Charge added for man "not warning the [rape] victim that he was HIV-positive"

[Katana]

Police have arrested a man who allegedly raped a fellow patient at Summit Ridge in Lawrenceville. The arrest report says the man who allegedly committed the rape is HIV-positive.

A female patient at Summit Ridge Center for Psychiatry in Lawrenceville told police that while she was asleep one night in early September, she felt someone in bed with her.

“Her condition of being asleep and under sedation, she wasn’t sure at the time. But with the follow-up investigation the next day, she did say at that point she felt she was raped and was raped by a patient,” said Capt. Greg Vaughn with the Lawrenceville Police Department.

Lawrenceville police arrested 28-year-old Wesley Hatfield, another patient at Summit Ridge.

...

Hatfield has been charged with rape and reckless conduct. The arrest warrant stated the reckless conduct charge is for not warning the victim that he was HIV-positive.

Link (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/14093294/detail.html).

So, if he had simply warned her first, that would have lessened the offense?

:wackyskeptical:

[brodski]

Link (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/14093294/detail.html).

So, if he had simply warned her first, that would have lessened the offense?

:wackyskeptical:

This seems to be the police/ prosecutors finding more crimes to charge this man with; the statue was probably put in place to prevent people deliberately, or negligently, infecting their partners with HIV in otherwise consensual sexual encounters. The police have decide to add to the rapists charges given the fact that he is known to be HIV positive does make his crime worse. The law just happens to have been written without these circumstances in mind- mainly because “hard cases make bad law”.

[Francesca R]

So, if he had simply warned her first, that would have lessened the offense?Well, if (i) rape is a crime, and (ii) knowingly being HIV+ and not informing somebody you have intercourse with of this is a crime, then committing both acts seems to warrant two charges.

[zooterkin]

Given that she was sedated at the time, and was unsure whether she'd even been raped to start with, how are they sure he didn't give a warning?

[Katana]

Well, if (i) rape is a crime, and (ii) knowingly being HIV+ and not informing somebody you have intercourse with of this is a crime, then committing both acts seems to warrant two charges.


I'm not disagreeing with either of your points.

My issue is with the idea of the rapist warning her first as being any kind of mitigating factor. It seems absurd.

It's one thing if it's consensual sex, and he doesn't warn his partner first. But he forced himself and the HIV exposure on her - warning or otherwise.

[Ian Osborne]

The juxtaposition of the two charges does indeed lead to an unfortunate implication, but given that the victim was not in a position to react to a warning anyway, surely the Reckless Conduct charge would still be applicable?

[brodski]

We don’t know that if he had warned her that the charge of reckless endangerment would not be there, but it would probably be more difficult to prosecute, especially if there are any problems with the prosecution of the rape charge.

[chran]

Link (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/14093294/detail.html).

So, if he had simply warned her first, that would have lessened the offense?

:wackyskeptical: You don't know that ...

Maybe he would have been given a charge of willfull reckless conduct (or some such) if he HAD warned her?

[Francesca R]

I'm not disagreeing with either of your points.

My issue is with the idea of the rapist warning her first as being any kind of mitigating factor. It seems absurd.

It's one thing if it's consensual sex, and he doesn't warn his partner first. But he forced himself and the HIV exposure on her - warning or otherwise.I agree that a "warning" coupled with an initiation of force renders the warning completely moot. But I sort-of still see the logic that two offences were committed.

[Boo]

It gives the lawyers something to bargain with. Often times when someone has "the book thrown at them" the Officers will list every possible offense the individual can be charged with. This allows the DA's to negotiate without bargaining down the major charges.


In this case I'm surprised they haven't added assault with intent to cause great bodily harm / death or another charge along those lines.



Boo

[Katana]

It gives the lawyers something to bargain with. Often times when someone has "the book thrown at them" the Officers will list every possible offense the individual can be charged with. This allows the DA's to negotiate without bargaining down the major charges.


In this case I'm surprised they haven't added assault with intent to cause great bodily harm / death or another charge along those lines.



Boo


That's more along the lines with what I was thinking, and, while I understand the points others are making, whether he warned her or not, she had no choice. Assault or reckless endangerment seems more appropriate to add to the rape charge.

[Checkmite]

I'm of such a low opinion of rapists in general, that I think this fellow should be charged with every single thing that could possibly apply to the situation. I don't care if they throw a couple of traffic charges in the mix. Whatever they can!

[Segnosaur]

I don't care if they throw a couple of traffic charges in the mix. Whatever they can!

Well, depending on the position they used, he could be charged with "Following too close".

[dementedcactus]

Well, depending on the position they used, he could be charged with "Following too close".
"Operating without a helmet" too

[SynapticDancer]

Let me ask this, because I am unfamiliar with the laws Georgia, if he had consensual sex with her and did not warn her of his virus, would he be charged with that alone?

I can see the logic of piling charges up on him. Really the rape offense should carry enough of a sentence that they don't need to, but I can still understand the motivation.