Manslaughter charges - HIV infection

[Boxlicker101]

I've heard of one case - saw something about it either on Discovery, or one of those types of channels.

And yep, he was charged with manslaughter, I think, if not murder charges, because he'd infected so many, one of which was a girl that was only 14 or 15 at the time he infected her.

His reasoning was that he'd gotten it from a woman, so he was going to give it to as many women as he could before he died.

In that case, there could probably be a hate crime enhancement to the charges. Not that it would make much difference because he would probably be dead before the extra charge took affect.

 

[minsue]

I have heard of such cases, but I cannot recall when or where I heard them so I can't speak to their veracity.

I'm torn on the criminality of it. It is difficult to prove intent and, while I find the concept of a person who is HIV + knowingly having unprotected sex with unwitting partners abhorrent even when it's not malicious (meaning simply careless, callous, selfish, and unfeeling) and of course more so when it's intentional, it also feels like a slippery slope to me. When do we decide a person is criminally negligent? When they knowingly infect partners? What if they simply know that they are at risk and possibly showing symptoms, but haven't bothered to get tested? Do we charge them with manslaughter for their negligence? And where does the responibility of the partner to protect themselves end?

I have no problem convicting people of manslaughter for intentionally infecting people with HIV. I only worry that we won't stop there.

All the more reason to protect yourself and to get tested. It amazes me how few people do so.

 

[OhMissScarlett]

While I was Googling to find something out about the story Lucky heard, which I thought sounded familiar, I found this spooky article. New HIV Strain

 

[lucky-E-leven]

While I was Googling to find something out about the story Lucky heard, which I thought sounded familiar, I found this spooky article. New HIV Strain

Thank you, Scarlett!

You know, now that Manu's worked on things, the initial post of this thread is missing. Sure does look funny with only three posts and no initial topic.



~lucky

edited to add: I got an email notification that said Colly responded and yet, there's no post from her showing up...

 

[OhMissScarlett]

Thank you, Scarlett!

You know, now that Manu's worked on things, the initial post of this thread is missing. Sure does look funny with only three posts and no initial topic.



~lucky

edited to add: I got an email notification that said Colly responded and yet, there's no post from her showing up...

Whoa, that is weird! Yet the post count read 8 when I clicked here. Darnit, I closed my window before or I could back click and cut and paste all the missing one's.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Whoa, that is weird! Yet the post count read 8 when I clicked here. Darnit, I closed my window before or I could back click and cut and paste all the missing one's.

'S okay, sweetie. I'm crossing my fingers that it returns while we sleep.

(The read-vote-feedback thread has only 2 posts showing and the last I saw, it was at 74.) *grin*

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

I've heard of such cases also. One involved a woman who had contracted HIV from a man and decided to spread it around to get even. I'm not sure if this was true or not, but it was spread among the heathcare field.
To me, and I may be wrong, if someone knowingly has HIV and has unprotected sex they should be prosecuted on murder charges. Anyone who knowingly has unprotected sex and is +HIV is taking the life of another.
Now if they don't know they're positive? I don't see them guilty of anything.
Proving intent is always the problem as minsue said. But if you can prove they were aware they were positive for HIV and still had unprotected sex, they should face punishment.

 

[LadyJeanne]

Well here's the first post by lucky:

Manslaughter charges - HIV infection

My step-dad was telling me of a story that involved a man being arrested for having unprotected sex with "hundreds" of partners without telling them that he was infected with the deadliest strain of HIV to date.

I googled but was unable to find the exact story. (He heard it on the radio.) While I was searching, however, I located several other stories involving the same basic charges/crimes. I'd never heard of this before and found myself wondering about it all.

I, personally, think it's the responsibility of both parties to be aware of the other's health, but can also see the point of charging the reckless carrier with manslaughter.

What are your thoughts on the matter?
Anyone know of a case, concerning a man (I believe he was in/from New York) that admitted to authorities that he'd had sex with hundreds of partners in a space of three years, after knowing he'd tested positive for the disease?

As far as I know, there's no legal basis for charging an ex-partner for infecting you with other STD's. I know they're not all deadly, but none are pretty and most don't ever leave.

If you're interested, here is the most recent story I could find: HIV: Criminal Intent

~lucky

p.s. Hundreds of partners in three years? Yikes!

 

[lucky-E-leven]

But if you can prove they were aware they were positive for HIV and still had unprotected sex, they should face punishment.

I agree they are guilty of dishonesty and negligence, but wouldn't you say that their partners bear responsibility as well? Excluding instances of rape, of course.

~lucky

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Lady Jeanne is AWESOME!

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

I agree they are guilty of dishonesty and negligence, but wouldn't you say that their partners bear responsibility as well? Excluding instances of rape, of course.

~lucky

Very true Lucky. That can lead to a whole new line of questioning. Did you ask your partner if they were HIV positive? Why did you not insist on using a condom?

Sounds like we all need to hand out questionaires before even considering meeting someone and having sex.

smiles and hands lucky the questionaire. lol

 

[LadyJeanne]

Lady Jeanne is AWESOME!

Finally! I've put lurking to good use.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

deleted double post...

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Very true Lucky. That can lead to a whole new line of questioning. Did you ask your partner if they were HIV positive? Why did you not insist on using a condom?

Sounds like we all need to hand out questionaires before even considering meeting someone and having sex.

smiles and hands lucky the questionaire. lol

I guess I'm curious as to how the legalities work. How can it be manslaughter if no one has been killed? None of the cases I've seen so far have included the victim perishing. Granted, HIV is incurable, but until they actually pass how can it be anything more than willful negligence or some level of assault? I don't know, it just doesn't seem that the punishment fits the crime.

I also believe that the person on the receiving end of the disease is responsible. All of the cases regarding this violation of the exposure law have involved consentual sex. I don't think it's right to knowingly have unprotected sex and fail to mention you're infected with a terminal disease, but it does take two to tango as they say.

As for the questionnaire, I'd be happy to. Only problem is, I play for the other team.



~lucky

 

[Boxlicker101]

This is a really strange looking thread now. It looks like I was the one who started it because my post is the first but I'm quoting somebody.

Anyhow, the guy could probably be charged with attempted murder or ADW and once somebody actually died, he could be charged with some degree of murder, assuming he was still alive at the time. In any event, may he rot in jail and then in Hell.

Hopefully, nobody will be stupid enough to let him bail out.

 

[Seattle Zack]

I believe this was the case from Washington that got so much national attention back in November....

Man guilty in HIV assault case faces sentence of 137 years
Seattle Post-Intelligencer

OLYMPIA -- A Thurston County Superior Court judge convicted a 32-year-old man yesterday on charges he deliberately exposed 17 women to HIV.

Anthony E. Whitfield, of Lacey, faces a minimum sentence of 137 years in prison.

He was charged with 17 counts of first-degree assault with sexual motivation. In addition, there were three counts of witness tampering and three counts of violating a court protection order.

Judge William Thomas McPhee, who heard the case without a jury, convicted him on all counts except one, a witness-tampering charge.

Five of the women cited in the case have tested positive for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Health officials said that as many as 170 people could have been exposed to the virus because of Whitfield's actions, including subsequent partners of women he slept with.

Most tested negative for the virus, but 45 refused to be tested or couldn't be found.

During the trial, an Oklahoma prison official testified that Whitfield was diagnosed with HIV while incarcerated in 1992. Two women testified that Whitfield once said, seemingly in jest, that if he had HIV, he would give it to as many people as he could.

Defense lawyer Charles Lane said Whitfield was a methamphetamine-addicted "sex machine" who bounced between women for shelter, money and sex but never meant to inflict "great bodily harm" as required for him to be convicted of first-degree assault.

---------------
HIV-positive man who infected 17 women sentenced to 178 years
Seattle Post-Intelligencer

A man convicted of deliberately exposing 17 women to HIV was sentenced yesterday to 178 years in prison.

Anthony Whitfield, 32, of Lacey was found guilty last month on 17 counts of first-degree assault with sexual motivation, two counts of witness tampering and three counts of violating a court protection order. Whitfield reportedly was infected with HIV while serving a prison term in Oklahoma in the 1990s.

Five women cited in the case have tested positive for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, and a sixth has developed AIDS. Health authorities said as many as 170 people may have been exposed to the virus, including subsequent partners of women with whom he slept.

 

[elsol]

I'm very surprised they didn't add reckless endangerment to the charges.

If you want all the details of this type of stuff

http://www.thebody.com/legal/transmission.html

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[SeaCat]

I guess I'm curious as to how the legalities work. How can it be manslaughter if no one has been killed? None of the cases I've seen so far have included the victim perishing. Granted, HIV is incurable, but until they actually pass how can it be anything more than willful negligence or some level of assault? I don't know, it just doesn't seem that the punishment fits the crime.

I also believe that the person on the receiving end of the disease is responsible. All of the cases regarding this violation of the exposure law have involved consentual sex. I don't think it's right to knowingly have unprotected sex and fail to mention you're infected with a terminal disease, but it does take two to tango as they say.

As for the questionnaire, I'd be happy to. Only problem is, I play for the other team.



~lucky

Lucky,

I think, in my most humble opinion, that if no one tested positive after he did this, then maybe charge him with negligence. However if they do test positive, then most certainly charge him with at least attempted murder. He willingly had sex with these women, knowing he had AIDS. Yeah the "victim" isn't dead yet, but they have been tested positive for a disease which is known to be fatal. (I'm sure the courts won't see my argument on this. Then again they don't see my punishment for Rape as well thought out either, it's too barbaric for them.)

Cat

 

[Blackie Malone]

bumping cause I missed it.

I read of this case also.....very sad considering how AIDS was intitially spread.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

bumping cause I missed it.

I read of this case also.....very sad considering how AIDS was intitially spread.

Thanks for the bump, Blackie.

I'm kinda miffed that the first page of this thread is gone. Scarlette & LadyJeanne posted some cool links and I really wanted to chat about this. If you still have the article or link, I'd love to have it if you don't mind.



~lucky

 

[Blackie Malone]

Thanks for the bump, Blackie.

I'm kinda miffed that the first page of this thread is gone. Scarlette & LadyJeanne posted some cool links and I really wanted to chat about this. If you still have the article or link, I'd love to have it if you don't mind.



~lucky

Check yer mail.

 

[Blackie Malone]

I guess I'm curious as to how the legalities work. How can it be manslaughter if no one has been killed? None of the cases I've seen so far have included the victim perishing. Granted, HIV is incurable, but until they actually pass how can it be anything more than willful negligence or some level of assault? I don't know, it just doesn't seem that the punishment fits the crime.

I also believe that the person on the receiving end of the disease is responsible. All of the cases regarding this violation of the exposure law have involved consentual sex. I don't think it's right to knowingly have unprotected sex and fail to mention you're infected with a terminal disease, but it does take two to tango as they say.

As for the questionnaire, I'd be happy to. Only problem is, I play for the other team.



~lucky

Perhaps the intent could be looked upon as premeditated murder or assault with the intent of murder.
It seems like a fine line of how one may be convicted of such a crime and may come down to what various state laws are concerning assault/murder.

IMO it's agreeable that the recipient is responsible, but the person who is infected should be obligated to tell their partner(s). You can't catch cancer by sleeping with another person, a highly contagious if not life threatening disease should be known to the partner involved. It's just plain wrong, morally, physically, economically and socially.

Playing for the other team doesn't count now does it? It isn't predjudice at all.

Bottom line is that there is a deluge of information out there concerning AIDS/HIV and common sense is the main factor. Use protection as well as your head. The argument of smoking causing death through cancer won't hold here because I can't give my partner lung cancer through sex...only second hand smoke.

It was also inevitable that the HIV strain would mutate, that's it main course of action. Just like the various flu strains that no longer can be fought with the usual medications.

Ignorance and apathy.....no one cares if the Klan is around until someone in a white hood is at your front door and burning a cross on the front lawn.

My two cents......feel free to bash me now.

 

[Boxlicker101]

As I recall, it was in the early 1980's when AIDS became known, and it was considered to be an STD and was mostly found among gay men. It was thought of as a disease of San Francisco but that is probably because of the large number of gay men there, compared to other parts of the Bay Area. It was probably common in other cities too. The others who had it were mostly users of intra-venous drugs. More was learned later.

I know nothing of the state laws where this happened but I can't help but think that somebody who deliberately infects other persons with an incurable, deadly disease can be accused of something pertty serious. Assault with the intent to commit murder, ADW, attempted murder or something. No bail, either, because if you let them out on bail, they will be right back at it. After conviction, sentence to allow no contact with other prisoners and keep them there until they are dead, beyond any doubt. No parole. Ever. If a victim dies before the perpetrator, bring murder charges.

As for blaming the victims, maybe scold them for carelessness, like a person whose home is burglarized when a door is left unlocked or one who is mugged when taking a shortcut through an alley or whose car is stolen when the keys are left in the ignition or a woman who drinks in a bar by herself and is raped. All the victims I am mentioning might be considered careless but they are not guilty of anything else.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Bump.

I found two interesting articles on HIV...one is about of form of HIV that doesnt' give you AIDS, what they are doing is changing it and using it to attack cancer cells.

Shit, I forget what the other one was.......I mailed them to Lucky, hope she still has em and posts them.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

My post dissappeared too. In essence I said:

The partner's culpability is immaterial. If you have aides and you have sex with someone, you are attempting murder. Just as much as if he walked into your bedroom and shot you.

Whether you knew he was going to shoot you, or asked if he had ever had homocidal thoughts is immaterial.

When he shoots you, there are only a few variables to your living or dying. If he hit, where he hit, the calibre of the gun and how promptly you get medical treatment.

With aids, the variables are similar, how virulent is the strain he has, how you have sex, if you have any minor cuts or abrasions from the act, how well your imune system reacts.

In some ways, what this person did was even more lethal, as people survive bullet wounds, but no one survives aids.

-Colly