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

[sTaGeWaLkEr]

..I can imagine being extremely angry if I was one of the infected parties, but vindictive implies that she set out deliberately to infect people with this virus, which might not be the case.

 

I don't want to appear to be defending this woman, I'm not, but thus far it would appear she's been extremely reckless and not fully considered the potential consequences of her actions, rather than set out to infect as many men as she can.

 

I hear what you're saying BF, but I point blank refuse to believe that she wasn't aware of the implications of having unprotected sex with someone else. i.e that they too could become infected.

 

At the point of diagnosis she will have been told that she would have to modify her sexual behaviours. Instead she tells the court that her consultant told her that the risk of infecting someone else was close to zero? Balony! I don't buy a word of it. She's just doing what she needs to do (and what she will have been told to do by her legal representative) to save her backside from being barbecued.

 

More likely (as can often be the case) from a psychological perspective she was angry. Angry at the world for infecting her with this disease. She may well have infected other people as a means of redressing the balance. She wouldn't care about whether or not she infects other people because why should she? They didn't give her a second thought.

 

This anger is really directed at self but it's not unusual for newly infected patients to be in denial about accepting responsibility for their diagnosis. In any case, she knew the risks of having unprotected sex and still decided to practice it- post diagnosis.

 

I'll say it again. If you know you have a condition that could potentially kill someone else (some people choose not to medicate their condition) then you modify your behaviours to ensure that no-one else becomes infected. Anything else (IMO) is inflicting a death sentence on someone and as such should be treated as an imprisonable offence.

[boyfriday]

I hear what you're saying BF, but I point blank refuse to believe that she wasn't aware of the implications of having unprotected sex with someone else. i.e that they too could become infected.

I agree stagey, she certainly will have been aware of the possible consequences, but I'd compare her actions to someone who gets in a car and drives at 70mph through a built up area, they might not intend to kill somebody but by virtue of their recklessness there's an increased probability of that happening.

At the point of diagnosis she will have been told that she would have to modify her sexual behaviours. Instead she tells the court that her consultant told her that the risk of infecting someone else was close to zero? Balony! I don't buy a word of it. She's just doing what she needs to do (and what she will have been told to do by her legal representative) to save her backside from being barbecued.

Agree with that, she has no excuses.

More likely (as can often be the case) from a psychological perspective she was angry. Angry at the world for infecting her with this disease. She may well have infected other people as a means of redressing the balance. She wouldn't care about whether or not she infects other people because why should she? They didn't give her a second thought.

Possibly, and if that's proven to be the case it will obviously aggravate the circumstances of the offence.

This anger is really directed at self but it's not unusual for newly infected patients to be in denial about accepting responsibility for their diagnosis. In any case, she knew the risks of having unprotected sex and still decided to practice it- post diagnosis.

..and hopefully she'll pay the price for her behaviour if she's found guilty.

I'll say it again. If you know you have a condition that could potentially kill someone else (some people choose not to medicate their condition) then you modify your behaviours to ensure that no-one else becomes infected. Anything else (IMO) is inflicting a death sentence on someone and as such should be treated as an imprisonable offence.

 

..and I absolutely agree, I don't think this woman will be applauded or defended by anyone for being HIV+ and having unprotected sex with people.

[sTaGeWaLkEr]

I've just stumbled across this interesting article, where someone (albeit in Germany) has been charged with bodily harm.

 

I see this person has been given a two year suspended sentence. Maybe she'll think twice about acting so irresponsibly the next time she has sex.

 

This should serve as a warning to all those out there who think it's ok to knowingly infect others with S.T.I's.

 

I'm not saying that people with HIV should never have sex - but being +ve carries responsibilities, to self and to others. Whilst we should all be taking responsibility for our own sexual health - what these people are doing, in my eyes, is unforgivable.

[Cyclone]

I don't really understand why she hasn't been given a jail sentence.

[Suffragette1]

I see this person has been given a two year suspended sentence. Maybe she'll think twice about acting so irresponsibly the next time she has sex.

 

This should serve as a warning to all those out there who think it's ok to knowingly infect others with S.T.I's.

 

I'm not saying that people with HIV should never have sex - but being +ve carries responsibilities, to self and to others. Whilst we should all be taking responsibility for our own sexual health - what these people are doing, in my eyes, is unforgivable.

 

I don't really understand why she hasn't been given a jail sentence.

I agree with you Cyclone. Unless there were mitigating circumstances, such as mental health issues.

 

Conversely, look what happened in this case.