Do you support HIV Prosecutions?

[zcflint09]

Poll question: Do you support HIV Prosecutions?

I have a general public opinion question for my fellow DU'ers--currently in Britain, they are revisiting the law that they passed to prosecute anyone who knowingly infects anyone with HIV. It's not discussed often but I thought it would be an interesting topic to touch upon since it isn't brought up too much.

Personally I think it's extremely difficult to prove--and has troubling precedence for governmental invasion of our personal health records, so I'd have to go on the board as being opposed to this legistlation.

Here's an article covering the law in the UK:

http://365gay.com/Newscon06/09/090106ukhiv.htm

Thanks for your vote!

[Horse with no Name]

1. IF they can prove malice and aforethought without a doubt

absolutely. If they cannot, then no. By this, I mean where the perp actually TOLD the victim or someone in particular that he was intending to do infect someone on purpose.
The sticky part comes, pardon the pun, as to what it would take to reveal the proof, and that generally would involve having to disclose private medicial information which would be a violation of our civil rights.
Yet another instance where violating our rights would make us safer.:sarcasm:

[cboy4]

2. Anonymous HIV testing would not obviously show up in personal health

records, so I don't know how lawyers could prove intentional infection beyond a reasonable doubt without a confession or other incriminating evidence.

Never-the-less, I voted "yes," because people who knowingly infect people with this potentially killer disease are monsters and should be put away.

[Crayson]

3. When you knowingly risk somebody else's life...

Switzerland uses this law already.
A man was jailed for having infected several women through unprotected sex despite already knowing he had the virus.
Luckily not all of the women he had sex with were infected.

he knew it and didn't care.
This is considered tantamount to bodily injury or wantonly negligent injury/killing
(don't know if those are the same terms in English).

How else can he be deterred from lying more women into having unprotected sex with him?

[PsN2Wind]

4. I voted yes

and would have voted the same had the question been of a person knowingly infecting another person with tuberculosis or any other serious disease.

[eyesroll]

5. I know you can get sued for battery (civilly) in this situation.

In one of the cases I've read this year, a man infected his wife with genital warts (they were estranged when he got infected, but reconciled briefly). After their divorce, she sued -- and won -- because he knew he was infected, didn't say anything, didn't take any precautions.

I don't know how you'd prove this criminally (where the burden of proof is higher) except in the most egregious cases...maybe that's what the law should be for.

[Totallybushed]

6. Absolutely.

This is a deadly assault on an innocent human being, and should be punished as any other criminal attack.

[rug]

7. Are they prosecuting for syphilis, gonorrhea and tuberculosis?

[SmokingJacket]

8. Kind of a slippery slope, there.

If you work at a restaurant and refuse to stay home when you have hepatitis, is that different?

How about a bank teller with the flu?

It's rather worrisome.

I hate the idea of the govt having access to medical records, too.

But then again -- how is knowingly inflicting someone with a deadly virus different from poisoning their sandwich?

Clearly the law needs to tread VERY carefully here...

[samsingh]

9. 100%