Charged For Knowingly Passing HIV

[Seneca]

Charged For Knowingly Passing HIV

(AP) A former city health commissioner who allegedly lied to an ex-boyfriend about his HIV status is the first person charged under a state law against intentionally exposing another person to the virus, prosecutors said.

Ronald Gene Hill, 46, was arrested in Grass Valley, 50 miles northeast of Sacramento, following his indictment by a grand jury last week, said Mark MacNamara, spokesman for the San Francisco district attorney's office.

Hill was being held in the Grass Valley jail late Wednesday on $100,000 bail, said a jail spokeswoman, adding that she was unsure whether he had an attorney. Hill was scheduled to be arraigned in San Francisco Friday, MacNamara said.

It's the first arrest under a 1998 state law making it a crime to knowingly and intentionally expose another person to the virus that causes AIDS.

More: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/08/health/main572177.shtml

[david_vincent]

1. There was a case in Ontario

where a guy who knew he had HIV had sex with a number of women and passed it on to them. IIRC, he would have been tried except that he died first. Details, anyone?

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

15. If it's the same case I'm thinking of...

it was a dentist (IIRC his name was Bernard Acker) who smeared his own blood on his tools before using them. Asshole.

[Catholic Sensation]

2. to knowingly and intentionally give someone HIV

is really fucking sick.

[sangh0]

3. Making it a crime is just as sick

as it will discourage some people from getting tested.

[demdave]

5. This is criminal on several levels. The man was a cith health comm.

A former city health commissioner who allegedly lied to an ex-boyfriend about his HIV status is the first person charged under a state law against intentionally exposing another person to the virus, prosecutors said.


The excuse that it discourages people from being tested is BS. It should be criminal to knowingly pass HIV. Otherwise even people who know will get a pass. What is the alternative? No punishment for this dispicable act. I think self-preservation would encourage you to get tested. After that it is your responsibility to act accordingly.

[sangh0]

11. Self-preservation would encourage me

to question why the Health Commisioner would engage in unprotected sex.

[Llewlladdwr]

6. You're kidding, right?

Perhaps mandatory testing is in order then.

[sangh0]

12. Nope.

and Nope

[Llewlladdwr]

16. I'm flabbergasted.

So, someone with HIV should be free to engage in unprotected sex without making their partner aware of their condition? What possible justification is there for that? That it might discourage someone from getting tested? As far as I'm concerned, if you're regularly having unprotected sex with more than one partner and you're not getting tested regularly for HIV then you're behaving in an EXTREMELY irresponsible manner. Why shouldn't the rest of us be able to call for you to be tested if you refuse to yourself?

[sangh0]

19. And I'm sangha. It's nice to meet ya

So, someone with HIV should be free to engage in unprotected sex without making their partner aware of their condition?

It's not "free". Doing that puts you in danger of a civil suit.

What possible justification is there for that? That it might discourage someone from getting tested?

That, protecting our constitutional rights, and saving the many lives that testing enables us to save.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're regularly having unprotected sex with more than one partner and you're not getting tested regularly for HIV then you're behaving in an EXTREMELY irresponsible manner.

I'd go even further- If you're regularly having unprotected sex with ANYONE and you're not getting tested regularly for HIV then you're behaving in an EXTREMELY irresponsible manner. Even if you're monogamous, you can't garauntee that your partner is.

Why shouldn't the rest of us be able to call for you to be tested if you refuse to yourself?

A little thing called the Constitution.

[Flubadubya]

7. Doesn't have to be "made" a crime...

it just is. What other intention, besides malicious, would one have in knowingly transmitting a lethal disease? How could it be anything other than a crime?

[slackmaster]

14. I believe it already is a crime

If not it surely should be.

[Ernesto]

4. "to give" vs "to expose"

are 2 different things. However, either way, this is dispicable, sub-human behavior.

[GinaMaria]

10. I can only think

that massive denial took over. That possibly encephalitis was so advanced that he suffered from Dimentia... Can't dwell on this too much longer. too much to bear...

Peace,
Gina

[dfong63]

8. off the top of my head

if it's a crime to knowingly expose people to the HIV virus, because it's an act that can result in the death or permanent injury to innocent people ...

then shouldn't it also be a crime for politicians to underfund the programs that are designed to slow or halt the spread of HIV? for the same reason?

[Llewlladdwr]

17. No.

Unless you also believe that it should be a crime for you to not devote all of YOUR available resources to funding such programs as well. And by available I mean anything that would raise your standard of living above a subsistence level. 'Cause if you're NOT doing that then you are PERSONALLY exposing people to HIV. At least according to your logic.

Just off the top of my head... :-)

[xchrom]

9. ok -- this thread is going to go up in flames

if there are two things people will lie about it's drugs and sex.
whether we like it or not people practise unprotected sex -- and an individual should rely only on themselves to keep themselves safe. taking somebody's word for ''it''{whatever the ''it'' is} without proof is naive.
and yes i do fall in the column that says laws like these will keep people from getting tested. people know they won't be rigorous -- so they won't get tested so they can't be prosecuted. but they will never give up fucking, safe or unsafe -- that is naive to think they will.

[Bake]

13. There is civil liability in tort, also

There have been numerous cases like this in the courts. Most states would recognize it as an intentional tort; some allow the cause of action for negligent exposure as well.

Bake, Esq.

[ldf]

18. to knowingly do something that will cause someone's death

is attempted murder, until the person dies, then it is premeditated. not getting tested just to protect oneself falls in the same category.

just because they are "lying about sex" is irrelevant.

let them spend the rest of their lives dieing, while dealing with the legal consequences. their life can be a lower level of hell, than the people they have infected.

having said all that, anyone having unprotected sex is an idiot. even if you love them and think you trust them. until you know for absolutely sure that your trust is well placed, use protection.

IMO.