of an article?

This case was not decided on the man's IQ. It was decided on the basis of an assessment of the man's capacity by a professional best placed to make that assessment.

The UKs Court of Protection is specifically aimed at protecting the rights of those with questionable capacity, who are undoubtedly vulnerable, whether that be in relation to their medical decisions, their financial decisions, their sexual decisions or any other decisions. If the person is professionaly adjudged not to understand, comprehend, retain and weigh up the information presented to them in order to make a decision, they will be deemed not to have the capacity to make that decision. Would some people here prefer that not to be the case? Would people prefer that the court ignore his vulnerability when it comes to financial and medical decisions, or is it just sexual decisions that the court should not be involved in?

The aim of that court, and what is occurring in this case, is to ensure that the man receives the appropriate assessment, training, education & counselling, so that he gains the requisite capacity. That ia good thing. People need to learn a bit more about these issues before they pontificate about the judge being a d!ck.

Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

Comments