Britain: Court Bans Man with Low IQ from Having Sex
February 6th, 2011My default setting is that the state should have nothing to do with what consenting adults do in their bedrooms.
In the case below, however, “Alan” has an IQ of 48 and lives in government housing.
What should the role of the state be in a situation like this?
Via: Telegraph:
A man with a low IQ has been banned from having sex by a High Court judge who admitted the case raised questions about “civil liberties and personal autonomy”.
The 41 year-old had been in a relationship with a man whom he lived with and told officials “it would make me feel happy” for it to continue.
But his local council decided his “vigorous sex drive” was inappropriate and that with an IQ of 48 and a “moderate” learning disability, he did not understand what he was doing.
A psychiatrist involved in the case even tried to prevent the man being given sex education, on the grounds that it would leave him “confused”.
Mr Justice Mostyn said the case was “legally, intellectually and morally” complex as sex is “one of the most basic human functions” and the court must “tread especially carefully” when the state tries to curtail it.
But he agreed that the man, known only as Alan, should not be allowed to have sex with anyone on the grounds that he did not have the mental capacity to understand the health risks associated with his actions.
Under the judge’s order, the man is now subject to “close supervision” by the local authority that provides his accommodation, in order to ensure he does not break the highly unusual order.
The judge concluded: “I therefore make a declaration that at the present time Alan does not have the capacity to consent to and engage in sexual relations.
“In such circumstances it is agreed that the present régime for Alan’s supervision and for the prevention of future sexual activity is in his best interests.”
Research Credit: rmf
For more reasons than I care to list, this is a subject that tends to render even the most careful of arguments in starkest Hegelian black and white.
And for what it’s worth, I volunteered with handicapped kids during my school daze (for credit, of course) back in the 80’s and have had a steady hand in helping care for the pair of pre-WWII handicappers in the wife’s extended family living out their above-average lifespans here in my adopted country abode.
From what I can gather, they were very fortunate to have survived the Nazi era.
Which brings us to my point; that the UK is now essentially applying judicial oversight to and authorizing enforcement of what is ultimately their version of a modern eugenics program — let’s just call it “Final Solution LITE”.
When the state begins regulating and/or managing basic human acts like sex/procreation, its safe to say that we’re already in full slide down the proverbial slippery slope.
Personally, based on my own experience and being in possession of a fairly strong empathy gland, I nonetheless have a hard time disagreeing with the decision.
But where WILL the line ultimately be drawn?
Personally, based on my own experience and being in possession of a fairly strong empathy gland, I nonetheless have a hard time disagreeing with the decision.
But where WILL the line ultimately be drawn?
It’s a tough one, no doubt about it. I’m unable to think of anything approximating a “good” way through this.
Stupid. Can’t the people who take care of him just handle it ? It’s not like the guy’s life is not totally under control is it ? The court’s decision is really a decision for the personnel around him. Way to ask for some advice, damn.
Easy.
Give him a job at the Bohemian Grove, or as a Barney Frank staffer.
I know, I know, my assumptions that those two jobs are separate positions in and of themselves may be flawed.
O.K. Now for the serious response.
It seems the guy is in a sort of lockdown situation as it is now, so require his party time visitor to ensure that raincoats will be worn all around… with the threat of abuse charges being filed if the mandate be ignored.
But, the way I see it, this guy is no more a threat because of his low IQ than other people who spread disease because of their denial, malice,or sociopathology. Did I spell that right?
according to google, the average IQ of a child with down syndrome is 50.
this fella is 48.
Exactly what crime or harm is ‘Alan’ engaged in, for the state to be intervening in this way?
If ‘Alan’ is a danger to others, uncontrollable, heading out to rape and assault, then I see the need.
If ‘Alan’ is infected with a transmittable disease and does not practice safe sex, then I see the need.
But my understanding of this case is that he is involved in a relationship with a fellow ‘inmate’ at his housing ‘institution’. Is this a sexcrime, citizen?
The only thing ‘Alan’ appears to have done wrong is: “Alan was also accused of making lewd gestures at children in a dentists’ surgery and on a bus, although no police action was taken.” I have to say, that from my experiences with adult humans with IQs ranging from 0 to 200 this type of behaviour is common enough to be unremarkable. Nobody has (to my knowledge at least) ever suggested that Silvio Berlusconi, Rob Lowe, Michael Jackson, Bill Wyman, etc etc be sexually policed in the same way that ‘Alan’ will now be, despite their lewd misdemeanours with minors.
I think that somebody needs to teach ‘Alan’ to shout ‘Fuck the government’ really really loudly.
The role of the State should be to protect individual rights; it’s not to be your brother’s keeper.
One could argue that someone with an IQ of 48 is intellectually a child — but what he does or doesn’t do with his body is still his choice as long as it doesn’t violate the rights of others, and the State has no moral authority to say otherwise.