No that is just practising.

You're too intelligent. That's my excuse too

Don't know what you mean by that.

Anyway what if declines to tell other people? Knowingly infecting someone with HIV is a criminal offence but how would you find out? Especially if it's someone who is promiscuous?

Though with his low IQ he could easily get away with diminished capacity as a defence.

That's not really much of a consolation if you're the person he infected with AIDS, is it now.

Not it is not, but the only solution is to lock someone up for the safety of society as a collective. I doubt that can be done legally.

Not relevant to this case, but isn't that exactly what "being committed" is? If doctors decide you are a danger to yourself or others, then you can be incarcerated indefinitely - although in America, "indefinitely" usually means until the health insurance runs out at which time you'll be magically cured.

Hmmm...

I'm not comfortable with this at all. I can see the sensible nature of the decision as regards the prevention of unwanted consequences.

However, I disagree utterly with a fundamental part of this - namely the right of the court to decide. My main question is where is the cut-off? What are the criteria upon which this decision can be made? How on earth can one accurately assess the "capacity to consent"? How far does this power extend? How far is this power limited? How does one challenge the decision? And the big question - how far can the court go to enforce its decision? What happens if the supervision order doesn't work? Committal, chemical castration?

The possible use of nebulous language and the bending of the intent of the law to decide who can and can't breed or engage in sexual activity frankly gives me the shivers. This judge expressly hasn't done that but I am concerned that this might take us down a path we really don't want to tread.

Yes that aspect was something that I had not considered.