ex-CFL member Convicted of AIDS-related "Assault"

[SteveGrenard]

In Canada, at least, there appears to be a precedent that if you have AIDS,have sex and don't tell about having AIDS it is a jailable offense.
Although the sex was consenual, the presence of undisclosed AIDS in one of the partners to it transmutes the act into an "assault."



Feb 08, 2007 01:10 PM
CANADIAN PRESS

REGINA — The wife who steadfastly stood behind her HIV-positive husband as the sordid details of his affairs were exposed in court broke down in sobs today as the former football player was taken away to jail.

Trevis Smith, a one-time Canadian Football League linebacker, was convicted of aggravated sexual assault for exposing two women to the virus that causes AIDS by having unprotected sex without telling them about his condition.

Provincial court Judge Kenn Bellerose, who delayed sentencing until Feb. 26, warned Smith he will be going to prison.

http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/179616

[Rob Lister]

good

[SteveGrenard]

good

I agree in spirit with this sentiment. The case brings up questions, however, including whether or not there is some other way of characterizing its circumstances. In the U.S. if I recall persons convicted of assaults deliberately using AIDS infected weapons (e.g. used hypodermic needles)have been charged with attempted murder. Also what if both members to such a liasion participate without disclosing to each other that they have AIDS or are HIV+? Does this nullify the transmutation or are both parties liable to prosecution for aggravated sexual assault?

[Katana]

I agree in spirit with this sentiment. The case brings up questions, however, including whether or not there is some other way of characterizing its circumstances. In the U.S. if I recall persons convicted of assaults deliberately using AIDS infected weapons (e.g. used hypodermic needles)have been charged with attempted murder. Also what if both members to such as liasion participate without disclosing to each other that they have AIDS or are HIV+? Does this nullify the transmutation or are both parties liable to prosecution for aggravated sexual assault?

Are you asking, because both parties are infected, the charges would essentially cancel each other out?

[SteveGrenard]

I specifically asked:

Does this nullify the transmutation or are both parties liable to prosecution for aggravated sexual assault?

Consensual relationship between two adults, both of whom are infected by AIDS but neither of whom disclose the infection to the other. Are they both
liable to prosecution? Or would they nullify or cancel each other out?

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

My take on it is that both parties would be charged with a crime. It seems reasonable considering more conventional forms of assault, like two drunks beating each other over the head with beer bottles, can and do result in both individuals being charged.

[Ian Osborne]

My take on it is that both parties would be charged with a crime. It seems reasonable considering more conventional forms of assault, like two drunks beating each other over the head with beer bottles, can and do result in both individuals being charged.

Seconded. And contrary to popular belief, it is possible to catch HIV twice. There are about a dozen distinct strains at the moment and more mutations appearing all the time. If you catch the virus a second time, the second virus will probably be significantly different to the first, making your condition as a whole very difficult to treat.

[Darat]

Surely it would just be like when two people have a fight? I.e. they can both be charged with assault.

[TragicMonkey]

What sort of idiot has unprotected sex in this day and age?!

I don't mean to imply I think the guy wasn't wrong (murderously so) to not tell them. But they didn't take responsibility for their own safety.

Had he not known his own status, they'd be just as infected.

[Ian Osborne]

Had he not known his own status, they'd be just as infected.

Neither was infected - he was prosecuted for exposing them to the virus, not giving them it. You're right though - they were stupid not to insist on precautions.

[TragicMonkey]

Neither was infected - he was prosecuted for exposing them to the virus, not giving them it. You're right though - they were stupid not to insist on precautions.

If they didn't get infected, what's the crime? It can't be because he exposed them to a risk, because they did that themselves when they didn't insist on condoms.

But then, I never understood why people who get into car accidents can sue for their injuries even if they weren't wearing their seatbelts.

[TsarBomba]

If they didn't get infected, what's the crime?


So, if you shoot a gun at someone and miss, that shouldn't be a crime? The fact is, it would be (and should be) a crime in all 50 states and every province of Canada.

It can't be because he exposed them to a risk, because they did that themselves when they didn't insist on condoms.



If you are driving a car, not wearing a seat belt, and a drunk driver slams into you after running a red light, and kills you, isn't that person guilty of vehicular homicide (or manslaughter, depending on your jurisdiction), regardless of whether the seat belt would have saved your life? It is the criminal's behavior that the law is concerned with, not whether the victim took precautions.

[TragicMonkey]

So, if you shoot a gun at someone and miss, that shouldn't be a crime? The fact is, it would be (and should be) a crime in all 50 states and every province of Canada.

If the victim was running blindly around a shooting range, they would and should share part of the responsibility for the event.


If you are driving a car, not wearing a seat belt, and a drunk driver slams into you after running a red light, and kills you, isn't that person guilty of vehicular homicide (or manslaughter, depending on your jurisdiction), regardless of whether the seat belt would have saved your life? It is the criminal's behavior that the law is concerned with, not whether the victim took precautions.

If you're not killed, but you do go through the windshield, are you 100% free of blame for that? The other driver is to blame for hitting you, but you share some of the responsibility for your injuries, if they could have been prevented through the reasonable action of wearing a seatbelt.

The law may assign responsibility to a particular party, but that doesn't mean anything except in law. Moral/ethical responsibility is rather broader.

[TsarBomba]

If the victim was running blindly around a shooting range, they would and should share part of the responsibility for the event.


I really don't even know how to reply to this complete non sequitur, except to say really doesn't matter, legally or morally, whether the victim would be running blindly down a shooting range, depending on the mental state of the shooter. If the shooter was just taking a shot at a target and someone runs in front just as the trigger is squeezed, then sure, the shooter is blameless. But if the shooter sees the person running blindly around the shooting range, and then shoots anyway regardless of the danger to the victim, then the shooter is completely at fault. If the shooter sees the victim running blindly around the shooting range and then aims at the victim's head with the intent to kill, the shooter is guilty of attempted murder at the moment he pulls the trigger, regardless of the stupidity of the victim.

Perhaps the situation with the ex-CFL player is akin the situation where shooter sees the victim on the range in his line of fire and decides to take his shot anyway, regarless of whether it would hurt the victim. To me, the shooter's behavior would be both illegal and immoral.


that if you aimed at a person, shot at him, and wanted to shoot kill h, even if he was running around a shooting range. The fact is, the dirtbag former CFL player was charged with knowingly exposing women to the risk of infection from a deadly disease. These womeon were not

[TragicMonkey]

Perhaps the situation with the ex-CFL player is akin the situation where shooter sees the victim on the range in his line of fire and decides to take his shot anyway, regarless of whether it would hurt the victim. To me, the shooter's behavior would be both illegal and immoral.

And I agree. His behavior is immoral. The women's behavior is incredibly stupid. They made themselves potential victims through their own stupidity. Since they were not in fact infected, their injuries are confined to the possibility that they might have picked up a disease that they took zero precautions against, flying in the face of common sense.



that if you aimed at a person, shot at him, and wanted to shoot kill h, even if he was running around a shooting range. The fact is, the dirtbag former CFL player was charged with knowingly exposing women to the risk of infection from a deadly disease. These womeon were not

These women didn't care enough about their own safety to take the precaution that every sane adult ought to. So what's their claim to injury? That they might have suffered a fate they didn't care enough to take precaution against?

[TragicMonkey]

For a better analogy, the women were playing Russian Roulette with a gun the guy provided. They both lucked out and got the empty chamber. Now they're upset because they might have been killed, and it's all his fault. Is it? 100% of the responsibility is on him?

[skeptifem]

And I agree. His behavior is immoral. The women's behavior is incredibly stupid. They made themselves potential victims through their own stupidity. Since they were not in fact infected, their injuries are confined to the possibility that they might have picked up a disease that they took zero precautions against, flying in the face of common sense.

Oh please. Lets say I leave my car running and go inside my house and when I come back its been stolen. It was pretty stupid of me, but its still theft, and the person who stole the car is most certainly a theif. And if they got caught driving my car I am sure the legal system would agree that the theif is a criminal.




These women didn't care enough about their own safety to take the precaution that every sane adult ought to. So what's their claim to injury? That they might have suffered a fate they didn't care enough to take precaution against?So I guess we shouldnt take people to the hospital if they werent wearing seatbelts and got in an accident? I am not understanding your point.

People make stupid mistakes, it doesnt mean that they deserve to have other people hurt them. Its still wrong to knowingly hurt others, I dont really care who the victim is or how they got there, knowingly causing other people harm is absolutely deplorable.

[TragicMonkey]

Oh please. Lets say I leave my car running and go inside my house and when I come back its been stolen. It was pretty stupid of me, but its still theft, and the person who stole the car is most certainly a theif. And if they got caught driving my car I am sure the legal system would agree that the theif is a criminal.

Check your insurance policy. There's usually a bit in there about how you're required to take "reasonable precaution" against loss. Your example would probably be covered. But if you admitted you never locked your doors, and always kept expensive stereo equipment in your luxury car, and parked in a bad part of town and left the car alone for weeks at a time, you might find your claim rejected.

Legal culpability is not the same as personal responsibility. People who stab themselves in the forehead with a fork then sue the silverware manufacturer for lack of warning labels may manage to pin legal culpability on them, if the lawyers are good enough. The law is not the be-all and end-all of human ethics.


So I guess we shouldnt take people to the hospital if they werent wearing seatbelts and got in an accident? I am not understanding your point.

Take them to the hospital, sure. Make their insurance company cover the costs of their injuries? I don't think they should have to, in that case.

People make stupid mistakes, it doesnt mean that they deserve to have other people hurt them. Its still wrong to knowingly hurt others, I dont really care who the victim is or how they got there, knowingly causing other people harm is absolutely deplorable.

And I'm not saying it's not deplorable. I'm just saying that fools cannot be guarded, perpetually, from the consequences of their own foolishness. It's sad when someone huffs airplane glue and gets brain damage. Do they deserve recompense from the hobbies industry?

Assigning blame to one person shouldn't automatically absolve every other party of all responsibility. "The trial said Kevin's the bad guy, so everyone else was an innocent victim." Yeah, right.

[TragicMonkey]

Would anybody change their mind about the women being victims if it weren't an HIV scare, but rather pregnancy?

"Well, we had unprotected sex, and then got pregnant! The man's a monster!"

Or would some responsibility for their actions (or lack of actions) then be granted to the women?

[Ian Osborne]

Check your insurance policy. There's usually a bit in there about how you're required to take "reasonable precaution" against loss. Your example would probably be covered. But if you admitted you never locked your doors, and always kept expensive stereo equipment in your luxury car, and parked in a bad part of town and left the car alone for weeks at a time, you might find your claim rejected.

We're not talking about insurance claims, but about the legality of the act facilitated by the stupidity. Yes, they were stupid not to take precautions, but the guy still exposed them to an unnecessary risk.

Legal culpability is not the same as personal responsibility.

Precisely.

[gnome]

Couple of things...

The crime is not limited to the victim... by engaging in unprotected sex while infected, they are creating a public health hazard, even if the newly "infected" person should have known better. They have endangered more than their victim by spreading the disease. That gives society a greater interest.

Regarding the car accident issue... I believe in a civil lawsuit, if you were sued for someone's injuries that was not wearing their seat belt, you might be entitled to a reduced judgment on the grounds of contributory negligence.

[Ian Osborne]

Would anybody change their mind about the women being victims if it weren't an HIV scare, but rather pregnancy?

Not a fair comparison. Most men can get a woman pregnant. Only a fraction of a percent can give them HIV. And pregnancy is rarely life-threatening.

Or would some responsibility for their actions (or lack of actions) then be granted to the women?

I think we all feel that way too, but the case against the guy is defined by his own actions, not the stupidity of his partners.

[TragicMonkey]

Not a fair comparison. Most men can get a woman pregnant. Only a fraction of a percent can give them HIV. And pregnancy is rarely life-threatening.

So it's a numbers game?

The greater the consequences of a risk, the less weight is given to favorable odds. Here are two lotteries. Your chance of winning is 1 in 10. You pay a dollar to play. If you win the first one, you will receive a handsome ceramic clown clock. For the second lottery, if you win, it's Shirley Jackon's lottery and you get murdered. In the first lottery, you have a 9 in 10 chance of losing a buck. In the second lottery, you have a 1 in 10 chance of being killed. Despite the fact that your chances of a desirable outcome are way better in the second lottery, the first is a better bet.

And maybe these women should be charged, since we're allowing people to be charged with "risk": they might have gotten pregnant and given the babies HIV. They took no steps to prevent that, did they? On behalf of the hypothetical unborn, shouldn't they be made to suffer the consequences of "what might have happened, but didn't"?

I think we all feel that way too, but the case against the guy is defined by his own actions, not the stupidity of his partners.

It takes two to tango. If they didn't want to play safe, can't he assume they're idiots with a deathwish?

[Ian Osborne]

And maybe these women should be charged, since we're allowing people to be charged with "risk": they might have gotten pregnant and given the babies HIV. They took no steps to prevent that, did they?

Can you be sure about this? They might well have taken precautions against pregnancy which offer no protection against HIV, eg, the pill.

It takes two to tango. If they didn't want to play safe, can't he assume they're idiots with a deathwish?

Yes he can assume that, but if he acts on it, he's crossed the line. To borrow nails3jesus0's analogy, you can assume someone who leaves his car in the street and his engine running is stupid, but that doesn't entitle you to steal it.

[TragicMonkey]

Can you be sure about this? They might well have taken precautions against pregnancy which offer no protection against HIV, eg, the pill.

I find it difficult to come to grips with the sort of thinking that smokes filtered cigarettes because they're safer.

Yes he can assume that, but if he acts on it, he's crossed the line. To borrow nails3jesus0's analogy, you can assume someone who leaves his car in the street and his engine running is stupid, but that doesn't entitle you to steal it.

But it does reduce the degree of sympathy more sensible people feel compelled to offer.

[SteveGrenard]

An analogy to the shooting example for me would be the person firing gunshots in certain neighborhoods, er, well known for the firing of gun shots. One hits an innocent person sitting in their own house or a child sitting in uninvolved car; this actually happened, killing him. The shooter cannot defend his actions by saying the victims should have known there was danger and moved away from the window or gotten out of the way.

I am entirely sympathetic with the victims in such a case.

[TragicMonkey]

An analogy to the shooting example for me would be the person firing gunshots in certain neighborhoods, er, well known for the firing of gun shots. One hits an innocent person sitting in their own house or a child sitting in uninvolved car; this actually happened, killing him. The shooter cannot defend his actions by saying the victims should have known there was danger and moved away from the window or gotten out of the way.

I am entirely sympathetic with the victims in such a case.

How about the person shot while they wandered around the bad neighborhood alone at three in the morning?

We can make up scenarios all day--what we're doing is demonstrating that whether someone bears any responsibility for their victimhood depends on the circumstances. Clearly in this particular case we merely disagree on which way the particular circumstances sway the balance of blame.

[Ian Osborne]

what we're doing is demonstrating that whether someone bears any responsibility for their victimhood depends on the circumstances.

I don't think anyone here would dispute the victims were partially to blame for their predicament, but the criminality of the act depends on the actions of the perpetrator, not the victims. He deserves his jail sentence regardless of whether his girlfriends deserve our sympathy.

[SteveGrenard]

A child riding in an non-involved car or a person sitting in their house who did not stay away from the window cannot be blamed for being shot or killed by a person firing a gun out in the street. If I recall the case with the child the defense lawyer actually said the child's death was an accident since his client's intended target was not the child. That didn't go very far. It is not the same as Dick Cheney saying his intended target was a grouse and not a lawyer. Or can one accidentally pull a trigger if they are walking around waving a loaded gun? I suppose so.

[TragicMonkey]

I don't think anyone here would dispute the victims were partially to blame for their predicament, but the criminality of the act depends on the actions of the perpetrator, not the victims.

Not always. It's illegal to stab someone, right?

Yet if I stab someone who breaks into my home with a gun in hand, I'm not going to get into the same amount of trouble as I would if I were to stab that same person in the middle of a Walmart for blocking the aisle. Same action on my part, same crime, yet the degree of criminality can only be assessed in light of the circumstances which naturally focus on what the victim was doing.

[gnome]

Obvious extenuating circumstances. If the circumstances did not involve illegal behavior (no matter how stupid) on the part of the "victim" does that help one's defense?

[TragicMonkey]

A child riding in an non-involved car or a person sitting in their house who did not stay away from the window cannot be blamed for being shot or killed by a person firing a gun out in the street. If I recall the case with the child the defense lawyer actually said the child's death was an accident since his client's intended target was not the child. That didn't go very far. It is not the same as Dick Cheney saying his intended target was a grouse and not a lawyer. Or can one accidentally pull a trigger if they are walking around waving a loaded gun? I suppose so.

I didn't say they could. You've constructed a scenario that absolves the victim of blame for their victimhood. I can construct scenarios that show the opposite. The fact that we can do so, as I pointed out already, proves that we are in agreement that the circumstances of the crime determine the responsibility the victim shares. We're just quibbling about what degree these particular circumstances, in this particular case, put the responsibility on the women.

[Ian Osborne]

You're using too narrow a definition of 'action'. Stabbing an intruder is clearly not the same act as stabbing a rude shopper, even if the physical motions are the same.

Back to the OP, if the HIV+ guy had told his girlfriends of their status and they had unprotected sex with him anyway, that would change everything, even if the sex was exactly the same.

[TragicMonkey]

Obvious extenuating circumstances. If the circumstances did not involve illegal behavior (no matter how stupid) on the part of the "victim" does that help one's defense?

"Your Honor, as I was strolling along the sidewalk looking backwards, I bumped into a mailbox and fell onto a parked car and chipped my tooth. I want the car's owner to pay all my dental expenses, plus pain and suffering."

You own the car. Will you settle immediately, because you cannot think of a defense?

[TragicMonkey]

You're using too narrow a definition of 'action'. Stabbing an intruder is clearly not the same act as stabbing a rude shopper, even if the physical motions are the same.

Back to the OP, if the HIV+ guy had told his girlfriends of their status and they had unprotected sex with him anyway, that would change everything, even if the sex was exactly the same.

And if he hadn't known his status, and had actually given them HIV, he wouldn't be in trouble now, would he? Even though they'd both have the infection which they merely risked getting.

It seems odd that the most dominant factor in declaring this a crime is what he knew, and not what they all did, and not what actually resulted.

[mollyblack]

Having had condoms fall off of partners and having had a close friend have a man remove the condom half way through the act of sex without telling her (she was not that drunk, but was drunk enough to not notice the removal until afterward) I would say that judging these women on the act of no condom is neither here nor there in some cases.

I know plenty of men who have NO consideration for whether or not they'll get somebody pregnant or pass along herpes because they figure the woman should be the one on watch.

I also know one man who had sex without a condom (one night stand) and within a week got a case of herpes so bad that it covered him from head to foot and he almost went blind and I'm not speaking in hyperbolic terms. I also know two separate men who got somebody pregnant and had to deal with the consequences of that legally, as they should since they couldn't bother to use a condom. One, I don't know where he is any more so he could be a great or horrible father (he didn't marry the girl who did it to try to get him to marry her). The second turned out to be a great father who tried to have a long term relationship with the woman (he had cheated on his then girlfriend for a one night stand with no protection with an old friend) and though that never did work out, he takes full shared responsibility for the child.

(And no, once I find this out, I tend not to remain friends with the perpetrators, because somebody that unethical is not somebody I want even close to me in any way, shape or form.)

[TragicMonkey]

Having had condoms fall off of partners and having had a close friend have a man remove the condom half way through the act of sex without telling her (she was not that drunk, but was drunk enough to not notice the removal until afterward) I would say that judging these women on the act of no condom is neither here nor there in some cases.

Ethically, making an attempt towards the good that fails is better than not making an attempt at all, even though the results may be the same.


I know plenty of men who have NO consideration for whether or not they'll get somebody pregnant or pass along herpes because they figure the woman should be the one on watch.

I also know one man who had sex without a condom (one night stand) and within a week got a case of herpes so bad that it covered him from head to foot and he almost went blind and I'm not speaking in hyperbolic terms. I also know two separate men who got somebody pregnant and had to deal with the consequences of that legally, as they should since they couldn't bother to use a condom. One, I don't know where he is any more so he could be a great or horrible father (he didn't marry the girl who did it to try to get him to marry her). The second turned out to be a great father who tried to have a long term relationship with the woman (he had cheated on his then girlfriend for a one night stand with no protection with an old friend) and though that never did work out, he takes full shared responsibility for the child.

(And no, once I find this out, I tend not to remain friends with the perpetrators, because somebody that unethical is not somebody I want even close to me in any way, shape or form.)

To my mind, it seems the most sensible/only sane course is for everyone to take responsibility for themselves, whether the other party does or not. And if your precautions failed, at least you tried.

[gnome]

"Your Honor, as I was strolling along the sidewalk looking backwards, I bumped into a mailbox and fell onto a parked car and chipped my tooth. I want the car's owner to pay all my dental expenses, plus pain and suffering."

You own the car. Will you settle immediately, because you cannot think of a defense?

I'm not sure how this compares, since there is NO wrongdoing or negligence at all, on the part of the car owner.

[Ian Osborne]

These analogies are getting tedious. To get back on solid ground, does anyone here feel that:

A) The guy in the OP should not be charged with a criminal act?

B) He shouldn't go to prison for what he did?

[SteveGrenard]

These analogies are getting tedious. To get back on solid ground, does anyone here feel that:

A) The guy in the OP should not be charged with a criminal act?

B) He shouldn't go to prison for what he did?

In the U.S. one's HIV status is protected information under Federal and many local laws. If this were not Canada, and I hate to keep bringing up a scenario situation but this is related, would an HIV+ individual be under any legal compulsion to disclose his or her status? I am familiar with a situation of a health care worker who was drawing blood from a patient and the patient moved his arm causing the worker to endure a needle stick injury. That worker tried but could not find out if the patient was HIV+. Even the patient's doctor told the worker he could not reveal that. The patient subsequently died from multi-organ failure which may or may not have been related to AIDS and even after death unless the estate agreed (which they didn't) the patient's HIV status was still shielded.

Presumably a court order if a judge would agree to grant one could cause the disclosure of this information but the worker was told this would be difficult to obtain.

[Art Vandelay]

I agree this is wrong, but "sexual assault"? That strikes me as an unjustified term.

What sort of idiot has unprotected sex in this day and age?!Would you feel the same if they were married.

But they didn't take responsibility for their own safety.Or maybe they thought it was worth it.

Had he not known his own status, they'd be just as infected.So?

If they didn't get infected, what's the crime? It can't be because he exposed them to a risk, because they did that themselves when they didn't insist on condoms.But the risk that he exposed them to was greater than the one they agreed to face.

Since they were not in fact infected, their injuries are confined to the possibility that they might have picked up a disease that they took zero precautions against, flying in the face of common sense.But they did take precautions against it. For one thing, they decided to live in a country which criminalizes knowlingly spreading HIV. How do you know that they didn't take other precautions?

For a better analogy, the women were playing Russian Roulette with a gun the guy provided.And they thought it was a gun with ten thousand chambers, but it turns out it only has a hundred.

Would anybody change their mind about the women being victims if it weren't an HIV scare, but rather pregnancy?If he had special knowledge that he kept from them, such as that he has supersperm that always get women pregnant, then yes.

How about this analogy: I invite you to go swimming with me. I don't bother mentioning that there are crocodiles in the water. Is it partially your fault for not checking for crocs?

Having had condoms fall off of partners and having had a close friend have a man remove the condom half way through the act of sex without telling herThat certainly should be criminal.

[SteveGrenard]

Apparently there are similar cases in the U.S. resulting in convictions:


Stevens was charged with sexual abuse and criminal transmission of HIV. Somewhat incredibly, the Iowa criminal HIV transmission statute provides that somebody can be convicted even if they did not actually transmit HIV, so long as they engaged in conduct that could transmit the virus. The crime is a serious felony carrying a substantial sentence. The law is premised on the idea that it is the act of knowingly engaging in conduct that could transmit the virus that is deserving of severe criminal punishment, regardless of whether actual transmission takes place.

http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2006/08/iowa_supreme_co.html


Unprotected Oral Sex a Crime for HIV+ Man in Pennsylvania

Reversing a ruling by the trial court dismissing criminal charges against Samuel Cordoba, a panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania ruled on July 7 that the prosecution had alleged a prima facie case of reckless endangerment against Cordoba, who is HIV-positive, for having unprotected oral sex with another man, thus reinstating criminal charges against him. Commonwealth v. Cordoba, 2006 WL 1875259 (Pa.Super.), 2006 PA Super 165.

http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2006/07/unprotected_ora.html

[TragicMonkey]

In the U.S. one's HIV status is protected information under Federal and many local laws. If this were not Canada, and I hate to keep bringing up a scenario situation but this is related, would an HIV+ individual be under any legal compulsion to disclose his or her status? I am familiar with a situation of a health care worker who was drawing blood from a patient and the patient moved his arm causing the worker to endure a needle stick injury. That worker tried but could not find out if the patient was HIV+. Even the patient's doctor told the worker he could not reveal that. The patient subsequently died from multi-organ failure which may or may not have been related to AIDS and even after death unless the estate agreed (which they didn't) the patient's HIV status was still shielded.

Presumably a court order if a judge would agree to grant one could cause the disclosure of this information but the worker was told this would be difficult to obtain.

By the time the worker did all this legal junk trying to find out the patient's HIV status, the worker's own HIV status would show up in a test. And after all, isn't the worker's HIV status more of interest than the patient's, seeing how transmission isn't guaranteed? The patient could be HIV but the worker not, I mean.

[Ian Osborne]

I agree this is wrong, but "sexual assault"? That strikes me as an unjustified term.

Yes, I agree. The crime is the endangerment, and it doesn't seem logical to group what happened with sex crimes as the sex itself was legal and consentual.

In the UK, we have a specific crime for recklessly spreading diseases and virii - biological GBH. Here's an example. (http://www.lawteacher.net/Criminal/Non%20Fatal%20Assaults/Biological%20GBH.htm) The law was passed in the 19th Century to criminalise people who failed to take precautions to stop TB (IIRC), and lay unused for over a century before being used to prosecute HIV spreaders.

Does America or Canada have a similar law?

[TragicMonkey]

Would you feel the same if they were married.

To each other? Then the unknowing woman would have had the reasonable expectation that her partner wasn't infected, unless she knew he were cheating. However, these women had absolutely no reason to assume an exclusive relationship with him.

Or maybe they thought it was worth it.

Then they have no right to complain of the potential consequences.

So?

Oddly enough, I think that the most important thing to these two women is what actually resulted, not what might have resulted. They got lucky, undeservedly so, and should be thankful. And wiser.


But the risk that he exposed them to was greater than the one they agreed to face.

Their inability to accurately assess risk doesn't make the risks greater or lesser. You f*** without protection, you're running the risk of HIV. Anybody who doesn't know that is too ignorant to be having sex.

But they did take precautions against it. For one thing, they decided to live in a country which criminalizes knowlingly spreading HIV. How do you know that they didn't take other precautions?

They ignored the most basic, fundamental, and effective precaution. That's like driving your car into the ocean but insisting "but I rolled the windows up!"

And they thought it was a gun with ten thousand chambers, but it turns out it only has a hundred.

Not the first gamblers to misassess their chances at the casino.

If he had special knowledge that he kept from them, such as that he has supersperm that always get women pregnant, then yes.

How about this analogy: I invite you to go swimming with me. I don't bother mentioning that there are crocodiles in the water. Is it partially your fault for not checking for crocs?

If I had a reasonable expectation that there might be a risk of crocodiles, then yes. In your swimming pool in suburban Dallas, no. In the watering hole in the African jungle, yes.

Unprotected sex = risk of HIV. Anybody who wishes to play those odds is a fool.

[SteveGrenard]

By the time the worker did all this legal junk trying to find out the patient's HIV status, the worker's own HIV status would show up in a test. And after all, isn't the worker's HIV status more of interest than the patient's, seeing how transmission isn't guaranteed? The patient could be HIV but the worker not, I mean.

Although this is uncertain science for HIV, time could be of the essence if the worker and her doctor felt that taking certain drugs prior to sero-converting could stop the virus before it becomes established. To take such a drug in the absence of evidence of definite exposure is a difficult decision to make. This has analogies in the established use of post exposure prophylaxsis (PEP) in rabies and tuberculosis.

[Art Vandelay]

Their inability to accurately assess risk doesn't make the risks greater or lesser.But it's not an issue of them inaccurately assessing risk, but of them not being given full information to assess risk.

[TragicMonkey]

But it's not an issue of them inaccurately assessing risk, but of them not being given full information to assess risk.

My point is, they should have assumed it was a distinct possibility anyway, distinct enough to merit precautions. In this day and age, everyone should assume that. Especially if they're having sex with the sort of man who's willing to not use a condom. That alone should demonstrate the safety-mindedness of the guy, and increase one's assessment of the probability that he was infected.

[Art Vandelay]

During the trial, the B.C. woman testified she had a relationship with Smith that spanned more than three years.

[quote]The second woman testified she began a casual sexual relationship with Smith in 2000 that was rekindled in 2005.

The 31-year-old said she confronted Smith about rumours he was HIV-positive, but he denied them. They went on to have unprotected sex on three separate occasions, she said.

So, even after three years, even after being specifically told that he is HIV negative, even considering that only a small percentage of men in Canada are HIV positive, a woman should still consider it a "distinct possibility"? I guess AIDS is just God's punishment for being unchaste, huh?

[Darth Rotor]

. . . and having had a close friend have a man remove the condom half way through the act of sex without telling her (she was not that drunk, but was drunk enough to not notice the removal until afterward) I would say that judging these women on the act of no condom is neither here nor there in some cases.
Let's look at the concept of consensual stupidity, shall we?
I know plenty of men who have NO consideration for whether or not they'll get somebody pregnant or pass along herpes because they figure the woman should be the one on watch.
The cads. Sadly, we all know these cads are out there. As the Boy Scouts were wont to say: Be Prepared. As Job was wont to observe: Life Isn't Fair.
I also know one man who had sex without a condom (one night stand) and within a week got a case of herpes so bad that it covered him from head to foot and he almost went blind and I'm not speaking in hyperbolic terms.
As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
I also know two separate men who got somebody pregnant and had to deal with the consequences of that legally, as they should since they couldn't bother to use a condom.
Yep, been there, it's not pretty for anyone involved. :(
One, I don't know where he is any more so he could be a great or horrible father (he didn't marry the girl who did it to try to get him to marry her). The second turned out to be a great father who tried to have a long term relationship with the woman (he had cheated on his then girlfriend for a one night stand with no protection with an old friend) and though that never did work out, he takes full shared responsibility for the child.
Chivalry ain't dead.
(And no, once I find this out, I tend not to remain friends with the perpetrators, because somebody that unethical is not somebody I want even close to me in any way, shape or form.) Your caution is well warranted. When it all comes down to the basics, Sergeant Stryker had it right:

Life's tough, but it's really tough when you are stupid.

The question is, how does one evolve into the smart condition, where the risk mitigation habit is reflexive?

DR

[TragicMonkey]

During the trial, the B.C. woman testified she had a relationship with Smith that spanned more than three years.



So, even after three years, even after being specifically told that he is HIV negative, even considering that only a small percentage of men in Canada are HIV positive, a woman should still consider it a "distinct possibility"?

Ha! The guy has casual sex with her three years back, then "rekindles" it. There are rumors that he has HIV. So she asks the guy, who she has no reason to believe has been celibate for three years, and has already proven to her his fondness for casual unprotected sex, "do you have HIV?" and he says "No", so she lets him f*** her without a condom?!?!

Let's review:

She knows he likes casual sex.
She doesn't know who he's been sleeping with for three years.
She heard rumors he has HIV.
She knows he doesn't use condoms.

= Increased risk of his having HIV.

But he says he doesn't, so let's believe him, and stake our lives on it! Because it's sooooo unlikely that he would have HIV and not know, or have HIV and lie about it!

I guess AIDS is just God's punishment for being unchaste, huh?

Yeah, that's so what I was leading up to.

Jesus H Crackers and Cheese, people! What's so controversial about this statement: If you have casual unprotected sex you are running the risk of getting HIV, and therefore you are a f***ing moron not to use a condom. It's not that difficult to obtain condoms. And if you don't have a condom you can either wait, or indulge in some of the many sexual activities that do not involve internal fluid exchange. God of Walruses, sometimes I think straight people only know one way to do it.

[TragicMonkey]

even considering that only a small percentage of men in Canada are HIV positive, a woman should still consider it a "distinct possibility"?

I missed this one. How's this for another rule:

Do not stake your life on statistics.

Assume everybody you're having sex with is a risk for HIV, and use protection every time. If you're in a monogamous relationship for a long period of time, and have reasonable expectation that nobody's cheating, and you've both been tested, then if you want you can choose to not use condoms. But that's pretty much the only situation when you wouldn't be an idiot not to.

I think perhaps the reason I'm having difficulty understanding how people can not see this is because I'm gay. For gay people, the risk of HIV is an omnipresent reality. The non-idiots among us always use condoms, every time, with every person, in every encounter. It doesn't matter what you feel about the person or what they say or what the statistics are. Always use a condom. Anything less is ridiculously dangerous.

Until straight people start thinking the same way, they're going to keep getting infected and acting surprised. Wake up and join reality: there is a sexually transmitted incurable disease that can kill you. Take precautions. Don't think you're safe because of statistics, don't think you're safe because you're in love, don't think you're safe because you can't imagine it can happen to you. It can.

[skeptifem]

Check your insurance policy. There's usually a bit in there about how you're required to take "reasonable precaution" against loss. Your example would probably be covered. But if you admitted you never locked your doors, and always kept expensive stereo equipment in your luxury car, and parked in a bad part of town and left the car alone for weeks at a time, you might find your claim rejected.

Legal culpability is not the same as personal responsibility. People who stab themselves in the forehead with a fork then sue the silverware manufacturer for lack of warning labels may manage to pin legal culpability on them, if the lawyers are good enough. The law is not the be-all and end-all of human ethics.

This doesnt explain how taking the car is not a crime.




Take them to the hospital, sure. Make their insurance company cover the costs of their injuries? I don't think they should have to, in that case.

Its quite different to hurt yourself vs being hurt by someone else when they knew damn well they didnt have to.

And I'm not saying it's not deplorable. I'm just saying that fools cannot be guarded, perpetually, from the consequences of their own foolishness. It's sad when someone huffs airplane glue and gets brain damage. Do they deserve recompense from the hobbies industry?



no, because it tells you on the package specifically NOT to do that and the consequences, which is exactly the opposite of the situation that is being discussed.

Assigning blame to one person shouldn't automatically absolve every other party of all responsibility. "The trial said Kevin's the bad guy, so everyone else was an innocent victim." Yeah, right.

I have been reading your posts in this thread, and I get the impression that it must be real nice up on that high horse. We arent talking about civil matters like you haven been in this thread, its about criminal matters, addressing if what happened morally wrong. It is, so its a crime- period.

And for ****s sake dont you think the women have already felt terrible about not having protected sex? THEY are the ones living with the consequences, I am sure they have given themselves this talk more times than you have in this thread, on top of that all the betrayal and feeling bad for trusting the person, etc.


Lets look at domestic abuse. A woman keeps getting beat up by her husband and he keeps going to jail. She shouldnt stay, but that doesnt mean she deserves to get beaten up or that her husband shouldnt get arrested if he does it again.

[TragicMonkey]

This doesnt explain how taking the car is not a crime.

I didn't say it wasn't a crime. I'm merely pointing out that some people, for whatever reasons, assist in their own victimhood.


Its quite different to hurt yourself vs being hurt by someone else when they knew damn well they didnt have to.

And it's quite different to have taken sensible precautions and gotten hurt anyway, and not to bother with the sensible precautions at all.

no, because it tells you on the package specifically NOT to do that and the consequences, which is exactly the opposite of the situation that is being discussed.

The package in question being sex, and the warning label the guy not volunteering his HIV status? Anyone who accepts a verbal assurance for something like that is a fool.

I have been reading your posts in this thread, and I get the impression that it must be real nice up on that high horse. We arent talking about civil matters like you haven been in this thread, its about criminal matters, addressing if what happened morally wrong. It is, so its a crime- period.

Bullhonkey. Morally wrong <> criminal, and legality <> morally acceptable, and none of those four possible categories has a thing to do with stupid and not stupid categories. Should I draw you a Venn diagram? An action can be stupid but legal and moral, or stupid and legal but immoral, or stupid and illegal and immoral, and so forth. The categories can overlap, but they do not always overlap.



And for ****s sake dont you think the women have already felt terrible about not having protected sex? THEY are the ones living with the consequences, I am sure they have given themselves this talk more times than you have in this thread, on top of that all the betrayal and feeling bad for trusting the person, etc.

No, frankly, I don't think the women feel terrible. They were stupid then, and they're probably just as stupid now. As for "betrayal", they put themselves in a position to be betrayed through their stupidity. Believing the verbal assurance of someone regarding their HIV status, especially someone who you know is into casual unprotected sex, is stupid. As for trust, even if the man were truthful, he might easily not have known his own HIV status. "Oh, but I trust him!" or "Oh, but I love him!" have nothing to do with the presence or absence of an infectious disease. Anybody thinking differently may as well try to pray themselves cured. Someone either has HIV or doesn't, and either knows it or doesn't. Another Venn diagram for you.

Lets look at domestic abuse. A woman keeps getting beat up by her husband and he keeps going to jail. She shouldnt stay, but that doesnt mean she deserves to get beaten up or that her husband shouldnt get arrested if he does it again.

Again, I'm not saying the perpetrator isn't doing wrong, and shouldn't be punished. I'm merely pointing out that assigning the blame to one party does not automatically absolve all other parties. He's wrong to beat her, and she's wrong to stay for it. Being wrong <> deserves what happens, either, in case you wanted to go down that particular derail.

I'm getting really curious at this point. Are you all habitual participants in unprotected casual sex, and don't get yourself tested, and trust your partners' verbal assurances (assuming they even claim to have been tested)?