Victims or Not?

[bailadora]

Maybe they didn't consent to being infected, but I think they certainly consented to the possibility of it by engaging in the behavior that they knew was risky.

For instance, if I go stand in the middle of a busy street or walk across the freeway, I'm not consenting to being hit by a car, but because I'm aware of the risks and accepting them by going into the street, I would be consenting to the possibility of being injured or killed by a car.

I get what you are saying, but I guess the question for me is who gets to be the final arbitrator of who is and who is not a victim? Theoretically, you could apply the above logic to just about any "risky" scenario. Let's say my car gets t-boned by a drunk driver. One could argue that since there's no way to gauge the condition of other drivers on the road, I knew there was a possibility I might be hit by an impaired driver but since I chose to go on the road anyway I consented to the possibility of being injured, therefore I'm not a victim. I know that sounds utterly preposterous, but do you see what I mean? Where does the line get drawn? IDK - in my mind it's slippery slope. By having unprotected sex with others, knowing he was infected with HIV, Rouch demonstrated a clear lack of regard for the lives of others. Even if his partners were unclear regarding his HIV status, he wasn't (he knowingly signed a document saying he was informed about the legalities involved in his condition, FFS) and I don't think it can be denied that he acted with malice. Depending on the state laws where he lives, he could be facing murder in the second degree should someone die as a result of his actions. For what it's worth, the general definition of second degree murder is as follows:

The intent required for second-degree murder is malice aforethought; it is distinguished from first-degree murder by the absence of premeditation. In a federal second degree murder charge to kill "with malice aforethought" means either to kill another person deliberately and intentionally, or to act with callous and wanton disregard for human life.

 

[LocaChica]

The basics:
A guy finds out he's HIV-positive.
He meets men online and proceeds to have anonymous sex with them in a local park.
Even when a partner asks if he has HIV or anything else, he says he doesn't.
But at least some of his partners took his word for it, and they may have the virus.

Article here



What say you?

In the fall of 1997, public authorities in Chautauqua County, New York, were granted an exception to the state's HIV confidentiality law-and released Nushawn Williams's name and picture to the press, deeming him a "public health threat," the source of a "near epidemic" of HIV transmission. Williams, who is HIV-positive, had had unprotected sex with several young women and girls and infected at least nine of them. Williams, eventually pled guilty to reckless endangerment and statutory rape.

Are the people who had sex with a person who failed to disclose their HIV status victims? Yes, as the HIV infected person has a moral obligation to disclosure this information.

No one has ever set a criteria to my knowledge, that says in order to be considered a victim you must possess intelligence. Did these victim behave rashly? I think so. They were down right stupid in my opinion. But can you be stupid and a victim? Absolutely.

 

[shiny5437]

Maybe we're all getting tripped up on notions of 'blame' and 'victim'.

Or maybe we should acknowledge that when we think about these things we don't always get the answers we would like to.

I also like the idea of social contract though - puts a new angle on it.

Good thread though.

 

[Firebrain]

I get what you are saying, but I guess the question for me is who gets to be the final arbitrator of who is and who is not a victim? Theoretically, you could apply the above logic to just about any "risky" scenario. Let's say my car gets t-boned by a drunk driver. One could argue that since there's no way to gauge the condition of other drivers on the road, I knew there was a possibility I might be hit by an impaired driver but since I chose to go on the road anyway I consented to the possibility of being injured, therefore I'm not a victim. I know that sounds utterly preposterous, but do you see what I mean? Where does the line get drawn? IDK - in my mind it's slippery slope. By having unprotected sex with others, knowing he was infected with HIV, Rouch demonstrated a clear lack of regard for the lives of others. Even if his partners were unclear regarding his HIV status, he wasn't (he knowingly signed a document saying he was informed about the legalities involved in his condition, FFS) and I don't think it can be denied that he acted with malice. Depending on the state laws where he lives, he could be facing murder in the second degree should someone die as a result of his actions. For what it's worth, the general definition of second degree murder is as follows:

The intent required for second-degree murder is malice aforethought; it is distinguished from first-degree murder by the absence of premeditation. In a federal second degree murder charge to kill "with malice aforethought" means either to kill another person deliberately and intentionally, or to act with callous and wanton disregard for human life.

Nobody is suggesting that Rouch should get off lightly. I don't think anyone is also arguing that the people he infected are not victims by some definition.

But they are all idiots, and they don't have any of my sympathy. The word victim seems to imply that they should.

The car analogy doesn't wash either. We take many precautions when we drive; we wear seatbelts, have airbags, don't drive when drunk, put kids in special seats. It will never be entirely safe to drive, as you say; we can't know if everyone else on the road is taking the same measures - but we do what we can to make it so. In this case, the only precaution that could have been taken was a condom/dental dam....and it was not. It was a conscious decision to do so, too.

What has happened is like driving drunk. It's like riding a motorcycle without a helmet. Like chucking yourself out of a third storey window for kicks. Should you be hurt in an accident you would technically be a victim of that accident, but only in the very straight sense.

Can we stop making rape analogies, please? I find them rather narrow minded and ignorant.

 

[satindesire]

This is a rather painful topic for me since I recently lost my sister to AIDs.

She was extremely young when she was exposed to HIV, the guy she lost her virginity SWORE to her up and down that he was a virgin too, so she didn't bother asking for a STI checkup or using any sort of protection.

In my eyes, she is partly to blame for being so trusting...I'd rather be paranoid and potentially hurt someone's feelings than dead. But her part of the blame is soooo much less than his.

She suffered and wasted away, gradually, before my eyes as I grew up and watched her slowly die.

SO many people arrogantly believe that the "STD crisis" of the 70's and 80's is over now, and that as long as they don't share IV needles with junkies they'll be fine. The sheer ignorance and superman-syndrome that is rampant in my peers is astonishing and personally, I find it SICKENING.

It's been said that somewhere around 70% of young women will be exposed to HPV by the time they graduate college.

Condoms don't protect against everything. Every time we have sex without protecting ourselves by asking for a recently updated STI checkup and using at least two reliable methods of birth control and STI protection, we're risking getting ourselves into situations that casual sex was never intended for.

I always strongly recommend personal responsibility when I counsel the young people I talk to...because these days, there is no excuse for what happened to my family. No one should have to lose a person they love because of an STI.

Yes, those people he hooked up with were stupid, and partly to blame for their exposure, but the guy who infected them on purpose is a murdering bastard and deserves the death penalty.

 

[Eilan]

Nobody is suggesting that Rouch should get off lightly. I don't think anyone is also arguing that the people he infected are not victims by some definition.

Exactly!

Where do you draw the line between the victims who were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time and the victims who chose a course of action that could result in potential harm to themselves?

SO many people arrogantly believe that the "STD crisis" of the 70's and 80's is over now, and that as long as they don't share IV needles with junkies they'll be fine. The sheer ignorance and superman-syndrome that is rampant in my peers is astonishing and personally, I find it SICKENING.

This is a bit of a hijack, but I wonder how much the "staight guy in denial" mentality plays into whether or not some of the victims chose to use condoms?

I'm sorry about your sister, SD.

 

[bailadora]

Satin: my deepest sympathies on the loss of your sister. I'm very close to my sister, so yeah.....words fail me.

Nobody is suggesting that Rouch should get off lightly. I don't think anyone is also arguing that the people he infected are not victims by some definition. But they are all idiots, and they don't have any of my sympathy. The word victim seems to imply that they should.

Actually, I think that is the question being debated: are they victims or are they just plain stupid for not taking necessary precautions, hence it's their own damn fault. I think it all boils down to a question of who they are a victim of: Rousch or themselves?

The car analogy doesn't wash either. We take many precautions when we drive; we wear seatbelts, have airbags, don't drive when drunk, put kids in special seats . It will never be entirely safe to drive, as you say; we can't know if everyone else on the road is taking the same measures - but we do what we can to make it so. In this case, the only precaution that could have been taken was a condom/dental dam....and it was not. It was a conscious decision to do so, too.

Granted, some do, but some don't and that too is a conscious decision. People exercise poor judgment all the time with varying degrees of consequence. Is the person who didn't buckle up and gets hit by a drunk driver any less of a victim because he failed to utilize available precautions? I don't think so.

Can we stop making rape analogies, please? I find them rather narrow minded and ignorant.

I don't see how you construed my previous post as analogous to rape, but whatever. In my opinion, to knowingly, willfully and maliciously pass on a deadly condition by not informing others of your status is criminal. But that's not just my moral belief : he was informed he was required by law to reveal his condition to potential partners and he failed to do so. I'm not saying his partners didn't act rashly, stupidly, insert whatever derogatory adjective you want here by not utilizing protection but I don't agree with the stance of "it's what you deserve for being a stupid fuckwit". That just seems callous, in my opinion. Rouch's partners have my pity for exercising extremely poor judgment, but not my condemnation. I think it's quite clear you and I don't see eye- to - eye on this issue Firebrain, so instead of trading thinly veiled insults about each others opinions how about we just agree to disagree?

 

[satindesire]

This is a bit of a hijack, but I wonder how much the "staight guy in denial" mentality plays into whether or not some of the victims chose to use condoms?

That's a very good question, but being in denial in my opinion is no excuse for not using a condom. As a matter of fact, it's an even BETTER reason to use one, because it's gonna be rather difficult to explain to the wife why you have anal warts.

I'm sorry about your sister, SD.

Satin: my deepest sympathies on the loss of your sister. I'm very close to my sister, so yeah.....words fail me.

Thanks, both of you.

 

[Firebrain]

Bailadora, there was no "thinly veiled insult" in my response to you; just my opinion. Several other posters have used rape analogies and that was why it was mentioned right at the bottom of my response. Just because I disagree with somebody does not mean that I am insulting them; this is a debate thread, after all.

Satindesire, I'm very sorry to hear about your sister. It's good that you're able to do good work in her memory.

 

[bailadora]

Where do you draw the line between the victims who were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time and the victims who chose a course of action that could result in potential harm to themselves?

This is what I've been struggling to articulate. Yeah - I think that's a really good question and based upon the differing responses so far, I think it's pretty obvious the court of public opinion is quite divided on exactly where that line lies.

Bailadora, there was no "thinly veiled insult" in my response to you; just my opinion. Several other posters have used rape analogies and that was why it was mentioned right at the bottom of my response. Just because I disagree with somebody does not mean that I am insulting them; this is a debate thread, after all.

Then I misconstrued the narrow minded and ignorant comment - my bad. I respect the right to differing opinions and healthy/spirited debate, but insults (perceived or otherwise) tend to make me twitchy.

 

[SweetErika]

This is a bit of a hijack, but I wonder how much the "staight guy in denial" mentality plays into whether or not some of the victims chose to use condoms?

Quite a bit, I'd imagine.

And knowing the area where this story happened like I do, I'm guessing at least some of the guys involved consider HIV a 'gay disease,' and since they're only meeting for sex for excitement/stress relief/whatever, they're not gay and are therefore somewhat immune.

 

[Firebrain]

This is what I've been struggling to articulate. Yeah - I think that's a really good question and based upon the differing responses so far, I think it's pretty obvious the court of public opinion is quite divided on exactly where that line lies.



Then I misconstrued the narrow minded and ignorant comment - my bad. I respect the right to differing opinions and healthy/spirited debate, but insults (perceived or otherwise) tend to make me twitchy.

I was refering to the constant inference that a woman can somehow 'invite' a rape, is all!

 

[Eilan]

Let's say my car gets t-boned by a drunk driver. One could argue that since there's no way to gauge the condition of other drivers on the road, I knew there was a possibility I might be hit by an impaired driver but since I chose to go on the road anyway I consented to the possibility of being injured, therefore I'm not a victim. I know that sounds utterly preposterous, but do you see what I mean?

I posted about this in the WPMO thread when it happened, but my family and I were in a car accident back in 2005, and my dad actually blamed us for being out on the road. The other driver wasn't drunk, though; she was from out of town, and she was looking at restaurant signs and not at the traffic signal in front of her. We had the green light, and by the time my husband realized she wasn't stopping, there was nothing he could do to avoid the collision.

Sorry. I'm all about the hijacks today.

 

[SweetErika]

I posted about this in the WPMO thread when it happened, but my family and I were in a car accident back in 2005, and my dad actually blamed us for being out on the road. The other driver wasn't drunk, though; she was from out of town, and she was looking at restaurant signs and not at the traffic signal in front of her. We had the green light, and by the time my husband realized she wasn't stopping, there was nothing he could do to avoid the collision.

Sorry. I'm all about the hijacks today.

Your dad is one hell of a piece of work, he is!

It's a good thing you know better than to put yourself in front of his pointing finger!

 

[bailadora]

I posted about this in the WPMO thread when it happened, but my family and I were in a car accident back in 2005, and my dad actually blamed us for being out on the road. The other driver wasn't drunk, though; she was from out of town, and she was looking at restaurant signs and not at the traffic signal in front of her. We had the green light, and by the time my husband realized she wasn't stopping, there was nothing he could do to avoid the collision.

Sorry. I'm all about the hijacks today.

Oy! You have my sympathies, Eilan - both for the accident and the reaction of your dad.

I can't speak for others, but I enjoy the detours your mind takes. Gives me new things to think about. *nods*

 

[Le Jacquelope]

The basics:
A guy finds out he's HIV-positive.
He meets men online and proceeds to have anonymous sex with them in a local park.
Even when a partner asks if he has HIV or anything else, he says he doesn't.
But at least some of his partners took his word for it, and they may have the virus.

Article here

There was a discussion about whether or not this guy's partners are victims on a local radio show today. That is, should they be viewed as victims of a madman who knowingly exposed many people to HIV, or is it pretty much their own fault for engaging in such risky behavior? Or maybe it's a combination of the two, or something else entirely?

Anyway, as much as we talk about sex here, I thought it was an interesting issue and question. I'm not quite sure what I make of it, but it certainly reinforces some of my fears regarding casual sex and health!

What say you?

I say they're victims. And that he should be put to the wall before a firing squad.

Seriously though. This guy is out to sentence people to death by disease. That's one of the worst ways to go. Try him as a terrorist: this qualifies as using a biological weapon. What's the difference between what he's doing and someone tossing the heebeegeebees in the water supply?

 

[SweetErika]

I say they're victims. And that he should be put to the wall before a firing squad.

Seriously though. This guy is out to sentence people to death by disease. That's one of the worst ways to go. Try him as a terrorist: this qualifies as using a biological weapon. What's the difference between what he's doing and someone tossing the heebeegeebees in the water supply?

The targets and intent, I think.

Someone who purposely contaminates the water supply probably does so to harm/kill an unknowing population and incite panic.

Someone who fails to disclose, or lies about, their STI status to their partners is likely not doing so with the intent to harm/kill or incite panic. They may be doing it out of fear, ignorance, anger regarding their own situation, misplaced beliefs, etc., but they're probably not trying to terrorize a population. The end results may be similar, but I'd bet the motives and thought processes are usually quite different.

Then there are the targets/victims. In the water supply case, the victims are likely people who believe their water is relatively safe, and drinking it isn't risky behavior. In the STI case, most of the victims of the infectious liar know unprotected sex isn't safe, but they choose to do it anyway.

Harm and terror can come from both, but I don't see Roush, for instance, as the same as a suicide bomber who pushes the button in a public market, a guy who sets off a bio weapon at a sporting event, or someone who contaminates the water supply.

Maybe it's different degrees of the same thing, or maybe they're two different acts entirely.

However, in very broad strokes, if both activities have the same results (e.g. death), the punishment should be the same for both criminals, IMO.

 

[manofsteel52]

But not a potential murderer?


That's right. As the article says, this guy even signed paperwork saying he was aware it was a crime to expose people to HIV without informing them, and others have been brought up on charges for knowingly exposing people.

It's all about intent. If he lied about HIV, knowingly passing it on, he is committing attempted murder, at the the very least. The people he passed it on to are victims, albeit stupid.
There is no absolute sexual protection from HIV except abstinence. Anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or an idiot.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

The targets and intent, I think.

Someone who purposely contaminates the water supply probably does so to harm/kill an unknowing population and incite panic.

Someone who fails to disclose, or lies about, their STI status to their partners is likely not doing so with the intent to harm/kill or incite panic. They may be doing it out of fear, ignorance, anger regarding their own situation, misplaced beliefs, etc., but they're probably not trying to terrorize a population. The end results may be similar, but I'd bet the motives and thought processes are usually quite different.

Then there are the targets/victims. In the water supply case, the victims are likely people who believe their water is relatively safe, and drinking it isn't risky behavior. In the STI case, most of the victims of the infectious liar know unprotected sex isn't safe, but they choose to do it anyway.

Harm and terror can come from both, but I don't see Roush, for instance, as the same as a suicide bomber who pushes the button in a public market, a guy who sets off a bio weapon at a sporting event, or someone who contaminates the water supply.

Maybe it's different degrees of the same thing, or maybe they're two different acts entirely.

However, in very broad strokes, if both activities have the same results (e.g. death), the punishment should be the same for both criminals, IMO.

Well, you're basically arguing for a case based on negligence on the part of Zuriel Roush. Negligent homicide, IIRC, doesn't bring the death penalty. It brings prison time and a LOT of civil liability, though.

I for one believe that his behavior pattern, according to the story, suggests he was on a vengeful rampage. It's very hard in my mind to connect the knowledge that you are HIV+ to negligence in spreading it around.

How do you know you're HIV+, and not know that sex is the primary vector that spreads HIV? How do you not know you're spreading it around? I just don't see room for anything but intent there.

Would you as a judge let him get away with "I didn't know that being HIV+ meant I'd spread it to others, your honor"?

Roush is getting off incredibly lightly with assault charges, IMHO.

 

[fire_breeze]

There are very few instances where I can't find a shade of grey. This is one of those cases. I would put him in the same category as one who drives drunk and kills someone - it's murder, and the people he infects are victims. Not blameless (as someone who gets in the car of a drunk driver who swear that s/he is sober) but victims nonetheless. Yes, their behaviour may questionable, but they are condemned to die. Whether that happens instantaneously or in the future is moot: having HIV is a death sentence and it was knowingly transmitted, making the unknowing recipients victims.

 

[infinity706]

This is a rather painful topic for me since I recently lost my sister to AIDs.

She was extremely young when she was exposed to HIV, the guy she lost her virginity SWORE to her up and down that he was a virgin too, so she didn't bother asking for a STI checkup or using any sort of protection.

In my eyes, she is partly to blame for being so trusting...I'd rather be paranoid and potentially hurt someone's feelings than dead. But her part of the blame is soooo much less than his.

She suffered and wasted away, gradually, before my eyes as I grew up and watched her slowly die.

SO many people arrogantly believe that the "STD crisis" of the 70's and 80's is over now, and that as long as they don't share IV needles with junkies they'll be fine. The sheer ignorance and superman-syndrome that is rampant in my peers is astonishing and personally, I find it SICKENING.

It's been said that somewhere around 70% of young women will be exposed to HPV by the time they graduate college.

Condoms don't protect against everything. Every time we have sex without protecting ourselves by asking for a recently updated STI checkup and using at least two reliable methods of birth control and STI protection, we're risking getting ourselves into situations that casual sex was never intended for.

I always strongly recommend personal responsibility when I counsel the young people I talk to...because these days, there is no excuse for what happened to my family. No one should have to lose a person they love because of an STI.

Yes, those people he hooked up with were stupid, and partly to blame for their exposure, but the guy who infected them on purpose is a murdering bastard and deserves the death penalty.

Well, it is possible the guy that claimed to be a virgin could have been. Afterall, he could have gotten the virus during childbirth if his mom had it, if he had a blood transfusion, if he ever came into contact with someone else's blood and the virus got in through a cut or a mucous membrane, a drug needle, or something else. Considering the incubation period of the virus, he probably got it at some point before people even took that many precautions against it.

 

[Submission13]

The only completely effective way to prevent STD's and pregnancy is to not have sex. Condoms do break, even when used correctly. But to infect someone with HIV on purpose is clearly a crime with intent to kill. Anyone who does this should but prosecuted in court, for murder. If you ask your sex partner to use a condom, and they agree, can you tell that they are when the lights are off? Even casual sex involves some degree of trust that the other person isn't trying to harm you. It is always better to err on the side of caution and use a condom! Be safe out there!

 

[nosoup4crr]

yes. they're victims. there's clear deception.

 

[Eilan]

Roush is getting off incredibly lightly with assault charges, IMHO.

Yeah, I wonder why it's not at least aggravated assault or even attempted murder, to be honest. Perhaps Washington state law has something to do with it? Do you know, Erika?

 

[SweetErika]

Yeah, I wonder why it's not at least aggravated assault or even attempted murder, to be honest. Perhaps Washington state law has something to do with it? Do you know, Erika?

From what I can tell, 1st degree assault is a Class A felony and carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and fine up to $50,000.

Knowingly transmitting HIV is specifically noted in the definition of assault in the first degree.

So, it's not really a puny charge, IMO.

It may have been what the police and DA thought would stick best and carry the largest penalty, especially if they get Roush on multiple counts. I suppose it's possible it was the only thing they could reasonably charge him with and make a case for when none of the victims wanted to press charges and they're having trouble identifying other potential victims due to the anonymous sex and health confidentiality laws.

It might give them room to tack on more charges as the case develops while keeping him locked up, too.

Hopefully Roush and his family aren't smart and rich enough to get a really good attorney to fight the charges.