You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!

Banned from sex - from a political/judicial viewpoint

Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

Now of course the crappy newspaper headline source is rather dramatic and almost implies that an individual with a low IQ has been denied the right to have sex solely because of their low IQ. That is probably not really the case though, but as the source is from a newspaper, one would expect it to be a little over the top and designed to 'suck in' the more trusting readers amongst us.

To build a picture, the man concerned is a 'ward of the Court of Protection', which means that at some point prior to the decision about the sex, he was already deemed to be incapable of managing any of his own affairs and as nobody else (friends/family) was available or willing to take responsibility for him, the court was appointed to make the final decision in all aspects of his life.
Now, this court is a court of law, but it is not a criminal court. The sole purpose of this 'Court of Protection' is to fill the gap when there is a human being in the UK who no-one else cares about, and without anyone to make decisions for them, they are likely to be at serious risk of suffering harm to themselves or others.

This court and the judges who make the decisions act solely for the benefit of the ward of the court and society in general. It is almost like an adopted parent who has to judge if the 'childs' behaviour is damaging them or others and then has to make a decision to allow/control/stop the behaviour.

The question (in a non-philosophical but political & legal sense) is whether a court can have that control over someone's life?

I would argue yes, if only because the person concerned has already been established to have next to no cognitive skills to speak of, and their sexual acts with other residents have obviously caused concern to the people charged with responsibility of care for the residents.

The residential care home staff would have already been given the devolved status of 'appointees of the court' and as such they can make decisions regarding what the man is or is not allowed to do.
The guy obviously disagreed though, so it had to go back to the court (which is his guardian) for a formal, legal judgement in respect of the disagreements of the ward of the court (the man quoted in the poor newspaper source)

It's not a perfect system, but it does exist with the sole mission of 'protection' - as the name implies - The Court of Protection.

Some people will always disagree with the courts judgements, of course, but there is also an appeal process which can be exploited to chase any potential errors of judgement.

Personally I would say (although I cannot be sure) this legal framework is something quite unique in the developed world, and with the many safety nets in existence it is one of the finest examples of a civilised society protecting the vulnerable, albeit in a perhaps sometimes imperfect way?
I'm curious how this case got to the court. Why was it necessary to have it investigated by the court? Was there someone who may have been unhappy with a decision that was made by the mentally handicapped guy's caretakers, and so the caretakers or wards needed a formal ruling so that they can prosecute the "adult" in the relationship if necessary? I'm just thinking of the legal costs, the time and cost of the judge, the time and cost of the investigation. Surely if he has "legal parents", why did they need to go to a court to enforce their decision for them? Or was this the only way they could find to get rid of the handicapped guy's lover?
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.