Intellectually disabled woman in Nagano awarded damages for sexual abuse at care facility

Written with extracts From The Chunichi Shimbun

May 24th 2018

A 20-year-old woman in Nagano prefecture with an intellectual disability sued a facility on the grounds of sexual abuse from a male staff member. A judgment was made requiring damages of about 12 million yen against the administrative institution in Shiojiri City with the authority to investigate and supervise the corporation, the prefecture, to held at Matsumoto district court on Thursday.

Mr. Shohei Matsuyama, the presiding judge, ordered male staff and a corporate responsible corporation to jointly pay 300,000 yen, etc., as the illegal act of the disabled abuse prevention law, and rejected other claims.

According to the complaint, women entered Ina’s group home of the social welfare corporation ensemble association (Matsukawa Town) from April 2002. The male staff was asked for sexual relations around October 13, and although I was pregnant for about one year and four months, I was pregnant, but it was said that she was in trouble and had aborted around her.

The plaintiffs argue that they are sexual abuse victims under the disabled abuse prevention law. The defendant claimed that women’s disabilities are mild, the two have love relationships based on free will, and that regarding sexual abuse as discrimination against disabled persons.

According to the ruling, Judge Matsuyama pointed out that in principle that those engaged in welfare facilities for persons with disabilities are obliged to not act indecently against facility users. The woman was not able to say that he had responded to sex acts without the influence of disability, and admitted male tort.

After judgment, the defense side said, “It was revolutionary to recognize responsibility for perpetrators and corporations, but it was not reflected in the amount of money, because the corporation did not take measures to prevent sexual abuse and that Shiojiri City It was regrettable that responsibility was not acknowledged such as not conducting an appropriate survey, “and decided to discuss with the plaintiffs in the future. Attorneys and lawyers on behalf of corporations said, “Since we have not received a verdict, we will review it afterwards.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s