Languish Gheys and/or Lawtalkers to Me

[Martinus]

You have a higher chance of getting HIV as a passive partner in anal sex while wearing a condom than you have when engaging in oral sex without a condom, btw.

I think I know why.

I corrected that post.

[Barrister]

Edit; and by sex I think the law means anal and vaginal penetration.

I thought the law refered to "infecting someone". Does it single out sexual activity in order to be liable? So if a HIV positive person put his or her infected blood in a syringe and randomly stabbed people with it, he or she would not be liable under this law? This is getting crazier with each moment. 

  WTF marty?  If you're running around stabbing people with a dirty syringe there's a whole separate category of crime you're committing...

[Martinus]

Ok but seriously - is this law limited to sex? I mean you can infect other people with a lot of dangerous diseases through a number of ways, whether knowingly or not.

If it is limited to (i) HIV, and (ii) sex, this does seem like it is indeed singling out gay people.

[Viking]

sigh.... the faggity polack lawtalker has lost it...

[The Brain]

This one shrills to 11.

[Barrister]

Ok but seriously - is this law limited to sex? I mean you can infect other people with a lot of dangerous diseases through a number of ways, whether knowingly or not.

If it is limited to (i) HIV, and (ii) sex, this does seem like it is indeed singling out gay people.

Well...

There are special laws about sex - it's the whole area of sexual assault / rape.  These laws are not limited to types of sex, and are not limited to HIV.  I have to admit that I am not aware of cases of aggravated sexual assault based on non-disclosure of other diseases, but legally there is no reason why it could not happen.

As well, if someone is, I dunno, SARS positive and goes around breathing on people they could theoretically be charged as well (although not for sexual assault).  However, sex is unique as it requires a high level of consent from the other person, and is unique in how easily a disease can be transmitted.

[dps]

It would be difficult/impossible to change the law to go after people who unknowingly transmit HIV though - you'd never get beyond the mens rea component, and crim neg really doesn't fit.

This would be largely true in the States as well.

Viking mentioned Typhoid Mary, but she doesn't really fit.  She wasn't locked up because she infected people without knowing that she was a carrier of typhoid--she was confined because after finding out that she was a carrier, she refused to stop working in jobs where she handled food.

It seems to me that these laws are determined by people who, like most of the posters in this thread, are woefully ignorant about how HIV (or other communicable diseases) can be transmitted.

Pretty much inevitable unless the majority of the legislature is made up of medical professionals who specialize in infectious diseases.

[garbon]

Pretty much inevitable unless the majority of the legislature is made up of medical professionals who specialize in infectious diseases.

That's why they have staffers/medical-legal experts.

Although I don't think Marti falls under either and he doesn't seem woefully ignorant about how HIV can be transmitted.

[Gups]

I think I have now boiled my question now.

"At what point does refusing to test yourself for HIV (or any other communicable disease) become negligent?"

The extremes are

1. Everytime you have unprotected penetrative sex

2. Never

As always it will depend on individual circumstances. Someone who is monogamous clearly can't infect his/her partner and is taking the risk himself.

A guy who has unprotected penetrative sex frequently with prostitutes or in backrooms in gay clubs is being recless to the point of deliberately infecting himself and his partners.

There's a broad spectrum between these extremes.

[Martinus]

I think I have now boiled my question now.

"At what point does refusing to test yourself for HIV (or any other communicable disease) become negligent?"

The extremes are

1. Everytime you have unprotected penetrative sex

2. Never

As always it will depend on individual circumstances. Someone who is monogamous clearly can't infect his/her partner and is taking the risk himself.

A guy who has unprotected penetrative sex frequently with prostitutes or in backrooms in gay clubs is being recless to the point of deliberately infecting himself and his partners.

There's a broad spectrum between these extremes.

What about backrooms in straight clubs?

See, but these are not the only considerations - and it is impossible to objectively assess them all, least in a way that forms a basis for a sound criminal law policy.

So in practice it would boil down to a moral judgement of whoever lifestyle the judge/the jury considers immoral.

[Martinus]

Also (again I am not sure how many people realize that), the period between the virus transmission and development of antibodies (i.e. it becoming detectable in tests) may be as long as 6 months. So are you saying that if you go on a date with one chick (who might be on a pill) and have unprotected sex with her, you should wait 6 months before going on a sex date with another chick, lest you are negligent? Are you more negligent if the first chick was black than if she was white?

Those, and other such wonderful questions would need to be answered if you wanted to have laws like this.

[Gups]

What about backrooms in straight clubs?

See, but these are not the only considerations - and it is impossible to objectively assess them all, least in a way that forms a basis for a sound criminal law policy.

So in practice it would boil down to a moral judgement of whoever lifestyle the judge/the jury considers immoral.

Those too. If they exist (which they don't).

I don't agree. I think it is simply a case of judging each case on its merits and assessing what a reasonable person would do in the same circumstances.

[garbon]

What about backrooms in straight clubs?

See, but these are not the only considerations - and it is impossible to objectively assess them all, least in a way that forms a basis for a sound criminal law policy.

So in practice it would boil down to a moral judgement of whoever lifestyle the judge/the jury considers immoral.

Those too. If they exist (which they don't).

I don't agree. I think it is simply a case of judging each case on its merits and assessing what a reasonable person would do in the same circumstances.

Straight sex clubs definitely exist though which is comparable.

[crazy canuck]

sigh.... the faggity polack lawtalker has lost it...

One must have something before it is lost...


As to the question you posed further up the thread regarding the point at which one becomes negligent by not obtaining a test - that is a very interesting question.

If one knows they engage in sexual or other risky behaviour that exposes them to risk of getting AIDs do they then have a duty to get tested - is it a form of wilful blindness not to get tested.

If the decision is made not to get tested would it be a defence if the person told their partner(s) that they have engaged in such risky behaviour but have not been tested?

To what extent does the partner have to make these enquires before engaging in sex?

[Martinus]

sigh.... the faggity polack lawtalker has lost it...

One must have something before it is lost...


As to the question you posed further up the thread regarding the point at which one becomes negligent by not obtaining a test - that is a very interesting question.

If one knows they engage in sexual or other risky behaviour that exposes them to risk of getting AIDs do they then have a duty to get tested - is it a form of wilful blindness not to get tested.

If the decision is made not to get tested would it be a defence if the person told their partner(s) that they have engaged in such risky behaviour but have not been tested?

To what extent does the partner have to make these enquires before engaging in sex?

The thing is, in 99% of cases, the "victim" to be infected is engaging in activities which carry similar level of risk as the "perpetrator" who infects that person (and the two are perfectly interchangeable), so penalizing the "perpetrator" for not exercising due care while the "victim" is not required to exercise the same due care, and the difference between them is simply about who got unlucky first, seems arbitrary.

Consider this syllogism:

1. If you believe that if person A tells person B, up front, before engaging in risky behavior, "I am infected", then it should exculpate person A, then...
2. If person A tells person B "I MAY be infected" in the same circumstances, this should also exculpate person A, then...
3. In circumstances that do not involve misrepresentation or breach of trust, person B should always assume that person A says "I may be infected" even if person A does not expressly say so.