2003.001 Sexual Ethics and Criminal Law, Lester ... - Francis Bennion

More documents

Recommendations

Info

of a learning disability or mental disorder, have the capacity reason consent''. 37 I have already given the text of one letter by me to to this proposal. 38 Here is another, which I sent to the objecting on 22 November 2002 but was not published ± DailyTelegraph Congdon of Mencap says he welcomes the Home Secretary's David law reform proposals (letter November 22 2002). Then he sex two con¯icting statements: (1) they are a victory for people makes a learning disability; (2) they ``will not infringe on people's with to have a ful®lling sexual relationship''. The white paper rights (para. 62) that there should be a new criminal o€ence, proposes a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, of sexual activity with `à person who did not, by reason of a learning disability or with disorder at that time, have the capacity to consent''. There mental thus be no possibility of such persons having `à ful®lling sexual will or indeed any sexual relationship whatever, except relationship'', a criminal who risks life imprisonment. This can only add to with deprivation arising from their condition. It is an example of the the attitude which pervades the Bill. Attention is all on the sex-negative seeking his own grati®cation. The possible needs of the exploiter party are ignored, indeed denied. I have known for example other needs to be discreetly attended to by a sympathetic nurse. Is such a sympathiser now to risk imprisonment for life? such When this letter was shown to David Congdon, who is Head of 47. Relations at Mencap, he replied brie¯y that if say such a External had sexual relations say with someone also with such a person and where it was clear that it was not abuse, then the disability, authorities would not prosecute. The alternative he prosecuting would be to provide an abuser's charter. thought This again is muddled thinking. As stated above, 39 it is improper to 48. the di culties of framing an o€ence accurately by relying on evade Bill, clause 33. 37 See p. 11 above. 38 39 See p. 17. the CPS exercising their discretion not to prosecute. This is because 23
act in question, though exhypothesi innocent, is still branded as the ± which obviously it should not be. Again, why should the criminal person be forced to consort only with another person a‚icted a‚icted? Why should not sympathy ± even love ± be similarly by one who does not su€er the disability? This again is sexnegative. shown Finally, the alternative is not necessarily to provide an charter. Speaking as an experienced parliamentary abuser's I can say that it would be perfectly possible to frame draftsman, o€ence suitably limited to the cases which really ought to be an penalised. The maximum penalty for this o€ence is to be life imprisonment, 49. same as for murder. For another similar o€ence, `Òbtaining the activity by inducement, threat or deception with a person sexual has a learning disability or mental disorder'' the maximum who is also to be life imprisonment. 40 I consider it to be grossly penalty and a further sign of unhealthy sex-negativism, to disproportionate, the highest penalty possible to these two o€ences, bearing in allot that really serious cases could be treated as rape. I also mind the need for the second o€ence, meant to deal with persons question are capable of giving consent to sexual activity but might be who to do this by gifts or other inducements. Such persuasion persuaded often employed in relations between normal people, and can be is as part of usual courtship patterns. Once again we ®nd the Bill seen ordinary behaviour out of exaggerated fears fuelled by threatening A further objectionable new o€ence is ``Breach of a relationship of 50. 41 ``This is necessary to protect those with a learning disability care''. mental disorder who have the capacity to consent but who are or vulnerable to exploitative behaviour and thus may particularly to sexual activity solely because they are in¯uenced by their agree with and dependency on the carer.'' 42 This again is familiarity Bill, clauses 38-42; white paper, para. 63. 40 Bill, clauses 43-51; white paper, para. 64. 41 42 White paper, para. 64. sex-negativism. taking the nanny state far beyond the area where it has any business 24
Page 1 and 2: SEXUAL ETHICS AND CRIMINAL LAW A Cr
Page 3 and 4: y Published Publishing Lester PEGAS
Page 5 and 6: and Politics Ethics Sex Code: Moral
Page 7 and 8: The Sex Hate Bill? This report sets
Page 9 and 10: children ± with the intention of m
Page 11 and 12: e clear about its ethical foundatio
Page 13 and 14: ce group on reforming sex o€ences
Page 15 and 16: ``Sexual activity between minors''
Page 17 and 18: A further element is that much publ
Page 19 and 20: Nor in such cases is it `àppropria
Page 21 and 22: only arise ``where it is clear that
Page 23: to be proved by the prosecution bey
Page 27 and 28: Sexual interference with human rema
Page 29 and 30: Bill's elaborate de®nition gets us
Page 31 and 32: the disabled? 49 When dealing with
Page 33 and 34: The Bill's proposals relating to se
Page 35 and 36: Obviously in this report I have onl
Page 37 and 38: . . . the ®rst guide to secular se
Page 39 and 40: natures, abortion and pornography.
Page 41 and 42: far the best section of Bennion's w
Page 43 and 44: We should comply with the ethical c
Page 45 and 46: It is immoral, as contravening the
Page 47 and 48: Where it is known or suspected by e

2003.001 Sexual Ethics and Criminal Law, Lester ... - Francis Bennion

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?