45 years in prison for spreading HIV

[Apollo]

Seems like a fitting sentence to me. It will keep him off the street, and away from women who don't know.

 

[Lukeee]

Now a load of guys are gonna get it instead and the state will pay for it all to happen.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Seems like a fitting sentence to me. It will keep him off the street, and away from women who don't know.

And put him behind bars so he can give his disease to other men, some of whom will give it to more men and women when they get released.

 

[Apollo]

^Unless the inmates are made aware of his disease. Or they keep him isolated.

Either way, I support the judgement personally.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

^Unless the inmates are made aware of his disease. Or they keep him isolated.

Either way, I support the judgement personally.

Of course I support him being imprisoned, but HIV being spread in jail and then outside of jail is a whole 'nother issue. HIV wouldn't be spreading amongst the prison population if they were providing condoms and keeping the men separated.

 

[Apollo]

Of course I support him being imprisoned, but HIV being spread in jail and then outside of jail is a whole 'nother issue. HIV wouldn't be spreading amongst the prison population if they were providing condoms and keeping the men separated.

Now you know the prisons don't give half a shit about their inmates half the time.

But that would be nice.

 

[Lukeee]

I presume it will be the tax payer who has to pay when all the prisoners starting getting HIV. Doesn't Texas still have the death penalty?

 

[Gollumfarrell]

He should get a swift kick in the crotch for every day of his sentence.

He won't be spreading anything that way.

 

[luminum]

At yet, there is so much resistance to condom distribution in jails. "Ethics" at its best--failing to help an already messed up situation.

 

[Horschallen]

Serves him right!

 

[pigface]

Still, those woman can't pretend they are without fault - unless he raped them (no mention of that), they did consent to unprotected sex.

 

[luminum]

Yes, but if the statute in the state requires that documented HIV positive individuals inform their partners of their status before a sexual encounter, then he's 100% at fault for failing to do so.

They may have consented to unprotected sex, but they may have also asked him when he last had a test and he could have lied and said 3 months ago, after he last had sex, and that it all came back clean.

The law in many states (I'm unclear on Texas') mandates that knowingly infected individuals must disclose their serostatus to any partners they intend to have sexual intercourse with. If you disclose and the individual you're with is exposed to HIV, then you are protected from prosecution because the other individual was made aware and chose to engage anyway. Otherwise, it's an attempted murder.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Still, those woman can't pretend they are without fault - unless he raped them (no mention of that), they did consent to unprotected sex.

100% agreement. It's 2009 so I have little-to-no sympathy for people who contract HIV because the person told them they're negative. Even showing a test result can be misleading. Lots of people leave the clinic and take that negative result as green light to go out and fuck somebody raw.

There's no excuse anymore. "Oh but-" But nothing. Wear condoms. They prevent HIV. Test results don't. Trust doesn't. Promises don't. Condoms do though.

 

[luminum]

...until they break. Or until you both decide that you want to have a child together and someone isn't honest enough to tell the truth.

 

[luminum]

Actually, thinking about it as a public health professional, there are quite a few exceptions I take here.

In the real world, you encounter many, many situations and reasons for why people will engage in unprotected sex.

For example, in some communities, unprotected sex is viewed as not only a demonstration of intimacy, but trust in a relationship. Oftentimes, the consenting partner (usually women) will engage in unprotected sex at the insistence of her partner because he or she believes in the trust of that relationship, and refusing to engage in unprotected sex could jeopardize what is to him or her, the most important thing in his or her life.

Additionally, individuals may be faced with choices regarding not only the smooth flow of their relationships for reasons above, but also because they may be dependent on their partner to care or provide for them. Refusing to engage in whatever sexual activity their provider may demand or expect can result in distrust, emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual assault, or even homelessness and poverty.

And in situations in which children are involved, the demanding partner may be the only means of provision for the children of the consenting partner. Some may choose to engage in unprotected sex (if that is what is expected or demanded of them by their partner) in order to insure that the relationship will continue and their children will be taken care of or have a roof over them or a bed to sleep in.

Social stigma of engaging in protected sex may also be a large factor. In some cases, the individual may not wish to face the social stigma that his or her partner might be infected or that "something" is wrong with their relationship. In other cases, individuals may be subjected to stigma that he or she is the actual infected partner because they are demanding that their partner use protection. Rather than face those kinds of social issue (and weighted in situations where the individual exists within a community that can have a strong impact on his or her well being) he or she may choose to willingly engage in unprotected sex to insure that nothing happens.

Even in cases of survivor sex, in which individuals (usually homeless or poor teens) engage in prostitution to make it from day to day, they may subject themselves to unprotected sex because a client may pay more, or may offer more necessities, such as shelter, clothing, food (or in some cases, drugs). A client, knowing that the individual is vulnerable, may even demand only unprotected sex for any compensation.

There are many other factors, some of which are more specific to other countries or cultures, but many of the ones above are common throughout the world. Others relate to social norms, such as in some regions of Thailand or Africa, where condoms are viewed as a bad sign if it's being used by a couple or where there are beliefs that a true and honest woman will have unprotected sex, especially when there are social beliefs about who is usually responsible for spreading STIs.

Now, of course, there is no indication (to my knowledge) that these women were in any of these situations (though some might have been). But before we go condemning people for having unprotected sex in this day and age we should remember that no situation is ever as simple as black and white. And even the concept that it's 2009 is one that forgets that being this aware of sexual health is a luxury that most developed nations have and even so, there are areas in the US that remain painfully uneducated through little fault of their own (thank you, Abstinence-Only education). There should be some added gravity for and individual who knowingly exposes individuals to something as serious as HIV and those protections for victims should exist.

 

[Apollo]

Yep.......

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

But before we go condemning people for having unprotected sex in this day and age we should remember that no situation is ever as simple as black and white.

Of course not, but at the end of the day, you're (not YOU, "you" hypothetical) the one who has to live with the decision you made.

 

[luminum]

Of course not, but at the end of the day, you're (not YOU, "you" hypothetical) the one who has to live with the decision you made.

I suppose. But that certainly doesn't mean the person who lied to you and exposed or infected you with HIV can get away with it. And I think people in any of the situations above would probably choose to risk it if it meant getting to live for another day or making sure their kids did.

 

[Edward Twinkletoes]

Of course not, but at the end of the day, you're (not YOU, "you" hypothetical) the one who has to live with the decision you made.

I don't think anyone necessarily disagrees but anyone who knowingly spreads HIV on the DL is just a despicable person. No two ways about it. You can say the other person isn't blameless and that still doesn't change the fact that the person who had HIV had a responsibility to be upfront about their status and not knowingly infect someone else.

 

[kallipolis]

American judicial sentencing always amuses me. Why 45 years for the first 5 and 25 years for the 6th offense?

Either way they've sentenced him to die behind bars, and I think that's appropriate. He sentenced all his victims to a long drawn out death.

I do have to wonder about personal responsibility though. Why were these women agreeing to unsafe sex? I don't care what line he used, you don't get to play if you're not wearing a raincoat.

A lesson for all of us.