I understand that more people now take responsibility for their own sexual health and practice safer sex, but as most of us will probably we aware, this isn't always the case. There are still a large number of people who continue to have unprotected sex, despite being aware of the potential risks.

The majority of the people that I know with HIV are responsible, considerate, genuine and honest individuals. Most were simply 'unlucky'. One is a fifty-something Grandmother who uses the forum. She had sex once in ten years and became infected. Not everything is as we imagine it to be.

Anyway, on with the reason for my post.

This is based on a real situation.

Mr 'X' is currently having unprotected sex with unsuspecting partners, even though he knows he is HIV positive. He doesn't tell his multiple sexual partners his status but insists on unprotected sex as 'he prefers it that way'

This is clearly unacceptable behaviour. I understand that the individual in question may be 'angry at the world' and want to lash out, but this is not the way to behave.

I was pleased to hear that only a few days ago someone has reported Mr 'X' for infecting them with the virus. I genuinely hope that this will result in legal action being taken against the individual concerned and that he will be held responsible for his actions.

(for legal reasons I won't be commenting on the specifics of the individual case)

Previously I understand that HIV positive people who have had unprotected sex whilst being fully aware of their status have subsequently been prosecuted. I believe the legal term penned was 'Biological Manslaughter'

There are many potential problems with HIV prosecutions, but in essence, should HIV+ve people who have unprotected sex be open to prosecution under the law, and if so, what would be a suitable sentence?

Are there any mitigating circumstances that would lessen the severity from a defence perspective?

Should we be allowed to do whatever we want sexually without fear of repercussions or do we all have a moral obligation to protect others?

As mentioned before, there are HIV+ve people on the forum, so please keep all replies sensible and courteous.

Hmm, its a difficult situation if you ask me. Obviously if someone is knowingly infecting people he should be convicted (like they have been) because he is effectivly using his penis as a weapon.

The only problem i can see is on two levels.

1. You can't force someone to use contraception - because folk will say "it is against my religion" or against there morality.

2. I get the feeling, that telling someone to be abstinant from sex could be seen by some as an attack on human rights. The right to a natural human function.

Edited to reflect Stagewalker's correction.

MickeyBarnes - you can't force someone to use contraception, however if they choose not to take reasonable steps to protect a partner from an often fatal disease which they are likely to transmit to them then they must INFORM the other party so they can consent to unprotected sex (although to do so wouldn't be sensible, it's their choice).

You also cannot tell someone to be celibate, but there is no reason why they should be if they use precautions to protect their partner and/or have their consent not to.

Modern medicine does not help the situation. Antiretroviral therapy can lower viral loads to almost zero, which makes HIV transmission very unlikely. Many patients are told this and some may decide that the risk is so low they will choose not to tell potential partners.

Just to re-iterate Stagewalker's request - please keep this thread on topic and civilised. This is the only warning we'll be giving.

I assume that the reason why HIV has this (I believe) unique status is because it is both incurable and difficult to transmit without intimate contact of some sort - bodily fluid exchange?

If so then I guess the position of the illness in legal terms is unqiue enough to allow this sort of law to be enacted, but I do believe that to be consistent we then need to apply it to anyone who purposefully or recklessly infects someone with a serious (we then have the problem of defining serious) illness.

Maybe it just needs to be treated as GBH or attempted murder / manslaughter rather than creating new laws?

I don't really understand, you say he is having unprotected sex but also that he insists on safer sex?

You're right Twiglet, my mistake. Now edited.

I think it's really difficult in this particular situation, since MrX is practising safer sex. What he doesn't seem to understand (or understands and doesn't care about) is that it's only safer sex, not safe sex.

I believe that morally, not telling potential partners and allowing them an informed choice about who to take as a partner, is wrong whether or not he's practising safer sex, but I think that any resulting court case would get terribly hung up on the efficacy of condoms at preventing infection, and whether he was able logically to assume that the condom took away any risk and therefore any need to tell prospective partners.

[b]
Maybe it just needs to be treated as GBH or attempted murder / manslaughter rather than creating new laws?

But i can't be. What if the man decrees that he didn't know he had the condition, or even implies that he was unaware of knowing what HIV meant. - Using ignorance as a defence.

It needs its own classification, because its important enough to warrent its own class.

Even if he is wearing a condom he should surely tell his partners of his infection. In effect HE is dicing with THEIR death. Its sexual Russian roullette, and nobody has told them their playing.

...should HIV+ve people who have unprotected sex be open to prosecution under the law, and if so, what would be a suitable sentence?
Yes, absolutely they should. If they are aware that they are HIV+ and so are likely to pass on the virus to their partner during unprotected sex, then they are negligent of the other's health and welfare to say the least.

Not knowing the intricacies of the law, I can't say what the appropriate sentence would be.
Are there any mitigating circumstances that would lessen the severity from a defence perspective?
Some sort of diminished responsibility defence, should the circumstances permit? Not knowing they were HIV+? That the partner was aware that s/he was HIV+ and accepted the risks associated with sex without contraception?

There are many potential problems with HIV prosecutions, but in essence, should HIV+ve people who have unprotected sex be open to prosecution under the law, and if so, what would be a suitable sentence?]
If they are knowingly infecting people then they should be jailed accordingly. People who have unknowingly infected someone else though shouldn't in my opinion be prosecuted. There was a case recently where someone was jailed, I think it was 10 years per infection? About what a manslaughter sentence is.

Are there any mitigating circumstances that would lessen the severity from a defence perspective?
No, simply put. If they are spreading HIV knowingly there are no forgivable circumstances. I don’t care if they are ‘angry at the world’, that is truly unforgivable.

Surely it's murder if he knowingly infects his partner with HIV. Truely is sickening. Selfish B******!

should get done for biological manslaughter. i knew a man who had hiv he was v. careful, didnt want to risk someoneelses life. and told people he knew he had it so they had a choice. also knew a young girl who lost her vaginity to a bloke only to find out shortly after that he had infected her, though dont think he knew at the time and told her when he did. like the movie KIDS. ones who do know and pass it on should get done, though there are many who have it and dont know till is too late. safe sex is a must these days, theres also a risk of hepatitis, another killer

I'd just like to add as well there have definitely been cases where women have deliberately attempted to infect men, it's not a one way issue.

I read about a case a few years ago where a prostitute offered an unprotected service to men when she knew she had HIV. These men then went home to their wives girlfriends etc. The prostitute was attempting to ruin more than her customers lives in her angry lash out at the world. Although the risk of women to man infection is very low it does still exist.

But i can't be. What if the man decrees that he didn't know he had the condition, or even implies that he was unaware of knowing what HIV meant. - Using ignorance as a defence.

It needs its own classification, because its important enough to warrent its own class.

But many of these cases are being considered when people ARE aware of what they're doing and that they have the illness.

The problem with giving it it's own classification is that you end up having to be VERY careful in how you phrase the law. For example, by being very specific in your wording - to the level of defining the particular viruses concerned - you will end up having to modify the law whenever new viruses that fit the 'class' come along - or even when new strains are discovered.

I don't necessarily think it's wise or sensible to try and produce laws based on particular events - this Government is pretty dreadful at drafting legislation in this way.

As things stand, if someone was genuinely unaware of their status (how you might define that I have no idea) then there's no case to answer. Where people are aware then it's assault / attempted murder.

The problem / advantage here is that it would also be applicable to soemone who has, for example, herpes or something similar and knowingly passes it on. That can then be assault. The MAJOR problem here is where do you stop....do you prosecute someone for giving you a cold? That would be ridiculous but might be viewed as a logical progression.

I believe that if anyone, male or female, has unprotected sex with another person without informing them of their positive status, this should be a prosecutable offence.

Although we now know that HIV/AIDS isn't the automatic 'death sentence' that it once was, due to HAART (Highly active anti-retroviral therapy) potentially it is still a threat to life, and most certainly a threat without access to medication.

I believe attempted murder would be an appropriate charge (assuming that corroborative evidence is available)

I think the analogy of a common cold Joe would probably be a base for a lawsuit in the states....:rolleyes:....if it hasn't already been done.

There's an interesting analogy in the application of law in this area and the application of laws in the early days of computer hacking.

Before the creation of the specific Computer Misuse Act, people carrying out computer crimes were often prosecuted for 'Theft of electricity' and 'Use of a forged instrument' - the latter an offence going back to the 19th Century.

This approach was followed for a few years in the 1980s with a mixed amount of success, and then new laws were bought in after suitable study and thought.

The important thing with any law like this is that it needs to be structured and implemented in such a way that it punishes and acts as a deterrent BUT at the same time needs to be enforcable with existing legal and scientific methods.

That's the part I'm not sure of - I'd say :

Yes, we need a law
No, it shouldn't be JUST aplicable to HIV because that is quite inconsistent and almost harks back to the witch hunt times of the early 1980s
How it should be written to be effective and sensible - God knows.

Surely it's murder if he knowingly infects his partner with HIV. Truely is sickening. Selfish B******!


I feal the same and always have. I think it is kind of manslauter as the person not knowing will die if get infected with HIV/Aids. Like when my X partner when he sleep behind my back with a woman with no protection, i was straight down to the GUM clinic and thankfully for me i did not catch anything as he knows how i feal about it with seeing a friend of mine that died of Aids and i was more mad that his could put me at risk then him sleeping about. But i remeber telling him IF she had giving him a STD or even worst HIV and passed it on to me then i would do my very best to get them both done as to me it is manslauter as they would have ended my life span. I do not still get why some people still to this day do not protect themself just for a bit of fun that could lead to death if they not careful.

I understand that more people now take responsibility for their own sexual health and practice safer sex, but as most of us will probably we aware, this isn't always the case. There are still a large number of people who continue to have unprotected sex, despite being aware of the potential risks.

The majority of the people that I know with HIV are responsible, considerate, genuine and honest individuals. Most were simply 'unlucky'. One is a fifty-something Grandmother who uses the forum. She had sex once in ten years and became infected. Not everything is as we imagine it to be.

Anyway, on with the reason for my post.

This is based on a real situation.

Mr 'X' is currently having unprotected sex with unsuspecting partners, even though he knows he is HIV positive. He doesn't tell his multiple sexual partners his status but insists on unprotected sex as 'he prefers it that way'

This is clearly unacceptable behaviour. I understand that the individual in question may be 'angry at the world' and want to lash out, but this is not the way to behave.

I was pleased to hear that only a few days ago someone has reported Mr 'X' for infecting them with the virus. I genuinely hope that this will result in legal action being taken against the individual concerned and that he will be held responsible for his actions.

(for legal reasons I won't be commenting on the specifics of the individual case)

Previously I understand that HIV positive people who have had unprotected sex whilst being fully aware of their status have subsequently been prosecuted. I believe the legal term penned was 'Biological Manslaughter'

There are many potential problems with HIV prosecutions, but in essence, should HIV+ve people who have unprotected sex be open to prosecution under the law, and if so, what would be a suitable sentence?

Are there any mitigating circumstances that would lessen the severity from a defence perspective?

Should we be allowed to do whatever we want sexually without fear of repercussions or do we all have a moral obligation to protect others?

As mentioned before, there are HIV+ve people on the forum, so please keep all replies sensible and courteous.

I've read the thread.
You should report 'Mr X' immediately to the authorities. Like right now, go and pick up the phone and do it now.


That's done?
Then your duty is discharged, it's no longer your problem.

It's a bit like having somebody sit in a chair that unbeknown to them has a dozing 10' alligator underneath it. You might be lucky, you might not, but the owner of the alligator has knowingly subjected the person to a high probability of a painful death.

Sounds like manslaughter to me and murder at a push. Lock up time. Call the Police to prevent a crime.

Good god this is scarey stuff stagewalker what a wicked thing to do putting all those peoples life at risk and these inocent people not knowing and then the chance of them giving it to someone else .He needs to be reported for this its selfish and wicked.

If this was a work situation and the employer knowingly put their employees at risk they would be prosecuted under the Health and Safety at Work act.
The defences cases in the aforementioned situation is, that if the other person knowing that the person they were condescending to have sex with had an infection, then, they knew the risk. If they did not know then again in this day and age whithl the publicity about Aids and other STDs then to have agreed to unprotected sex also puts some of the blame on them.
In no way do I disagree that the infected person in this case should not be prosecuted

if they knowingly pass a disease on to an unsuspecting person/partner ,they should be held accountable for their selfish actions & dealt with accordingly,in the case of hiv attempted murder if the person dies of the said disease murder.

There have only been a couple of prosecutions for it at the moment, so the law is a little untried and tested in that they are being appealed. But here is an article I found:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3685961.stm

Some very interesting facts and opinions are discussed here (http://www.positivenation.co.uk/issue112/features/feature2/feature2.htm)

Feston Konzani was jailed for 10 years in 2004 for infecting three women with HIV. His lawyers appealed, arguing Konzani did not have a ‘guilty mind’ when he failed to disclose to the women. They said he honestly believed the women had consented to the risk of catching HIV by consenting to unprotected sexual intercourse and all the risks that potentially entails.

:rolleyes:

Luckily the Court of Appeal firmly rejected this argument, saying the guilt of Konzani’s mind was irrelevant, because the women never consented to the specific risk of contracting 'a potentially fatal disease' like HIV.

Interesting stuff!

Some very interesting facts and opinions are discussed here (http://www.positivenation.co.uk/issue112/features/feature2/feature2.htm)

Feston Konzani was jailed for 10 years in 2004 for infecting three women with HIV. His lawyers appealed, arguing Konzani did not have a ‘guilty mind’ when he failed to disclose to the women. They said he honestly believed the women had consented to the risk of catching HIV by consenting to unprotected sexual intercourse and all the risks that potentially entails.

:rolleyes:

Luckily the Court of Appeal firmly rejected this argument, saying the guilt of Konzani’s mind was irrelevant, because the women never consented to the specific risk of contracting 'a potentially fatal disease' like HIV.

Interesting stuff!

This, and the BBC story quoted above, are exactly why we need to get these sorts of laws right rather than pass them in the heat of the moment.

I'd say a law is a good law if it's understood, enforcable, transparent, capable of being consistently applied and is supported by a majority of the people to whom it will apply. (Not getting in to 'fair' or 'just' here as that's a whole new kettle of fish)

Another problem is that it comes down to the word of one person against another - again, current rape laws are having to deal with this situation.

And there's also the issue of 'Why stop at HIV?'. Although illnesses like syphillis are treatable today, if they're untreated they can have all sorts of impact in later life - for many years one of the major causes of 'insanity' in older people was caused by tertiary syphillis.

So, what would the legal outlook be there?

Certain illnesses used to result in people being put in to isolation - forcibly if necessary - and I wouldn't be surprised if, a few years down the line of arresting people for deliberately infeting folks with HIV or other STDs - that some bright spark comes up with the idea of isolating 'carriers'.

It wouldn't be at all right, but I could see it being regarded as a logical progression, IF we don't get this sort of legislation drawn up properly.

how can any one do such a thing. he wants reporting .. yesterday!!

As i see it, this is murder and the sentance is life.
perhaps he could be considered a serial killer? killing may people by the same method?!
as i understand mansulauter is a killing but no planning, ie not premeditated.
Mr X knows he could infect the partner, so he has considered the risk and dismissed it. and not taken any steps to protect the partner.

As i see it, this is murder and the sentance is life.
perhaps he could be considered a serial killer? killing may people by the same method?!
as i understand mansulauter is a killing but no planning, ie not premeditated.
Mr X knows he could infect the partner, so he has considered the risk and dismissed it. and not taken any steps to protect the partner.

There is a huge problem with this which is exactly why we need a new law.

You cannot be convicted of murder or manslaughter unless someone is dead. Whoever the disease has been transmitted to is likely to outlive the person who gave it to them if they had had it a few years. In addition, many people on antiretroviral drugs now live a normal lifespan and die from unrelated causes, so you cannot guarantee that the offender has actually 'killed' them.

if they knowingly pass a disease on to an unsuspecting person/partner ,they should be held accountable for their selfish actions & dealt with accordingly,in the case of hiv attempted murder if the person dies of the said disease murder.

I agree entirely.

I agree that what the guy did is very wrong, but, and this is not in defense of him at all, his partners should have insisted on safe sex or shown him the door, they are responsible for their own safety.

I do not agree with the morality of the person who knowingly risks other people's health, but I do think making new laws specifically about tranferring HIV is a very dangerous road to go down.

If new laws are to be passed to allow prosecution of people who pass on HIV, where do we stop. What about other dangerous illnesses?

What about the parent who takes their child out and about when they have german measles, thus resulting in a pregnant woman contracting the disease and her baby being born with problems?

Cat owners not ensuring their cats are wormed and thus a child catches toxoplasmosis and becomes blinded? The health worker who passes on hepatitis, etc, etc.

I think the only way to remain safe from the many different risks is to take responsibility for our own health and safety, ensure our children do not play in areas where cat faeces are likely to be, and never have unprotected sex unless both parties have a clean bill of health.

The fact that this is an incredibly difficult thing to ask of our young people is not lost to me, I have young adult children myself, and weep for how unfairly the world has changed for them.

, and never have unprotected sex unless both parties have a clean bill of health.

I fully agree that we all need to take responsibility for our own health. However, in many of the cases where this has gone to court, an individual has lied about said 'clean bill of health' knowing full well they were HIV positive, and have even gone so far as to get married. Would you honestly ask to see recent HIV test results for every partner you might have if you were young and (not promiscuous) having new relationships every year or so?

I once asked for an HIV test, purely to get a full clean bill of health. The nurse at my GPs surgery told me very curtly that they didn't do it and spoke to me like I'd been injecting Heroin into my eyeballs. While having an HIV test requires going to a specific clinic and having pre- and post- test counselling (even for a negative result), how many people are realistically going to go for a test when there are medical professionals who still regard it as a disease of drug addicts and those with deviant sexual practices, and treat you in such a fashion?

how many people are realistically going to go for a test when there are medical professionals who still regard it as a disease of drug addicts and those with deviant sexual practices, and treat you in such a fashion?

Thankfully, GUM don't. But like you say, I'm not so sure about GP's.

GP's are a bit behind the times I think when it comes to sexual stuff. That's why we have GUM. I would never have an HIV test at a GP surgery - probably because I'd feel judged.

I thought I'd post on this thread for no other reason than I think it's an interesting subject for debate - and it's not been posted on for ages. :)

I understand that more people now take responsibility for their own sexual health and practice safer sex, but as most of us will probably we aware, this isn't always the case. There are still a large number of people who continue to have unprotected sex, despite being aware of the potential risks.

The majority of the people that I know with HIV are responsible, considerate, genuine and honest individuals. Most were simply 'unlucky'. One is a fifty-something Grandmother who uses the forum. She had sex once in ten years and became infected. Not everything is as we imagine it to be.

Anyway, on with the reason for my post.

This is based on a real situation.

Mr 'X' is currently having unprotected sex with unsuspecting partners, even though he knows he is HIV positive. He doesn't tell his multiple sexual partners his status but insists on unprotected sex as 'he prefers it that way'

This is clearly unacceptable behaviour. I understand that the individual in question may be 'angry at the world' and want to lash out, but this is not the way to behave.

I was pleased to hear that only a few days ago someone has reported Mr 'X' for infecting them with the virus. I genuinely hope that this will result in legal action being taken against the individual concerned and that he will be held responsible for his actions.

(for legal reasons I won't be commenting on the specifics of the individual case)

Previously I understand that HIV positive people who have had unprotected sex whilst being fully aware of their status have subsequently been prosecuted. I believe the legal term penned was 'Biological Manslaughter'

There are many potential problems with HIV prosecutions, but in essence, should HIV+ve people who have unprotected sex be open to prosecution under the law, and if so, what would be a suitable sentence?

Are there any mitigating circumstances that would lessen the severity from a defence perspective?

Should we be allowed to do whatever we want sexually without fear of repercussions or do we all have a moral obligation to protect others?

As mentioned before, there are HIV+ve people on the forum, so please keep all replies sensible and courteous. Is he a murder or what. what a selfish individual. God will judge.

I thought I'd post on this thread for no other reason than I think it's an interesting subject for debate - and it's not been posted on for ages. :)

What happened to Mr X?

What happened to Mr X?

Unfortunately, as far as I'm aware, he's still around and up to his old tricks.

To my knowledge, nothing came of the original report as (fortunately) the person in that particular instance turned out to be HIV -neg.

Just makes my blood boil. If I knew I had a life changing condition that was transferable through sex, then I'd take every precaution possible to prevent someone else having to go through what I'd been through.

Then again, I'm not a selfish a-hole.

Hi Stagey, :wave:...Each of us has to be responsible for our own actions. In a way I almost feel sorry for Mr. X. His sense of, "Anger at the world," is very much fear based...as is most anger. I'm sorry for anyone who gets so terrified that they lose their humanity.
I'm not in any way condoning what he's doing...I just smell his fear. :(
Being responsible for our own actions ought to mean NOT having unprotected sex on any casual basis whatsoever...and that is perhaps the best lesson to be learned from this man.
Warmest regards my friend. :love:

Personally, I think it's quite right to prosecute if I'm honest. Can they not prosecute him with intent to harm, even though he never infected said person?

It's a cruel, cruel disease and no-one deserves to get it, but willingly infecting people is just wrong in my opinion. :nono:

Grevious bodily harm would appear to be a suitable charge. You don't have to cause their death - the "mere" infection would consititute it and you could prosecute whilst they were still alive. You would have to prove mens rea of course like any other offence that is not strict liability.

If they cannot keep themselves under control then they get locked up and detained under the existing public welfare laws that allow of quarantine of people carrying typhoid etc - much of the legal framework is there as of the day.

I've read the thread.
You should report 'Mr X' immediately to the authorities. Like right now, go and pick up the phone and do it now.


Seconded. .

What happened with this StageWalker?
It was 2006 when I made the post that Crayfish has quoted above.

What happened with this StageWalker?
It was 2006 when I made the post that Crayfish has quoted above.

See post #37 where StageWalker has posted an update

I've just stumbled across this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8512933.stm) interesting article, where someone (albeit in Germany) has been charged with bodily harm.

No, simply put. If they are spreading HIV knowingly there are no forgivable circumstances. I don’t care if they are ‘angry at the world’, that is truly unforgivable.

Actually there has been one successful defence (i think in Italy, but i may be confusing that with the HIV bank robber who walked free because of some law they had (have?) that prevented someone with a terminal illness going to jail) where the woman told him she was HIV+, turned out she wasn't (she knew she wasn't btw) and somehow he got charged with infecting her because he hadn't told her that he was.

He was found not guilty

edit: ERM OOPS

Didn't realise how old it was

What happened to Mr X?

Unfortunately, as far as I'm aware, he's still around and up to his old tricks.

To my knowledge, nothing came of the original report as (fortunately) the person in that particular instance turned out to be HIV -neg.

Just makes my blood boil. If I knew I had a life changing condition that was transferable through sex, then I'd take every precaution possible to prevent someone else having to go through what I'd been through.

Then again, I'm not a selfish a-hole.

oh, Stagey, thank God the person you referred to was HIV-. It must have been an agonising wait to find out that they had not been exposed.

HIV, as anyone with a hap'orth of sense knows, is an incurable, and usually fatal condition. Yes people who have contracted HIV and AIDS can have an almost normal life if they can be started on a decent regimen of the antiretrovirals, and the other cocktails of meds that can help keep this and ARC (AIDS -Related Complex) at bay, but the fact remains that it cannot be held at bay forever.

I have lost a (thankfully small) number of friends, male and female to this expletive of a disease. I wish it could be eradicated, forever.

My opinion is, that, someone like in the cases mentioned above, someone who is knowingly infected with the virus, who deliberately has unsafe sex with someone else, who is unaware of the other person's HIV+ status, definitely should be prosecuted, and if convicted, for their safety, and for the safety of the public at large, should be locked up for a very long time.

In saying that, I'm not trying to stigmatise anyone who has HIV, and who is using safe sexual practices. they aren't attempting to pass the virus on to another person.

There was a case in the US where a young girl was infected by her HIV+ dentist. He used dental instruments on himself, and then, (According to the report) without sterilising them, or anything, went on to use them on that young woman.

IIRC, the girl was 15 or 16 when this happened. The dentist later died of ARC. I don't know the fate of the young girl, but I remember she was very very ill, and was not expected to survive much longer, at the time she featured in the TV programme, (which is a few years ago now) so I'm presuming that she is no longer living.

Wasn't there a case in the UK, about eight years ago, (I seem to remember it was in Birmingham?) where a man was prosecuted for deliberately infecting a number of women with HIV?

I vaguely remember the news - story, It was that he had been diagnosed as being HIV+ and he was so angry about having contracted HIV, that he vowed to infect others, and spread it to as many people as possible(?).

Terrible.

And RIP, my friends, S, P and EJ-M. who succumbed to the "big disease with the little name"

What an incredibly stupid man he is. for me he should be locked up.

If CPS were to prosecute it would ordinarily be for GBH with intent - s18 Offences against the person act. In order for a prosecution to be initiated the police would look at the accuseds medical records to establish knowledge.

Alternatively CPS could charge with the less serious offence of s20 Assault (same Act as above) but also reffered to as GBH. Ordinarily this would be if person adopted a 'devil may care' approach and have therefore infected the person recklessly.

Sentences are comparitively low with a conviction often attracting 2-5 yrs imprisonment. I guess that this in part is to do with the fact that it takes 2 to tango and that a complainant ordinarily would have also had the choice to wear protection and to some extent therefore is accepting the risk of catching an STI.

Sorry (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10983227) just isn't good enough really, is it?

If you know you're HIV positive then you shouldn't have unprotected sex. End of.

Sorry (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10983227) just isn't good enough really, is it?

If you know you're HIV positive then you shouldn't have unprotected sex. End of.

100% behind you on that one, Stagey.

Sorry (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10983227) just isn't good enough really, is it?

If you know you're HIV positive then you shouldn't have unprotected sex. End of.

I agree, it is the height of selfishness and irresponsibility.

"I am so sorry," Ms Benaissa told the court. However, she denied deliberately infecting anyone

If she were fully aware of her HIV status, how can she possibly deny deliberately infecting anyone, unless she were in such a state of denial about her condition?

If you know you're HIV positive then you shouldn't have unprotected sex. End of.

..agreed stagey, and by the same token if you don't know the health status of the person you're sleeping with you're partly responsible for the infection(s) you might contract.

..agreed stagey, and by the same token if you don't know the health status of the person you're sleeping with you're partly responsible for the infection(s) you might contract.

But wilfully putting someone else at risk is far worse. I agree, we should all take responsibility for our own sexual health, however, people also lie and many men are not the biggest fans of wearing condoms either.

But wilfully putting someone else at risk is far worse. I agree, we should all take responsibility for our own sexual health, however, people also lie and many men are not the biggest fans of wearing condoms either.

I agree Suffy, it is worse, which is why I believe the 'victim' is partly, rather than equally responsible, but having said that, we've all had the safe sex message drummed into us, so whatever our personal preferences are, the rational thing to do would be to assume that everyone we encounter is carting an STI around with them, after all if these infections were visible we would be circumspect about engaging sexually with sufferers.

But wilfully putting someone else at risk is far worse. I agree, we should all take responsibility for our own sexual health, however, people also lie and many men are not the biggest fans of wearing condoms either.

Exactly, are we supposed to chaperone every sexual partner to the clap clinic to hear the results first hand, or do we trust them when they say they've been and are in the clear?

If she were fully aware of her HIV status, how can she possibly deny deliberately infecting anyone, unless she were in such a state of denial about her condition?


She claims to have been told by a doctor that the chance of her infecting a partner was as close to zero as makes no difference.

If by chance she is telling the truth, then the doctor who told her that, should be struck off.

She claims to have been told by a doctor that the chance of her infecting a partner was as close to zero as makes no difference.

If by chance she is telling the truth, then the doctor who told her that, should be struck off.

She must be lying and using that as her 'defence' because a) the doctor is wrong and b) no doctor can ever give those kind of certainties.

She must be lying and using that as her 'defence' because a) the doctor is wrong and b) no doctor can ever give those kind of certainties.

That's certainly what I would think.

Exactly, are we supposed to chaperone every sexual partner to the clap clinic to hear the results first hand, or do we trust them when they say they've been and are in the clear?

Indeed, which is why we all need to take responsibility, I certainly would if I were single and/or embarking on a new sexual relationship.

Apparently, HIV infection rates in the over 50s has almost doubled (http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1279618031188). I suspect that this is down to the fact that contraception no longer becomes an issue for women in that age group, therefore, there is less incentive to use protection and that people have not only been lulled into a false sense of security but assume that only the younger generation are at risk.

She claims to have been told by a doctor that the chance of her infecting a partner was as close to zero as makes no difference.

If by chance she is telling the truth, then the doctor who told her that, should be struck off.

It is well established though that the incidence of transmission from female to male during vaginal intercourse is lower than male to female.

This is old research that may have been superseded, but it's an interesting read:

Heterosexual Transmission

Announcing the results of the nation's largest study of heterosexual transmission of HIV, researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, found there was a very low rate of infection among heterosexual couples with one HIV positive partner.

Scientists now believe female-to-male transmission is rare. Women were about eight times more likely than men to become infected by their HIV positive partners. The probability of HIV-positive women infecting their male partners with the virus was found to be significantly low.

http://www.thebody.com/content/art446.html


..and this from wiki:

Sexual
The majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations. Complacency about HIV plays a key role in HIV risk.[3][4] Sexual transmission can occur when infected sexual secretions of one partner come into contact with the genital, oral, or rectal mucous membranes of another. In high-income countries, the risk of female-to-male transmission is 0.04% per act and male-to-female transmission is 0.08% per act. For various reasons, these rates are 4 to 10 times higher in low-income countries.[35] The rate for receptive anal intercourse is much higher, 1.7% per act.[35]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Sexual

It is well established though that the incidence of transmission from female to male during vaginal intercourse is lower than male to female.


I can accept that, but I'm pretty sure a man would want to know that his prospective partner had a known, low risk of transmitting her HIV to him, rather than a known zero risk, or no reason to believe she was a carrier.

..agreed stagey, and by the same token if you don't know the health status of the person you're sleeping with you're partly responsible for the infection(s) you might contract.

Except that one could be deemed irresponsible - while the other is vindictive.

I can accept that, but I'm pretty sure a man would want to know that his prospective partner had a known, low risk of transmitting her HIV to him, rather than a known zero risk, or no reason to believe she was a carrier.

Totally agree, I wouldn't be jumping for joy over liaison with a woman who was HIV+, even if the risk was minute, but I can see how her defence might develop along the lines of her misconstruing that risk and the information that was given to her on diagnosis.

I am astounded people take chances with a fatal disease. Its like playing Russian Roulette.

Sorry?

You apologise to someone if you accidentially spill a drink on them - not when you knowingly give them a terminal illness.

I am astounded people take chances with a fatal disease. Its like playing Russian Roulette.

It must be noted that due to the advent of antiretroviral medication, HIV is not the automatic death sentence that it once was - however it is still a life changing condition - and one that can be avoided.

I am astounded people take chances with a fatal disease.


Merely being born exposes you to the risk of fatal diseases. The only to avoid taking chances with them, is to shoot yourself at birth.

Except that one could be deemed irresponsible - while the other is vindictive.

..I can imagine being extremely angry if I was one of the infected parties, but vindictive implies that she set out deliberately to infect people with this virus, which might not be the case.

I don't want to appear to be defending this woman, I'm not, but thus far it would appear she's been extremely reckless and not fully considered the potential consequences of her actions, rather than set out to infect as many men as she can.

Totally agree, I wouldn't be jumping for joy over liaison with a woman who was HIV+, even if the risk was minute, but I can see how her defence might develop along the lines of her misconstruing that risk and the information that was given to her on diagnosis.

Nonsense, it's a classic case of cognitive dissonance. Any health professional, worth their salt, would caution against unprotected sex and advise that whilst chances of transmission of the virus may be negligible it is still a risk, therefore, precautions should be taken at all times, especially if she has sex whilst menstruating.

Nonsense, it's a classic case of cognitive dissonance. Any health professional, worth their salt, would caution against unprotected sex and advise that whilst chances of transmission of the virus may be negligible it is still a risk, therefore, precautions should be taken at all times, especially if she has sex whilst menstruating.

I don't doubt it Suff, I was merely speculating on the arguments her defence might use.

I don't doubt it Suff, I was merely speculating on the arguments her defence might use.

Sorry, I misread it as her defence as in her personal justification, rather than the defence strategy employed by her Defence Counsel.

..I can imagine being extremely angry if I was one of the infected parties, but vindictive implies that she set out deliberately to infect people with this virus, which might not be the case.

I don't want to appear to be defending this woman, I'm not, but thus far it would appear she's been extremely reckless and not fully considered the potential consequences of her actions, rather than set out to infect as many men as she can.

I hear what you're saying BF, but I point blank refuse to believe that she wasn't aware of the implications of having unprotected sex with someone else. i.e that they too could become infected.

At the point of diagnosis she will have been told that she would have to modify her sexual behaviours. Instead she tells the court that her consultant told her that the risk of infecting someone else was close to zero? Balony! I don't buy a word of it. She's just doing what she needs to do (and what she will have been told to do by her legal representative) to save her backside from being barbecued.

More likely (as can often be the case) from a psychological perspective she was angry. Angry at the world for infecting her with this disease. She may well have infected other people as a means of redressing the balance. She wouldn't care about whether or not she infects other people because why should she? They didn't give her a second thought.

This anger is really directed at self but it's not unusual for newly infected patients to be in denial about accepting responsibility for their diagnosis. In any case, she knew the risks of having unprotected sex and still decided to practice it- post diagnosis.

I'll say it again. If you know you have a condition that could potentially kill someone else (some people choose not to medicate their condition) then you modify your behaviours to ensure that no-one else becomes infected. Anything else (IMO) is inflicting a death sentence on someone and as such should be treated as an imprisonable offence.

I hear what you're saying BF, but I point blank refuse to believe that she wasn't aware of the implications of having unprotected sex with someone else. i.e that they too could become infected. I agree stagey, she certainly will have been aware of the possible consequences, but I'd compare her actions to someone who gets in a car and drives at 70mph through a built up area, they might not intend to kill somebody but by virtue of their recklessness there's an increased probability of that happening.

At the point of diagnosis she will have been told that she would have to modify her sexual behaviours. Instead she tells the court that her consultant told her that the risk of infecting someone else was close to zero? Balony! I don't buy a word of it. She's just doing what she needs to do (and what she will have been told to do by her legal representative) to save her backside from being barbecued. Agree with that, she has no excuses.

More likely (as can often be the case) from a psychological perspective she was angry. Angry at the world for infecting her with this disease. She may well have infected other people as a means of redressing the balance. She wouldn't care about whether or not she infects other people because why should she? They didn't give her a second thought. Possibly, and if that's proven to be the case it will obviously aggravate the circumstances of the offence.

This anger is really directed at self but it's not unusual for newly infected patients to be in denial about accepting responsibility for their diagnosis. In any case, she knew the risks of having unprotected sex and still decided to practice it- post diagnosis. ..and hopefully she'll pay the price for her behaviour if she's found guilty.

I'll say it again. If you know you have a condition that could potentially kill someone else (some people choose not to medicate their condition) then you modify your behaviours to ensure that no-one else becomes infected. Anything else (IMO) is inflicting a death sentence on someone and as such should be treated as an imprisonable offence.

..and I absolutely agree, I don't think this woman will be applauded or defended by anyone for being HIV+ and having unprotected sex with people.

I've just stumbled across this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8512933.stm) interesting article, where someone (albeit in Germany) has been charged with bodily harm.

I see this person has been given a two year suspended sentence. Maybe she'll think twice about acting so irresponsibly the next time she has sex.

This should serve as a warning to all those out there who think it's ok to knowingly infect others with S.T.I's.

I'm not saying that people with HIV should never have sex - but being +ve carries responsibilities, to self and to others. Whilst we should all be taking responsibility for our own sexual health - what these people are doing, in my eyes, is unforgivable.

I don't really understand why she hasn't been given a jail sentence.

I see this person has been given a two year suspended sentence. Maybe she'll think twice about acting so irresponsibly the next time she has sex.

This should serve as a warning to all those out there who think it's ok to knowingly infect others with S.T.I's.

I'm not saying that people with HIV should never have sex - but being +ve carries responsibilities, to self and to others. Whilst we should all be taking responsibility for our own sexual health - what these people are doing, in my eyes, is unforgivable.

I don't really understand why she hasn't been given a jail sentence.
I agree with you Cyclone. Unless there were mitigating circumstances, such as mental health issues.

Conversely, look what happened in this case (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-11144104).