Reflections, Reflections

So you´ve probably heard the big news splash about this supposedly new type of AIDS. I have a question I don´t see too many people asking. Clayton Cramer didn´t ask it, but he was in the neighborhood.

In Jane Galt´s thread about the news, I asked:

I don´t see why the people who pass around this type of virus (or AIDS) aren´t tried for some kind of murder. Has anyone not heard of AIDS in 2005 or what happens when you pass it to someone else? Why is this any different than you putting some poison in a drink and serving it up to someone?

Oh, wait, I forget! It has sex mixed up in it.... so liberals have to bend down and kiss their sacred sex cow´s behind and make it into a big victimhood deal... and money must be spent on people who kill others instead of going to people who really need it and don´t do a thing, like needy kids.
Posted by Alessandra at February 12, 2005 05:07 PM

And I got this answer:

Alessandra: Well, I believe people who have had unprotected sex, who knew they were infected, and did not inform their partner, have been charged with at least reckless endangerment.

Murder requires, you know, that the person actually die before the charge can be made. Also it requires intent to cause death, which is extremely difficult to prove. (And in the case of STDs, it would require that the infector knew his/her status, and that the infectee was not informed and did not choose to take the risk willingly.)

That's why, since you asked.
Posted by Sigivald at February 14, 2005 02:17 PM

And this was my reply:

Sigivald -You can tell I am not a lawyer - but it does seem very strange to me, the whole "I just didn´t know..." - in cases like this. Why is it different than Russian roulette? A person just didn´t know there was a bullet in that slot... it´s true, they didn´t know, so now that exonerates them from all responsibility about everything? What crap.

They know AIDS is destructive. And what you mentioned about the victim dying, true, but how cute, eh? You transmit a virus that may or may not kill them, and then it´s not murder.

My point is only if a person is completely irresponsible, they don´t know if they have HIV.

Also, if a woman walks alone at night and gets raped, then the rapist is not a rapist because she should have known this is dangerous? Sure, she has a responsibility but this doesn´t do away with the crime.

Also, why are these garbage of people that pass on HIV to others any different than a lab that passes on contaminated blood? Why does a lab have to be responsible and individuals do not?

Since the harm is the same, they are both criminal in my view.

I looked up the definition of reckless endangerment and it certainly looks like it to me. Why doesn´t the state prosecute more people? How many people infected with HIV per year? How much money gets wasted on treatment because of it all?

[example of definition of R.E]

RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT

Any person who commits the offense of reckless endangerment is guilty of a crime.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the state must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the following essential elements:

(1) that the defendant engaged in conduct which placed or might

have placed another person in imminent danger of death or

serious bodily injury;

and

(2) that the defendant acted recklessly;

[and]

[(3) that the offense was committed with a deadly weapon.]

"Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury which involves a substantial risk of death; protracted unconsciousness; extreme physical pain; protracted or obvious disfigurement;

or protracted loss or substantial impairment of a function of a bodily member, organ or mental faculty.2

"Recklessly" means that a person acts recklessly with respect to circumstances surrounding the conduct or the result of the conduct when the person is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the accused person's standpoint.3

The requirement of "recklessly" is also established if it is shown that the defendant acted intentionally or knowingly.4

"Intentionally" means that a person acts intentionally with respect to the nature of the conduct or to a result of the conduct when it is the person's conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.5

"Knowingly" means that a person acts knowingly with respect to the conduct or to circumstances surrounding the conduct when the person is aware of the nature of the conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of the person's conduct when the person is aware that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.6

["Deadly weapon" means a firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury or anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.]7


1. Reckless endangerment is a Class A misdemeanor; however, reckless endangerment committed with a deadly weapon is a Class E felony. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-103(b).

2. A violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-401, child abuse and neglect, may be a lesser included offense of any kind of statutory assault. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-401(d).

---

The NY Times has an article on the unsafe sex and homos question today.

It talks about the men who transmit AIDS as little victims that society must coddle always.

Until people really believe an unstoppable virus is out there, he said, they will continue to indulge in unsafe sexual practices. "People are not going to modify their sexual habits in ways that are difficult or unpleasant until they see their friends dying again," he said. "And to me that's just an unbelievably depressing thought."

Clearly it´s too much to ask for homos to be responsible or mentally/psychologically healthy. It´s too much to ask for pro-homos to hold such people accountable, too. Because character and ethics are not words liberals like to know exist too often.

---

Update feb 15-2005 - from Legal Affairs:

Can the Law Regulate Reckless Sex?

Sexually transmitted diseases can't be outlawed, but can the law slow their spread? In a forthcoming article in the University of Chicago Law Review, Ian Ayres and Katharine Baker propose adding the crime of "reckless sexual conduct" to the books. Citing data that shows that STDs are transmitted with disproportionate frequency the first time two people have sex, Ayres and Baker argue first-time intercourse without a condom should be punishable by putting the perpetrator in prison for three months.

But critics are skeptical about the ability of the proposed law to deal with a range of issues, from consent (What if a woman insists a man not use a condom?) to privacy (How will courts avoid the he-said/she-said problem that plagues rape prosecutions?).

Katharine Baker is Professor of Law and Associate Dean at the Chicago-Kent College of Law. Cheryl Hanna is Professor of Law at the Vermont Law School.

---

Update Feb 16-2005
Physicians and General Public Favor Mandatory HIV Testing; Views Support Findings of Recent Medical Report