Deliberately spreading AIDs - Murder?

The_Minister

Have a look at these three stories
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/10/20/aziga-trial.html

An HIV-positive man charged with first-degree murder in the deaths of two sexual partners knew of his status for seven years before he was arrested, Crown lawyers alleged as the landmark trial got underway Monday.

Johnson Aziga, 52, is believed to be the first HIV-positive person in Canada to be charged with murder on allegations he had unprotected sex and passed on the deadly virus that causes AIDS.

Among the most compelling evidence Crown lawyer Tim Powers plans to present during the course of the trial is audio and videotaped testimony by the two Toronto women Aziga is alleged to have had unprotected sex with. Both died of AIDS-related complications, one in December 2003 and the other in May 2004.

Uganda-born Aziga, a former research analyst with Ontario's Ministry of the Attorney General, is also accused of 11 counts of aggravated sexual assault. He has pleaded not guilty on all counts.

The sexual assault charges include the cases of nine other women he is alleged to have had sex with and to whom he allegedly did not disclose he was HIV positive. Five of the women have tested positive for HIV, while four others have not contracted the virus.

"When you think of aggravated sexual assault you think of a violent rape. This was not the case," Powers argued.

But he argues Aziga failed to fulfill his "duty to disclose" his HIV status and, thus, there was no valid consent since the women would not have agreed if they knew of his condition.

Powers told the court some women specifically asked about Aziga's sexual health. All nine women will testify they were not informed of his HIV status beforehand, said Powers.

The Crown lawyer said public health officials informed Aziga he was HIV positive back in 1996 and told him he must disclose his status to potential partners.

The trial by jury is expected to last about six weeks.

None of Aziga alleged victims can be identified because of a publications ban.

The Supreme Court of Canada has previously ruled that one partner cannot give true consent for sexual relations if the other partner fails to disclose an HIV infection.

As a result, Aziga's trial could find that the two women's deaths resulted from sexual assaults, calling for a first-degree murder conviction, which carries an automatic life sentence.

The aggravated sexual assault charges carry a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.

Fired 3 legal teams
"This is the first time that a Canadian is prosecuted for alleged murder through the alleged dissemination or transmission of the HIV virus," Aziga's lawyer Davies Bagambiire said. "I look forward to the evidence unfolding so I can shake it up, cross-examine and demonstrate the holes in the evidence that I believe exist."

Aziga has been held in custody for the five years since his August 2003 arrest. His trial has been delayed many times due to adjournments sought by the defence. Aziga has fired three legal teams leading up to the trial.

The criminal charges will do little to protect the public, said Alison Symington, spokeswoman with the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. The best way to protect the public is to promote education about the illness and to encourage disclosure and the use of condoms to prevent transmission, she said.

"These are very rare cases indeed, but there's so much attention to them and so much misinformation and panic around them that it really kind of increases stigma and discrimination, which ultimately may be counterproductive," Symington said.

The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network estimates about 60,000 people are living with HIV in Canada.

Criminal charges for HIV transmission increasing
There has been a notable increase in criminal charges for HIV transmission since 2000, Symington said.

Clato Mabior, an HIV-positive man in Winnipeg, was sentenced earlier this month to 14 years in prison on six counts of aggravated sexual assault, as well as one count each of invitation to sexual touching and sexual interference.

Carl Leone was handed an 18-year sentence on April 4 after pleading guilty in Windsor, Ont., to 15 counts of aggravated sexual assault after failing to inform his sexual partners of his HIV status. Five of the 15 women are now HIV positive.

Former Saskatchewan Roughrider Trevis Smith, who is HIV positive, was sentenced Feb. 26, 2007, to 5½ years in prison for aggravated sexual assault. He was found guilty for knowingly exposing two women to the virus that causes AIDS.

Onus to protect self
Adrian Betts, acting executive director of the Hamilton AIDS Network, said many HIV/AIDS groups will be watching Aziga's trial closely.

Betts said in many HIV/AIDS cases the evidence comes down to a discussion of "he said, she said" regarding if disclosure occurred.

Betts said he believes the onus should really be on individuals to protect themselves.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27681660/

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - A Dutch court convicted two men Wednesday for attempting to infect 14 victims with HIV in a bizarre sex case.

The Groningen District Court found the two guilty of severe assault for injecting semiconscious men with HIV-infected blood at sex parties between January 2006 and May 2007.

Peter M., 49, who was also convicted of rape, was sentenced to nine years in prison and Hans J., 39, received a five-year sentence. Under Dutch privacy laws, the surnames of convicted criminals are not released.

Prosecutors said they would appeal for higher sentences.

"By committing these acts, (Peter M.) has shown himself to have a serious lack of respect for the rights of others," the three-judge panel's written ruling said. "While he knew from his own experience what far-reaching consequences are tied to an infection with HIV, he repeatedly attempted to bring this same hurt to others."

Prosecutors had argued that the two men, along with a third who was acquitted of major charges, had drugged the 14 victims and intentionally infected them.

But in Wednesday's ruling, judges said while the victims all had HIV, it could not be proven that they were infected by the injections because they willingly took part in orgies where gay men had unprotected sex.

The judges also said allegations the victims were given GHB, known as a "date rape" drug, were also unproven.

The suspects were not charged with attempted murder since Dutch courts have held that HIV is a chronic illness rather than an inevitably fatal one.

http://www.thelocal.se/15136/20081022/

A Swedish government agency is refusing to assist the police in an ongoing investigation concerning a person suspected of infecting a woman with HIV.

Under current legislation, a person with HIV risks spending one to ten years in jail on assault charges if he or she knowingly has unprotected sex with another person.

"The criminalization of HIV makes preventive work more difficult. Also, sentences are very tough," Ragnar Norrby, director-general of the Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control (SMI), told newspaper Dagens Medicin.

In a reversal of its previous policy, the disease control institute has recently refused to cooperate with prosecutors who requested information on a person suspected of spreading HIV.

"It is now our view that spreading HIV should not be classified as an offence," Jan Albert, SMI head physician and regional manager, told Dagens Medicin.

"It is at least as much the responsibility of the individual person to understand that unprotected sex involves risks," he added.

According to Ragnar Norrby, the threat of prosecution leads many people infected with HIV to remain anonymous, making it more difficult to trace the spread of the virus.

SMI also notes that the development of antiretroviral drugs has meant that HIV can no longer be equated to a death sentence.

Basically:
(1) Man gives two people HIV, they die, and is charged with murder.
(2) 2 men purposely inject other people with HIV and are declared guilty of severe assault, since HIV is a chronic illness.
(3) A Swedish government agency is refusing to help with an investigation into someone who gave HIV to a woman, and wants the spread of HIV to no longer be an offence.


Which approach is right?
HIV is no longer the death sentence that it once was, people can live for thirty years or more with the new drugs.
Yet, there is still a huge effect on people's lives if they have HIV, and we want to discourage the spread of HIV.

Caoimhín

Regardless of the survival possibilities, it is still grievous bodily harm and should be considered a very serious offence.

The_Minister

Caoimhín wrote: »

Regardless of the survival possibilities, it is still grievous bodily harm and should be considered a very serious offence.

Crap! Thats the phrase I wanted, not assault.

Could a mod edit the poll?

biko

Don't you have to inform a sexual partner that you have HIV before sex, by law?

The_Minister

biko wrote: »

Don't you have to inform a sexual partner that you have HIV before sex, by law?

People don't always obey the rules.

Just look how many Dublin threads are posted in AH.

Krieg

Posted in similar thread last year
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939950/bug_chasers

Interesting article on guys who have the illness and purposely go out and infect others. Pretty shocking stuff

seamus

Each case has to be taken on its own merits I think. Murder is a tough one because as you say, it's under much better control than it used to be, and if a cure is eventually found, is it still right to hold the person on a charge of murder?

I would say that it's definitely a form of assault, however it should be possible to withhold a charge of murder or manslaughter - if the victim dies before the perp, then he gets hauled in again and charged with the murder/manslaughter. In this country, I don't think it works - there's a time limit between the assault and the victim's death. If the victim dies I think more than a year after the assault, the perpetrator can't be charged with that death. So for Ireland, a change in the law would be required.

Aggravated sexual assault is fair. While consent was provided, it's fair to assume that consent wouldn't have been provided if the other party had been told of the attacker's condition. So that's a clear cut case of rape in my eyes.

In the case of injecting people with HIV - attempted murder. At least. Again, if you could suspend a murder charge and then apply it if/when a victim dies, that would be ideal.

The_Minister

seamus wrote: »

In this country, I don't think it works - there's a time limit between the assault and the victim's death. If the victim dies I think more than a year after the assault, the perpetrator can't be charged with that death. So for Ireland, a change in the law would be required.

I am 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that we abolished the year and a day rule, since life-support machines meant that they had started to outlast that.

murphym7

seamus wrote: »

Each case has to be taken on its own merits I think. Murder is a tough one because as you say, it's under much better control than it used to be, and if a cure is eventually found, is it still right to hold the person on a charge of murder?

The point I'd make is a cure has not yet been found so I would charge anyone who knowingly has unprotected sex with another with attempted murder.

If the infected person does this now knowing that HIV is an inevitable death sentance and an incurable diesese then it is atempeted murder.

Even if a cure is found in 10 years it is still attempted murder now and for the duration of the sentence. It's central to the idea that the person commited the crime with the information available at the time, that information being there is no cure for HIV/AID's

Varkov

Condoms are uncomfortable.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Varkov wrote: »

Condoms are uncomfortable.

Famous last words...

Varkov

Well, tbh most people wouldn't have sex with a nagger.

mikemac

seamus wrote: »

In this country, I don't think it works - there's a time limit between the assault and the victim's death. If the victim dies I think more than a year after the assault, the perpetrator can't be charged with that death. So for Ireland, a change in the law would be required.

One year and one day I think. I've heard that phrase somewhere

Hail 2 Da Chimp

I agree with the attempted murder charge, I don't understand how someone can be charged with assault, when they knowingly try to infect someone with a virus that will most likely kill them.
Even GBH, it's not like you knew there was a chance the person would come to harm, they will most likely die if they contract the virus.

pierrot

just say the tattoo option. not a bad idea. now only if they would tattoo cancer patients and protestants, the world would be a safer place.

AckwelFoley

Varkov wrote: »

Condoms are uncomfortable.

So is AIDS, and galloping knob rott

monkeyfudge

The_Minister wrote: »

HIV is no longer the death sentence that it once was, people can live for thirty years or more with the new drugs.

Only if you have decent medical coverage and can afford the drugs.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

They are sick, they deserve life sentences... They are slowly killing somebody... If you were paralised by GBH what sentence would you get?

AckwelFoley

Kaydence Wide Drill wrote: »

... If you were paralised by GBH what sentence would you get?

they dont give jail time to the victims

Caoimhín

snyper wrote: »

they dont give jail time to the victims

Didnt think that one through did he?

AckwelFoley

Caoimhín wrote: »

Didnt think that one through did he?

unless of course he caused it himself by constantly running out infront of busses and steamrollers..

then hed get some sentance alright.. in a straight jacket

The_Minister

Kaydence Wide Drill wrote: »

They are sick, they deserve life sentences... They are slowly killing somebody... If you were paralised by GBH what sentence would you get?

You don't get done for murder unless you kill somebody.

lostinnappies

what a horribly selfish and evil thing to do to another human being. It is murder imho

dotsman

It can't be murder until the victim actually dies. GBH, attempted murder yes. And should hte victim die from AIDS, then throw in a charge of murder. Either way the perpetrator should be locked up in a single cell for the rest of their lives and never let be in contact with another human being!

For me, it is the same as any assault that causes permanent injury (physical or mental disabilities). The punishment should last at least as long as the victims suffering.

The_Minister

lostinnappies wrote: »

what a horribly selfish and evil thing to do to another human being. It is murder imho

But they are still alive. Do you wait until they die? What happens if a novus actus occurs?

AlmightyCushion

The_Minister wrote: »

Crap! Thats the phrase I wanted, not assault.

Could a mod edit the poll?

Only seen your post now. It's edited now.

I'd go with option 3. Grievous bodily harm but if anything happens to them in the future then you get a murder charge.

The_Minister

seamus wrote: »

If the victim dies I think more than a year after the assault, the perpetrator can't be charged with that death. So for Ireland, a change in the law would be required.

I did a bit of research, and the year and a day rule was abolished under section 38 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999. Our rule is actually quite harsh, as there is now no timelimit on how long between the act and the death can result in a murder charge.

seamus

The_Minister wrote: »

I did a bit of research, and the year and a day rule was abolished under section 38 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999. Our rule is actually quite harsh, as there is now no timelimit on how long between the act and the death can result in a murder charge.

Interesting to know.

Common sense would dictate though that the longer the time lapse, the harder it would be to get enough proof.

The_Minister

seamus wrote: »

Interesting to know.

Common sense would dictate though that the longer the time lapse, the harder it would be to get enough proof.

For an interesting criticism of the decision to leave out the safeguards present in other jurisdictions read Carey, "The Year and a Day Rule in Homicide" (2001) 11ICLJ 5
In Britain for instance, you need the special permission of the AG to prosecute someone more than three years after the injury, or where the defendant has already been convicted of an offence on the same facts.

EDIT: Quite often they have proof of assault, but if someone is still walking around, then theyhaven't been murdered.