FREE TAPATALK APP

Katana · 12th September 2007, 05:58 AM

Quote:

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.

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

brodski · 12th September 2007, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by Katana

Link.

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

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 · 12th September 2007, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by Katana

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 · 12th September 2007, 07:56 AM

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 · 12th September 2007, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by acuity

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 · 12th September 2007, 08:22 AM

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 · 12th September 2007, 09:03 AM

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 · 12th September 2007, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by Katana

Link.

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

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 · 12th September 2007, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by Katana

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 · 12th September 2007, 09:42 AM

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 · 12th September 2007, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by 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

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 · 12th September 2007, 05:45 PM

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 · 13th September 2007, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi

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 · 14th September 2007, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

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

"Operating without a helmet" too

SynapticDancer · 14th September 2007, 04:45 PM

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.

12th September 2007, 05:58 AM	#1
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	Charge added for man "not warning the [rape] victim that he was HIV-positive" Quote: 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. So, if he had simply warned her first, that would have lessened the offense?
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	__________________ "I think Katana is as big of a perv as the rest of us." - Dragonrock "The rationality was there, and clear and concise. The condescention was hinted at and was like french onion dip on the perfect potato chip. Tasted like woo smackdown." - Fowlsound (aka Ducky, darnit) "Katana is one quick shut-yo-mouth!" - JonnyFive StopSylviaBrowne

12th September 2007, 06:05 AM	#2
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,159	Originally Posted by Katana Link. So, if he had simply warned her first, that would have lessened the offense? 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”.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,159

12th September 2007, 08:13 AM	#5
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	Originally Posted by acuity 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.
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	__________________ "I think Katana is as big of a perv as the rest of us." - Dragonrock "The rationality was there, and clear and concise. The condescention was hinted at and was like french onion dip on the perfect potato chip. Tasted like woo smackdown." - Fowlsound (aka Ducky, darnit) "Katana is one quick shut-yo-mouth!" - JonnyFive StopSylviaBrowne

12th September 2007, 08:22 AM	#6
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Wiltshire Posts: 6,402	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?
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan Last edited by Ian Osborne; 12th September 2007 at 08:25 AM.

12th September 2007, 09:03 AM	#7
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,159	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.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,159

12th September 2007, 07:18 AM	#3
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	Originally Posted by Katana 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.

12th September 2007, 07:56 AM	#4
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 25,025	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?

12th September 2007, 09:03 AM	#8
chran Muse Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Denmark, yo Posts: 630	Originally Posted by Katana Link. So, if he had simply warned her first, that would have lessened the offense? 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?

12th September 2007, 09:28 AM	#9
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	Originally Posted by Katana 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.

12th September 2007, 09:42 AM	#10
Boo ts Join Date: May 2003 Location: state of chaos Posts: 3,743	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
	__________________ Wounds heal. Morally Obtuse. Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.

12th September 2007, 09:54 AM	#11
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	Originally Posted by 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 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.
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	__________________ "I think Katana is as big of a perv as the rest of us." - Dragonrock "The rationality was there, and clear and concise. The condescention was hinted at and was like french onion dip on the perfect potato chip. Tasted like woo smackdown." - Fowlsound (aka Ducky, darnit) "Katana is one quick shut-yo-mouth!" - JonnyFive StopSylviaBrowne

12th September 2007, 05:45 PM	#12
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,977	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!
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

13th September 2007, 07:54 AM	#13
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,115	Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi 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".
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

14th September 2007, 09:59 AM	#14
dementedcactus Scholar Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 71	Originally Posted by Segnosaur Well, depending on the position they used, he could be charged with "Following too close". "Operating without a helmet" too
dementedcactus Scholar Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 71	__________________ Eschew Obfuscation

14th September 2007, 04:45 PM	#15
SynapticDancer Thinker Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Bronx, new York Posts: 132	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.
	__________________ Man has always deceived himself when he abandoned experience to follow imaginary systems"- Baron D'Holbach