HIV/AIDS transmission - To prosecute or not to prosecute?

[sTaGeWaLkEr]

I understand that more people now take responsibility for their own sexual health and practice safer sex, but as most of us will probably we aware, this isn't always the case. There are still a large number of people who continue to have unprotected sex, despite being aware of the potential risks.

 

The majority of the people that I know with HIV are responsible, considerate, genuine and honest individuals. Most were simply 'unlucky'. One is a fifty-something Grandmother who uses the forum. She had sex once in ten years and became infected. Not everything is as we imagine it to be.

 

Anyway, on with the reason for my post.

 

This is based on a real situation.

 

Mr 'X' is currently having unprotected sex with unsuspecting partners, even though he knows he is HIV positive. He doesn't tell his multiple sexual partners his status but insists on unprotected sex as 'he prefers it that way'

 

This is clearly unacceptable behaviour. I understand that the individual in question may be 'angry at the world' and want to lash out, but this is not the way to behave.

 

I was pleased to hear that only a few days ago someone has reported Mr 'X' for infecting them with the virus. I genuinely hope that this will result in legal action being taken against the individual concerned and that he will be held responsible for his actions.

 

(for legal reasons I won't be commenting on the specifics of the individual case)

 

Previously I understand that HIV positive people who have had unprotected sex whilst being fully aware of their status have subsequently been prosecuted. I believe the legal term penned was 'Biological Manslaughter'

 

There are many potential problems with HIV prosecutions, but in essence, should HIV+ve people who have unprotected sex be open to prosecution under the law, and if so, what would be a suitable sentence?

 

Are there any mitigating circumstances that would lessen the severity from a defence perspective?

 

Should we be allowed to do whatever we want sexually without fear of repercussions or do we all have a moral obligation to protect others?

 

As mentioned before, there are HIV+ve people on the forum, so please keep all replies sensible and courteous.

[MickeyBarnes]

Hmm, its a difficult situation if you ask me. Obviously if someone is knowingly infecting people he should be convicted (like they have been) because he is effectivly using his penis as a weapon.

 

The only problem i can see is on two levels.

 

1. You can't force someone to use contraception - because folk will say "it is against my religion" or against there morality.

 

2. I get the feeling, that telling someone to be abstinant from sex could be seen by some as an attack on human rights. The right to a natural human function.

[Twiglet]

Edited to reflect Stagewalker's correction.

 

MickeyBarnes - you can't force someone to use contraception, however if they choose not to take reasonable steps to protect a partner from an often fatal disease which they are likely to transmit to them then they must INFORM the other party so they can consent to unprotected sex (although to do so wouldn't be sensible, it's their choice).

 

You also cannot tell someone to be celibate, but there is no reason why they should be if they use precautions to protect their partner and/or have their consent not to.

 

Modern medicine does not help the situation. Antiretroviral therapy can lower viral loads to almost zero, which makes HIV transmission very unlikely. Many patients are told this and some may decide that the risk is so low they will choose not to tell potential partners.

[JoeP]

Just to re-iterate Stagewalker's request - please keep this thread on topic and civilised. This is the only warning we'll be giving.

 

I assume that the reason why HIV has this (I believe) unique status is because it is both incurable and difficult to transmit without intimate contact of some sort - bodily fluid exchange?

 

If so then I guess the position of the illness in legal terms is unqiue enough to allow this sort of law to be enacted, but I do believe that to be consistent we then need to apply it to anyone who purposefully or recklessly infects someone with a serious (we then have the problem of defining serious) illness.

 

Maybe it just needs to be treated as GBH or attempted murder / manslaughter rather than creating new laws?

[sTaGeWaLkEr]

I don't really understand, you say he is having unprotected sex but also that he insists on safer sex?

 

You're right Twiglet, my mistake. Now edited.

[medusa]

I think it's really difficult in this particular situation, since MrX is practising safer sex. What he doesn't seem to understand (or understands and doesn't care about) is that it's only safer sex, not safe sex.

 

I believe that morally, not telling potential partners and allowing them an informed choice about who to take as a partner, is wrong whether or not he's practising safer sex, but I think that any resulting court case would get terribly hung up on the efficacy of condoms at preventing infection, and whether he was able logically to assume that the condom took away any risk and therefore any need to tell prospective partners.

[MickeyBarnes]

Maybe it just needs to be treated as GBH or attempted murder / manslaughter rather than creating new laws?

 

But i can't be. What if the man decrees that he didn't know he had the condition, or even implies that he was unaware of knowing what HIV meant. - Using ignorance as a defence.

 

It needs its own classification, because its important enough to warrent its own class.

[AJ sheffield]

Even if he is wearing a condom he should surely tell his partners of his infection. In effect HE is dicing with THEIR death. Its sexual Russian roullette, and nobody has told them their playing.

[Guest]

...should HIV+ve people who have unprotected sex be open to prosecution under the law, and if so, what would be a suitable sentence?

Yes, absolutely they should. If they are aware that they are HIV+ and so are likely to pass on the virus to their partner during unprotected sex, then they are negligent of the other's health and welfare to say the least.

 

Not knowing the intricacies of the law, I can't say what the appropriate sentence would be.

Are there any mitigating circumstances that would lessen the severity from a defence perspective?

Some sort of diminished responsibility defence, should the circumstances permit? Not knowing they were HIV+? That the partner was aware that s/he was HIV+ and accepted the risks associated with sex without contraception?

[Thunzi]

There are many potential problems with HIV prosecutions, but in essence, should HIV+ve people who have unprotected sex be open to prosecution under the law, and if so, what would be a suitable sentence?]

If they are knowingly infecting people then they should be jailed accordingly. People who have unknowingly infected someone else though shouldn't in my opinion be prosecuted. There was a case recently where someone was jailed, I think it was 10 years per infection? About what a manslaughter sentence is.

 

Are there any mitigating circumstances that would lessen the severity from a defence perspective?

No, simply put. If they are spreading HIV knowingly there are no forgivable circumstances. I don’t care if they are ‘angry at the world’, that is truly unforgivable.