Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

"HIV-positive man a 'real and present danger,' court hear

Public Health AIDS 2007

  • Please log in to reply
139 replies to this topic

#21 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,147 posts

Posted 21 December 2007 - 09:52 AM

Quote

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.

I heard something once about a brittish sailor being the first known case, in the '50's.
Can't Touch This!!

#22 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,214 posts

Posted 21 December 2007 - 11:00 AM

I can see both points of this arguement.

ScottEVill

Quote

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?

I still feel a bit more onus is on the partner who *knew* about the disease, and therefor knew what was being transmitted. To the other partner, its abstract. Yes it was still a stupid decision. But it wasn't an abstract to the person knowingly carrying the disease.

QT

Quote

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.

The second second, as stated above in my previous sentence, I agree with, he is more culpable. Its just a matter of degrees IMO.
The first sentence. No. Just because rape, purse-snatching/etc is illegal, does that mean I just blindly walk down the street of a bad neighbourhood without my eyes peeled, and perhaps a mace spray? No

ScottEVill

Quote

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

Definately. Do they mean/want people with HIV/AIDS or Hep C to not have any sex? Or just uninformed sex? How do you enforce such a law? At least, usually, in a rape situation you can see someone is not consenting. How do you tell if someone is not having or did not have 'informed' sex?
And what precedence does this set for "oh, I'm infertile honey" "I'm allergic to latex" (or on birth control, or been 'snipped')
(well, I suppose the argument could be that they already 'pay'... some with giving child support, some with raising the kids and getting child support. But an STD/STI can get transmitted here as well).

Edited by sierraleone, 21 December 2007 - 11:00 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#23 Caithness

Caithness

    Nemo me impune lacessit.

  • Islander
  • 4,941 posts

Posted 21 December 2007 - 12:25 PM

View PostScottEVill, on Dec 20 2007, 05:19 PM, said:

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?

Possibly, if condoms were made of steel.
Posted Image

#24 Bobby

Bobby

    FKA LiberalBob

  • Islander
  • 4,369 posts

Posted 21 December 2007 - 02:06 PM

What scherzo, Rhea, and QueenTiye said!   He knowingly went around screwing people, I don't care if they were loose, he knew what he had and said nothing.  Why?  Because they wouldn't have had sex with him otherwise.  He's the scum of the earth.  And thirty five years isn't definitive, it's a an average that's based on projections at this point, and that says nothing of the complications of the disease.  They shouldn't have slept with him but even condoms aren't full proof.  And as QT said, just because people run around spreading hep c it's a straw man because the people doing that should be held accountable to for not telling their partners.  

I remember watching a documentary once and there was this young gay guy who had gotten HIV from his partner who knew he had it but didn't tell him, he started crying while he was talking, it made me want to cry to watch a guy so young and vibriant break down at what he was facing.  Sorry, the victims may have been stupid but nobody deserves that.  He's just spreading it around because he figures if he's got it he might as well share it cause he'll probably die at some point too.  And aren't the drugs expensive?  Who's gonna pay for their pills to keep them from getting full blown AIDS?  This guy won't be able to afford to pay for all of them, if they're lucky and he has money, he'll have to sell it off but after a point he'll be tapped out.  And money is nothing in the face of losing your life.  He's not a millionaire, is he?

#25 Sinister Dexter

Sinister Dexter

    You win this time, Clerks...

  • Islander
  • 1,880 posts

Posted 21 December 2007 - 06:30 PM

I have to agree with Scott: stupidity is not a crime, and neither is being the lowest kind of scum to walk the earth. This is all just another sorry case of "should-a, would-a, could-a, didn't when it comes to people treating the risk of any STD too lightly and paying the price.

Remember the Golden Rule, kids: no glove, no love.
Rommie: I just want a day where I can build missiles and tweak fire control in peace
Beka: We need to find you a hobby
Rommie: That IS my hobby

Daniel: She's Hathor, the goddess of fertility, inebriety, and music
Jack: Sex, drugs and rock & roll?

Moist Von Lipvig: Oh, all right. Of course I accept as a natural born criminal, habitual liar, fraudster and totally untrustworthy perverted genius
Lord Vetinari: Capital! Welcome to government service!

Mary Raven: ....your house smells weird
Dr Vukovic: It smells of SCIENCE!

Wooster: Why is it, do you think, Jeeves, that the thought of the "little thing" my Aunt Dahlia wants me to do for her fills me with a nameless foreboding?
Jeeves: Experience, sir?

#26 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 02:43 PM

View PostQueenTiye, on Dec 20 2007, 10:46 PM, said:

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.

Sorry, I thought I had clarified this, but I guess I didn't.  I agree with your post I imported from the other thread: work does need to be done to help women not feel the need to appease their boyfriends (with sex, and in other ways, too).  The reason I imported that bit is because it seems to contradict your posts in this thread, which have indicated support for confining this man for life because the women he slept with refused to protect themselves during casual sex.  

As long as the government is treating women as somehow less than equally responsible for protecting themselves during casual sex, some women will continue to *act* less than equally responsible for protecting themselves during casual sex (and I think you and I are both talking about the same set of women: the ones who feel the need to appease their boyfriends).  Now, in Canada, the Supreme Court has enabled women to lay back and think, "if he was Poz, he'd have to tell me, and he hasn't told me, so I guess it's OK to let him penetrate me without a condom."  

Call me crazy, but I think we'd all be safer if we adopted the following:

a) it's NEVER OK not to ask your partner what his/her status is

b) it's NEVER OK to assume he or she has told you the truth

c) whether you ask or not, ANYONE who consents to have unsafe sex is also consenting to the RISKS that come along with having unsafe sex, which makes the consequences your own, personal responsibility -- and no one else's

I think the above standard would make us all a lot safer than confining people like this man to life in prison.

In this day and age, there is simply no excuse for pleading, "But I didn't know s/he had ___."  Sorry: you should have.  Your first clue should have been when s/he said "we don't need no stinkin condoms."  I mean: hello???  Anyone who says that -- or who otherwise demonstrates that he wants to bareback -- is someone who should be regarded as HIV+ and possibly HEP C+.  It's as simple as that.

Any standard that relies on getting a stranger to disclose his status is a standard destined for failure.  

Of course, condoms are a bummer -- but there's only one way to safely get rid of them: first, develop a serious, trusting, monogamous relationship.  Then, both partners get tested together, and if both are negative, they get tested again three months later.  If both are still negative, condoms can be confidently thrown away without fear of contracting HIV.

All that said: QT, I do apologize for saying I found your opinion "nauseating."  That went too far, and I have edited that word out.

View Postscherzo, on Dec 21 2007, 09:50 AM, said:

Quote

Yeah, it's amazing how science works.
When it's actually WORKING, it doesn't usually contradict good 'ol common sense.

Um... what?  Sure, it does.  All the time.  That's why we do it: because if good ol' common sense sufficed, we wouldn't need no stinkin science to make sure our medicines are safe and our buildings don't fall down.  

Quote

You can't possibly calculate a definitive life expectancy for an infection like hiv,

Nor did anyone ever claim to have calculated a "definitive" life expectancy for HIV+ people.  What this study (and others like it) demonstrated is that *young* people who have access to, and who conscientiously adhere to, HAART therapy will live an average of 35 years post infection.  

Which is to say: on average, they can expect to enjoy a normal life expectancy.    

scherzo said:

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.

I think it's relatively safe to say that you're only recently coming to grips with it.  Me and my community came to grips with it a long time ago.   I also think referencing "the amount of people who failed to survive well into the LATE 20th century"--aka, before there was an effective treatment--illustrates my point that mainstream attitudes about HIV/AIDS are still rooted in the plague-era mentality -- like this Canadian Supreme Court ruling.  (And like recent commnets by GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee, Dr Bill Fris, and various other republicans.)  

Quote

An arbitrary projected universal life expectancy is going to be a tough sell under the circumstances.

No one's trying to sell any such thing.  

Quote

Quote

The the most apt comparison is diabetes, BTW.
Diabetes is not communicable. A huge difference that completely negates any comparison to hiv.

I'm not making the comparison in terms of infection, but in terms of living with the disease.  It's a pretty common frame of reference among HIV/AIDS experts and their patients.  

View PostKosh, on Dec 21 2007, 09:52 AM, said:

Quote

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.

I heard something once about a brittish sailor being the first known case, in the '50's.

That was once true -- in 1959, I think -- but in the 10 or so years since that story, they've traced it back further, to the twenties.  

View PostCaithness, on Dec 21 2007, 12:25 PM, said:

View PostScottEVill, on Dec 20 2007, 05:19 PM, said:

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?

Possibly, if condoms were made of steel.

If you use a condom correctly, the chances of contracting HIV are virtually NIL.  (BTW, condoms don't break if they're used correctly.  Bill Maher likes to say, "condoms are the most relibale product since the toaster," and he's right -- I've been using them for nearly 20 years and have never had one break.)

runaway train said:

They shouldn't have slept with him but even condoms aren't full proof.

No, condoms aren't fool proof -- as I noted above... but don't blame the CONDOM for that.  Blame the fool.

Quote

Who's gonna pay for their pills to keep them from getting full blown AIDS?  This guy won't be able to afford to pay for all of them

The story is about Canadians -- They have universal healthcare.

Edited by ScottEVill, 22 December 2007 - 03:25 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#27 RobL

RobL

  • Dead account
  • 3,383 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 03:18 PM

Quote

If you use a condom correctly, the chances of contracting HIV are virtually NIL. (BTW, condoms don't break if they're used correctly. Bill Maher likes to say, "condoms are the most relibale product since the toaster," and he's right -- I've been using them for nearly 20 years and have never had one break.)

Without getting into the rest of this shindig, like any other manmade object, there is ALWAYS the chance of getting a defective product. And I don't think that you'll convince anyone that you've never, ever, had a defective product before. (Not talking about just condoms, but pretty much anything)

And condom recalls have been done before. I rememer when Rite-Aid (a chain of drugstores out here in California) had to recall some about a decade ago because they had some reported defects.

Bring back Darthsikle!


#28 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 04:38 PM

View PostSinister Dexter, on Dec 21 2007, 11:30 PM, said:

I have to agree with Scott: stupidity is not a crime, and neither is being the lowest kind of scum to walk the earth.

Well the women are being stupid, but it's the guy who is at fault here. He's not being stupid; he's intentionally harming other people.

What would you think of 2 people sitting down and playing poker. No problem, right? What if one person has a stacked deck and the other person doesn't know about it? Not so good now, is it?

2 unprotected people are 2 people being stupid. 2 unprotected people when one has a disease like this and knows it is 1 person being stupid and one person who is doing something that is pretty much criminal.

#29 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 05:13 PM

View PostBroph, on Dec 22 2007, 04:38 PM, said:

View PostSinister Dexter, on Dec 21 2007, 11:30 PM, said:

I have to agree with Scott: stupidity is not a crime, and neither is being the lowest kind of scum to walk the earth.

Well the women are being stupid, but it's the guy who is at fault here. He's not being stupid; he's intentionally harming other people.

I think it's clear that they're both being stupid, but as far as blame goes: yes, he knew his own status, but he didn't know theirs any more than they knew his.  As far as we know, it wasn't even discussed--not that discussion of status with a virtual stranger is any assurance that you know.  You just know what they've told you.

I think it's more likely he did exactly what these women did: he assumed.  He assumed that any casual sex partner who didn't insist on condoms was in the same boat as him.  They assumed the same: just because he wanted to f*** them raw didn't mean he was HIV+.  

I think it's clear who is guilty of the greater degree of stupidity here.

Quote

What would you think of 2 people sitting down and playing poker. No problem, right? What if one person has a stacked deck and the other person doesn't know about it? Not so good now, is it?

Bad analogy--In poker, you have a reasonable expectation that your opponent will play by the rules.  In casual sex, you don't have that expectation.  Not unless you *want* to seroconvert, that is.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#30 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 05:37 PM

View PostScottEVill, on Dec 22 2007, 10:13 PM, said:

I think it's clear who is guilty of the greater degree of stupidity here.

I don't know why you keep going back to the idea of "stupidity" here. I don't think it's not about who was stupid; it's about someone who is putting a disease into other people.

Quote

Bad analogy--In poker, you have a reasonable expectation that your opponent will play by the rules.  In casual sex, you don't have that expectation.  Not unless you *want* to seroconvert, that is.

I disagree; it's a perfectly valid analogy. When you participate in any activity with someone, especially something as intimate as sex, you're expecting the other person to play by the rules. Granted, neither of us know what was or wasn't discussed between the parties involved, but I would think that there would be an expectation that regardless of whether or not a condom was to be used, the women would expect the man to have disclosed an HIV status. We can't know for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that if he had disclosed his status, a condom wouldn't have been used in that case, either, since the women probably would have declined to have slept with him in the first place.

#31 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 05:43 PM

Quote

Scott: I think it's more likely he did exactly what these women did: he assumed. He assumed that any casual sex partner who didn't insist on condoms was in the same boat as him.


If the following report is true, then you're giving this guy waaay too much benefit of the doubt, Scott:

http://www.canada.co...o...93c&k=17463


Quote

'I'm clean,' he told victims
Some given pills and blacked out

Doug Schmidt, Windsor Star
Published: Saturday, April 28, 2007

Three of the women Carl Leone pleaded guilty Friday to sexually assaulting were virgins at the time they first had intercourse with him, two of them subsequently testing positive for the HIV virus.

Three others among the 15 victims described being given alcohol or pills before blacking out and later discovering Leone had had unprotected sex with them.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#32 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 05:57 PM

I thought he was a scumbag for not disclosing his status -- but not a criminal.  This article alleges *date rape*, which is something else altogether.  I will say no more about him.

My opinion on the issue in general remains unchanged: no one should exepct a casual sex partner to disclose his or her status, and CERTAINLY no one should ever take the word of a casual sex partner that s/he is negative as license to throw condoms away.  If they do, they're responsible for their own seroconversion.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#33 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 06:55 PM

View PostRobL, on Dec 22 2007, 03:18 PM, said:

Without getting into the rest of this shindig, like any other manmade object, there is ALWAYS the chance of getting a defective product. And I don't think that you'll convince anyone that you've never, ever, had a defective product before. (Not talking about just condoms, but pretty much anything)

And condom recalls have been done before. I rememer when Rite-Aid (a chain of drugstores out here in California) had to recall some about a decade ago because they had some reported defects.


Also assuming that this guy did not damage them deliberatly.


But back in deeper.

Scott if a person knowingly does another harm their degree of innocence pretty much no longer exists. It does not matter if it is Hep C or AIDS or HIV. HE knew and he choose to keep giving this illness to others.  That is the criminal act and the reason he should never see the light of day ever again. IMO.

Someone who screwed up and did not know and gave this illness to another is a fool but it was not with either malice or a depraved indifference.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#34 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 07:06 PM

View PostG1223, on Dec 22 2007, 06:55 PM, said:

Scott if a person knowingly does another harm their degree of innocence pretty much no longer exists.

A reasonable point, G, but there's a difference between not being innocent and being a criminal.  Based on the first article, I thought it was very possible that this person was a "scumbag" without being a sex offender.  Based on allegations in the second article (linked by Spectacles), it seems this guy may in fact be a sex offender.  

I'm curious, though ...  If knowingly doing another harm is so bad, what about knowingly advocating that another be harmed?

Scherzo posted the following:

scherzo said:

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

-scherzo

You replied:

g said:

No a tree shredder and quick lye and 8' deep hole is the order of the day.

(Bolding mine.)

Edited by ScottEVill, 22 December 2007 - 07:19 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#35 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 07:22 PM

And as I explained before. I would suggest that to anyone who deliberatlky gives a illness to another. I would do it for child molesters rapists and murderers. I have abd still stand by the lines. There are some people who are better off dead. This is to me one of those people.

I likely have 5 women who would agree. If not their families.  

Once again Scott the criminal part of this is HE knew  and gave them HIV. Were the women stupid. Yes but in sexual matters some people are.  But knowing you have life shortening illness and giving it to others is just as bad as the killer who kills them after having sex.

This guy's action lets them suffer for years before they die.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#36 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 08:14 PM

View PostRhea, on Dec 20 2007, 07:33 PM, said:

View PostSpectacles, 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. :(

Emphasis mine.  Because *that* is why this guy should be put away and labeled a dangerous offender.  He does it on purpose.
Posted Image

#37 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,214 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 11:02 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on Dec 22 2007, 08:14 PM, said:

View PostRhea, on Dec 20 2007, 07:33 PM, said:

View PostSpectacles, 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. :(

Emphasis mine.  Because *that* is why this guy should be put away and labeled a dangerous offender.  He does it on purpose.

What if it was by accident? Not as in he did not know his status, but he knew, he was 'high' (legal or illegal substance, whatever) when he performed the act? We criminalize drunk driving, and car collisions cause by such. One could argue those are 'accidents'. We hold people responsible for their accidents if they hurt someone.
Are we now going to criminalize impaired sex acts  :whistle: Or only when one is HIV/AIDS/HEP C positive  :whistle:
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#38 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 11:37 PM

Quote

My opinion on the issue in general remains unchanged: no one should exepct a casual sex partner to disclose his or her status, and CERTAINLY no one should ever take the word of a casual sex partner that s/he is negative as license to throw condoms away. If they do, they're responsible for their own seroconversion.

While I agree that unprotected sex is stupid, I can't agree with you on alot of other points. If you know you're HIV positive, IMO it's reckless endangerment to have sex with anyone without informing them of your status. That the other person was stupid enough to have unprotected sex with that person is not a "get outta jail free" card. If I'm screwing around with a gun that I know has bullets in it and that gun goes off and kills, maims or injures someone, am I not legally responsible for their injuries? To me this situation is much the same. This man knew he was infected with a potentially lethal virus and lied to his sexual partners and had unprotected sex with them. His lie was deliberate (because he knew they'd not have sex with him if he told the truth) so he put his sexual appetites ahead of the welfare of others and infected at least 5 of them with HIV and God knows how many others may end up infected as well. It's unexcusable to knowingly expose others to something that can kill them without informing them of the risk that he knew existed and the very fact that he did that and couldn't even be bothered to use a condom, is beyond the pale. Even with a condom, he should have informed his partners, condoms fail don't they? For me, his crime was deliberate withholding of information that threatened the lives of others and not taking any precaution to prevent infecting them.

Whether those women he infected live that projected 35 years or not is really not the issue. The fact that this guy didn't give a damn about shortening their lives in the first place is the issue. If these women are in their 20's, I doubt they'll take much solice in hoping they live to their 50's and if they have no health insurance (which millions don't in this country and given our shared border) what is their life expectancy then? So I have to say I agree that this guy is a 'real and present danger'. Personally I hope those women sue his ass off.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#39 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 11:43 PM

View Postsierraleone, on Dec 22 2007, 08:02 PM, said:

View PostBad Wolf, on Dec 22 2007, 08:14 PM, said:

View PostRhea, on Dec 20 2007, 07:33 PM, said:

View PostSpectacles, 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. :(

Emphasis mine.  Because *that* is why this guy should be put away and labeled a dangerous offender.  He does it on purpose.

What if it was by accident? Not as in he did not know his status, but he knew, he was 'high' (legal or illegal substance, whatever) when he performed the act? We criminalize drunk driving, and car collisions cause by such. One could argue those are 'accidents'. We hold people responsible for their accidents if they hurt someone.
Are we now going to criminalize impaired sex acts  :whistle: Or only when one is HIV/AIDS/HEP C positive  :whistle:

If you know you are HIV positive and you go around having unsafe sex how exactly is that different than getting behind the wheel while drunk?  Why would one be okay and the other not?
Posted Image

#40 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 11:56 PM

I think people are making this about his disease when it's about his reckless conduct *in light of* his disease.
Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Public Health, AIDS, 2007

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users