139 replies to this topic

[sierraleone]

http://www.canada.co...l...e68&k=88627

Quote

WINDSOR, Ont., -Convicted sex offender Carl Leone represents a "real and present danger" and should be incarcerated indefinitely, assistant Crown attorney Tim Kavanagh told Windsor Superior Court Justice Joseph Quinn Tuesday.

The Crown is seeking a dangerous offender label for the Windsor businessman, who pleaded guilty last spring to 15 counts of aggravated sexual assault for engaging in sexual relations without telling his partners of his HIV-positive status. Five of those 15 women were infected with the virus that can lead to AIDS.

...the court heard one of the conditions of any long-term supervision order likely would be a requirement the offender "immediately" report to his parole officer any new platonic or intimate relationship...

He said that person would be contacted by a parole officer and informed of the offender's parole status and given details of his offences. Whilsmith said privacy legislation prevents parole officers from informing anyone of an offender's medical status, such as being HIV-positive.

Privacy considerations aside, defence lawyer Andrew Bradie said his client would prefer a condition of having to divulge his HIV status to potential sex partners if it meant he didn't have to spend the rest of his life behind bars.

[QueenTiye]

This guy just knowingly gave 5 women a permanent disability, and we're supposed to believe that parole would prevent him from doing so again?

QT

[BklnScott]

Um... what?  This guy is a scumbag, no question about it.  He *should* have disclosed his status -- but the idea that he should be branded a sex offender and locked up *indefinitely* for failing to disclose his status is utter b*llsh*t.  The idea that 2 people deciding together to have unsafe sex could ever possibly lead to either of them being charged with (let alone convicted of) "aggravated sexual assault" is equally ridiculous, and *very* scary.  

None of these women would be HIV+ today if they hadn't agreed to let this man put his penis in their vaginas without wearing a condom.  I'm sorry they're Poz--and again, I think he's a scumbag who should have disclosed his status--but the bottom line is that every single one of those women is responsible for her own seroconversion, and this man should not be treated by the law as though he was a rapist or a child molester.

[Kosh]

ScottEVill, on Dec 20 2007, 03:58 PM, said:

Um... what?  This guy is a scumbag, no question about it.  He *should* have disclosed his status -- but the idea that he should be branded a sex offender and locked up *indefinitely* for failing to disclose his status is utter b*llsh*t.  The idea that 2 people deciding together to have unsafe sex could ever possibly lead to either of them being charged with (let alone convicted of) "aggravated sexual assault" is equally ridiculous, and *very* scary.  

None of these women would be HIV+ today if they hadn't agreed to let this man put his penis in their vaginas without wearing a condom.  I'm sorry they're Poz--and again, I think he's a scumbag who should have disclosed his status--but the bottom line is that every single one of those women is responsible for her own seroconversion, and this man should not be treated by the law as though he was a rapist or a child molester.

Dude, if you have something that will kill, and you spread it without warning, they should put you in jail. Yes, the women should have demanded the Love Glove, but he went ahead without telling them that he was already positive.

[BklnScott]

Kosh said:

Dude, if you have something that will kill, and you spread it without warning, they should put you in jail.

Which would require a total overhaul of our legal system.  The flu can kill.  A cold can kill.  Do you give everyone you sneeze in proximity to a rundown of your medical history?  (I didn't think so.)

Quote

Yes, the women should have demanded the Love Glove,

And if they had, his failure to disclose his status would have been irrelevant.  But they didn't do that, did they?

Quote

but he went ahead without telling them that he was already positive.

Which makes him a scumbag, not a rapist.  The women gave consent.  Do I need to repeat that?  The women gave consent.  Were they stupid to do so?  Absolutely.  But that doesn't invalidate the fact that they chose to engage in an activity they knew carried with it the risk of seroconverting (among other potential consequences).

We don't put people in prison for spreading any other sexually transmitted disease, even Hep C, which--BTW--is more serious than HIV/AIDS.  

BTW, has anyone noticed that these stories seem to always be about those mean, nasty HIV+ men needing to be punished to the fullest extent of the law for preying on poor, defenseless, unsuspecting women... who totally consented to have unprotected sex with them in the first place.  

I think both those points are quite telling.    

In another thread, QT (whose opinion on this issue I find so distasteful, to say the least) says:

QT said:

The stats on girls are depressing. More work needs to be done to overcome females feeling the need to appease boyfriends, etc.

Indeed, perhaps the best place to start is by treating women who consent to engage in unsafe sex as equally responsible for the consequences of that act as their male partners?  Ya think?

Edited by ScottEVill, 20 December 2007 - 05:23 PM.

[scherzo]

Wotta jerk! Seems at the very least lawsuits are in order.

-scherzo

[G1223]

No a tree shredder and quick lye and 8' deep hole is the order of the day.
Putting  him in a cage for the rest of life is higher on my list than comming up with any terms for a parole.

[Spectacles]

I understand Scott's point about the women being partly responsible. After all, engaging in unprotected sex is a form of Russian Roulette. Sounds dramatic, but it's really dramatic when you end up infected with HIV or Hep C.

However, in Canada:

Quote

Under a 1998 Supreme Court ruling, a person who fails to disclose HIV-positive status before having unprotected sexual intercourse can be convicted of aggravated assault and face life in prison.

http://www.cbc.ca/ca...ce.html?ref=rss

So, it's been a longstanding law in Canada and Mr. Leone is simply guilty as sin under that law.

Anyone know what the law is in the U.S.? Do we have something comparable?

[QueenTiye]

There was a case in Florida where the guy got convicted of aggravated assault.  I think that's the worst.

I also understand about the women consenting to unprotected sex.  But...  knowingly and willfully spreading an incurable disease... ANY incurable disease, is not only slimy, it's also a public health menace.  Those women didn't have to go right away and have themselves checked out, and given their already risky behavior - this means they can also be spreading the disease.  Moreover - in the legal climate of Canada, these women had a right to expect, even with unprotected sex, that they were not going to get infected with HIV.  He knew that he could infect them, and that makes him more culpable, even in consensual stupid sex.

My objection was mainly that the law seems (clearly) unenforceable.  He goes on parole and then has to check in and tell someone before he goes out and has any relations again? I don't believe that will work.

scherzo has it right - a lawsuit for ongoing scaled financial support is in order - just imagine having to pay for all 5 of these women's medical expenses, to the extent he is able, for the rest of his life... that's just.

QT

[Rhea]

Spectacles, on Dec 20 2007, 03:28 PM, said:

I understand Scott's point about the women being partly responsible. After all, engaging in unprotected sex is a form of Russian Roulette. Sounds dramatic, but it's really dramatic when you end up infected with HIV or Hep C.

However, in Canada:

Quote

Under a 1998 Supreme Court ruling, a person who fails to disclose HIV-positive status before having unprotected sexual intercourse can be convicted of aggravated assault and face life in prison.

http://www.cbc.ca/ca...ce.html?ref=rss

So, it's been a longstanding law in Canada and Mr. Leone is simply guilty as sin under that law.

Anyone know what the law is in the U.S.? Do we have something comparable?

As far as I'm concerned the U.S. law should match the Canadian, even though it doesn't. Spreading HIV by having sex with anyone, whether protected or unprotected (condoms can leak, too) is not exactly the same as giving someone a cold or the flu. Neither will kill you. It's a form of rape as far as I'm concerned. And in this case it was done with malice aforethought.

Edited by Rhea, 20 December 2007 - 10:33 PM.

[QueenTiye]

ScottEVill, on Dec 20 2007, 05:19 PM, said:

BTW, has anyone noticed that these stories seem to always be about those mean, nasty HIV+ men needing to be punished to the fullest extent of the law for preying on poor, defenseless, unsuspecting women... who totally consented to have unprotected sex with them in the first place.  

I think both those points are quite telling.    

In another thread, QT (whose opinion on this issue I find so distasteful, to say the least) says:

QT said:

The stats on girls are depressing. More work needs to be done to overcome females feeling the need to appease boyfriends, etc.

Indeed, perhaps the best place to start is by treating women who consent to engage in unsafe sex as equally responsible for the consequences of that act as their male partners?  Ya think?

BTW, Scott - I'm not clear which opinions you found distasteful... but I don't apologize even a little bit for expressing an opinion that work needs to be done to help women not feel the need to appease their boyfriends with sex.  That's a real issue and women know it. I think men do too.

And - if a woman had knowingly and willfully had unprotected sex with a man without telling him she was HIV+ and the suggestion was parole check in, I'd think it was just as ridiculous, and I would certainly expect Canadian law to slam down hard on such a woman same as with such a man.  

QT

[BklnScott]

Spectacles, on Dec 20 2007, 06:28 PM, said:

I understand Scott's point about the women being partly responsible. After all, engaging in unprotected sex is a form of Russian Roulette. Sounds dramatic, but it's really dramatic when you end up infected with HIV or Hep C.

However, in Canada:

Quote

Under a 1998 Supreme Court ruling, a person who fails to disclose HIV-positive status before having unprotected sexual intercourse can be convicted of aggravated assault and face life in prison.

http://www.cbc.ca/ca...ce.html?ref=rss

So, it's been a longstanding law in Canada and Mr. Leone is simply guilty as sin under that law.

He is, no questoin there -- but it's a bad law.  QT points out part of the reason why: because it is unenforceable.  

More importantly, it's a bad law because it is rooted in the plague-era mentality.  In 1998, just two years after the first protease inhibitor hit the market, most people still believed that testing HIV+ was an automatic death sentence.  Most people still believe that today.

But they are wrong.  

In 2007, we know that the life average life expectancy for a young person who tests HIV+ (and who has health insurance) is more than 35 years.

Please, everyone, take a moment to step back from your preconceived ideas about what it means to test positive for HIV and consider that.  More than 35 years.  

It's not an automatic death sentence any more--so we should stop treating it like one by handing out LIFE SENTENES to HIV+ people, especially when people who go around knowingly spreading much more serious STDs, such as Hep C, get off scot free.  

Serial killers can expect to get a fairer shake in the Canadian legal system than HIV+ people who fail to disclose their status--Karla Homolka only served 12 years, for god's sake!  

Quote

scherzo has it right - a lawsuit for ongoing scaled financial support is in order

Why?  

Quote

just imagine having to pay for all 5 of these women's medical expenses, to the extent he is able, for the rest of his life...

Without excusing this scumbag's behavior, I think it needs to be pointed out that someone infected him, too.  And someone infected the person who infected him.  And so on, and so forth.  Should they all be locked up?

This is tantamount to arguing that HIV+ people should be quarantined, and frankly I find that opinion... uninformed.  (And, of course, G's post is -- extremely unsurprising.)

Edited by ScottEVill, 21 December 2007 - 05:48 PM.

[TravelerOfTheWays]

I'm all about nailing this guy with tort liability - and in doing so, yes, he can try to argue negligence on the part of his partners.  There was consent, but the women here could argue that it was not fully informed consent.  Medical monitoring and future medical bills seems like a reasonable award, and if the women want to push for pain and suffering as well as punitive damages, I say let 'em try.

Sorry, I know this is a real world case with real consequences for real people, but I just got out of a tort final, so all these issues are still swirling around in my head.  Seriously, though, it would be a good chance for the legislature to examine a judicial decision, see if they like it, and decide or not to make a law out of it.  

Yes, the lifespan for HIV is much extended this days, but the same thing can be said for cancer or asbestos poisoning.  The symptoms may not manifest for years, but if a plaintiff can convincingly prove who caused the harm,  he or she can recover some damages for it.  Um, sometimes.

[G1223]

ScottEVill, on Dec 21 2007, 12:09 AM, said:

Why?

Because he knowingly infected these women. It was not like he did not know he was HIV positive.

My reason for wanting to get rid of him is not because he is HIV positive but because he acts deliberatly hurt 5 women who unknowing had sex with him.

[scherzo]

Quote

In 2007, we know that the life average life expectancy for a young person who tests HIV+ (and who has health insurance) is more than 35 years.

Please, everyone, take a moment to step back from your preconceived ideas about what it means to test positive for HIV and consider that. More than 35 years.

Wow talk about your arbitrary numbers. We've calculated a 35 year life expectancy for a disease that hasn't even been around 35 years. With a death toll of over 25 million since 1981, and no cure in sight, I don't think people can realistically react to a positive diagnosis like they've come down with the sniffles.

Quote

It's not an automatic death sentence any more--so we should stop treating it like one by handing out LIFE SENTENES to HIV+ people, especially when people who go around knowingly spreading much more serious STDs, such as Hep C, get off scot free.

Yeah when someone argues that it's ok to knowingly infect women with hep C, I'll consider this a hugely relevant point. People are dragged into court and punished for doing way less damage, than this creep did with full knowledge of the consequences of his actions. You may not think it's that big a deal, but I guarantee you his victims will beg to differ. They'll be right.

-scherzo

Edited by scherzo, 21 December 2007 - 01:51 AM.

[BklnScott]

scherzo, on Dec 21 2007, 01:49 AM, said:

Quote

In 2007, we know that the life average life expectancy for a young person who tests HIV+ (and who has health insurance) is more than 35 years.

Please, everyone, take a moment to step back from your preconceived ideas about what it means to test positive for HIV and consider that. More than 35 years.

Wow talk about your arbitrary numbers. We've calculated a 35 year life expectancy for a disease that hasn't even been around 35 years.

Yeah, it's amazing how science works.  BTW, just because you haven't been aware of the disease doesn't mean it hasn't been around.  The earliest cases of HIV have been traced to the early 20th century.    

Quote

With a death toll of over 25 million since 1981, and no cure in sight, I don't think people can realistically react to a positive diagnosis like they've come down with the sniffles.

No, but by the same token they haven't been diagnosed with a death sentence.  I'd say it's reasonable from people's reactions to say that perception is still very much with us.

The the most apt comparison is diabetes, BTW.  

Quote

Quote

It's not an automatic death sentence any more--so we should stop treating it like one by handing out LIFE SENTENES to HIV+ people, especially when people who go around knowingly spreading much more serious STDs, such as Hep C, get off scot free.

Yeah when someone argues that it's ok to knowingly infect women with hep C, I'll consider this a hugely relevant point.

I haven't heard about any big Supreme Court rulings targeting the scourge of people knowingly infecting women with Hep C.   Yet, it IS a scourge, and people ARE knowingly infecting other people with Hep C.  

Funny, that.  No one has passed any laws permitting prosecutors to seek life sentences for *that*.

Hey, you don't suppose there's a (gasp) bias against HIV+ people, do you?

(I'm gonna be late for work...)

Edited by ScottEVill, 21 December 2007 - 08:27 AM.

[QueenTiye]

ScottEVill, on Dec 21 2007, 08:24 AM, said:

I haven't heard about any big Supreme Court rulings targeting the scourge of people knowingly infecting women with Hep C.   Yet, it IS a scourge, and people ARE knowingly infecting other people with Hep C.  

Funny, that.  No one has passed any laws permitting prosecutors to seek life sentences for *that*.

Hey, you don't suppose there's a (gasp) bias against HIV+ people, do you?

(I'm gonna be late for work...)

Well - I don't know if I'd heard of this law until a Canadian posted it...   So, we just might not know what the Canadian Supreme Court ruled about these kinds of cases.  

BUT - the failure to act appropriately to keep people from spreading terminal, debilitating and incurable diseases in one case is not a reason to not do it in another.  Quite the reverse, actually - proactive law in the one case should be back filled to other cases.

QT

[Broph]

ScottEVill, on Dec 20 2007, 10:19 PM, said:

Which makes him a scumbag, not a rapist.  The women gave consent.  Do I need to repeat that?  The women gave consent.  Were they stupid to do so?  Absolutely.  But that doesn't invalidate the fact that they chose to engage in an activity they knew carried with it the risk of seroconverting (among other potential consequences).

There's a difference if both people engage in the act and neither knows their own condition. This man knew that he had HIV. He had knowledge that the women didn't have and used it on purpose against them. There's a difference between knowing that there's a risk and knowing something for certain. He knew; they didn't. That's the difference.

We hear of fake meter readers who talk their way into the homes of little old ladies, only to rob them. These little old ladies gave consent for the fake readers to enter their houses, right?

[Broph]

ScottEVill, on Dec 21 2007, 05:09 AM, said:

In 2007, we know that the life average life expectancy for a young person who tests HIV+ (and who has health insurance) is more than 35 years.

That's an average; not a certainty. Some people will certainly live less than 35 years. And someone who engages in unsafe relations will be less likely to get tested and may wait until it's too late.

[scherzo]

Quote

Yeah, it's amazing how science works.

When it's actually WORKING, it doesn't usually contradict good 'ol common sense. You can't possibly calculate a definitive life expectancy for an infection like hiv, where variables in general health, age, and access to medication are different in every case. Particularly when the number they've yanked out of the sky is longer than we've known about the disease itself.

Quote

BTW, just because you haven't been aware of the disease doesn't mean it hasn't been around. The earliest cases of HIV have been traced to the early 20th century.

Considering the amount of people who failed to survive infection well into the LATE 20th century, I think it's relatively safe to say we're only recently coming to grips with it. An arbitrary projected universal life expectancy is going to be a tough sell under the circumstances.

Quote

The the most apt comparison is diabetes, BTW.

Diabetes is not communicable. A huge difference that completely negates any comparison to hiv.

Quote

I haven't heard about any big Supreme Court rulings targeting the scourge of people knowingly infecting women with Hep C. Yet, it IS a scourge, and people ARE knowingly infecting other people with Hep C.

Funny, that. No one has passed any laws permitting prosecutors to seek life sentences for *that*.

Hey, you don't suppose there's a (gasp) bias against HIV+ people, do you?

I continue to hope against all odds, that any laws dealing with sexually transmitted disease will manage to disregard all gay male persecution theories. The best science and the wisest laws probably avoid adding politics to the mix.  

-scherzo