http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dagbladet.no%2F2012%2F07%2F24%2Fnyheter%2Finnenriks%2Fpolitikk%2Fhelse%2Fhiv%2F22655069%2F
The law in Norway at present unwittingly infecting someone with HIV is a crime punishable by up to 3 years in prison. Apparently in Norway this is a LGBT issue (go figure). I have to admit this is very confusing for me. I feel I should be worked up about this and enraged but I don't know how and on which side of the issue.
The argument for changing the law is that the law at present disincentivizes testing and the rate of infection is increasing.
Is there any law anywhere else where transmitting infectious diseases is illegal?
How is unwittingly infecting someone with HIV different from unwittingly shooting somebody or unwittingly running them over with a car (legally and morally speaking)?
How does the disincentiviation work? The idea that people choose not to get tested to avoid the extra 3 prison years is just ludicrous and if anything demanding of a harsher sentence.
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 04:31:04 AM
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dagbladet.no%2F2012%2F07%2F24%2Fnyheter%2Finnenriks%2Fpolitikk%2Fhelse%2Fhiv%2F22655069%2F
The law in Norway at present unwittingly infecting someone with HIV is a crime punishable by up to 3 years in prison.
Monstrously unjust! :mad:
I can definitely remember a case or two in the UK with people getting imprisoned for purposfully infecting people.
I am confused by the OP - what is your argument and what exactly is the crime? Is it a crime if someone who has HIV but does not know it infects someone? Or is it only a crime if you know you have HIV and infect someone? Also, is the liability dependent on prior disclosure (i.e. it is not a crime if you inform someone up front about having HIV) and/or taking reasonable precautions (e.g. you use a condom and it breaks)?
Also does the law apply equally to other potentially lethal diseases such as tuberculosis and certain forms of hepatitis? If it just singles out HIV, I can see how this would be seen as motivated by animus rather than any serious health concerns.
There is a whole lot of issues like this to consider but your opening posts goes in circles and does not really address what your specific point here is.
Oh ok I think I understood what you mean - yeah, there is a concern that if you only penalize people who know they have HIV and infect someone, then you indeed disincentivize people to get tested.
Personally I think that infecting someone with a disease should not be illegal (whether the diseased person knew about being diseased or not), except where you could prove the actual intention to infect (e.g. someone plants germs in a well or something like this) - anyone who has unprotected sex with another person should be aware of the risk it carries, so I don't see how the entire responsibility should rest with the person who has the disease. You could make a case for disclosure, but again this is problematic - where do you draw a line - some interactions for people suffering from certain diseases may carry a risk of infection but the risk is 0.0000001% or so - should they be required to disclose their disease to the other person? And as I said, there is absolutely no reason to penalise differently someone infecting someone else with HIV than with hepatitis etc.
The reason the OP is confused on the issue is that I am confused on the issue and the OP reflects this. I can't frame the issue or define it.
The law the gheys want to remove (note social democrat and liberal-conservative gheys both) is the one banning infection with HIV regardless of knowledge of HIV state.
Now that I've had some time to let this issue settle.
On one side you have the analogy to vehicular manslaughter with if I understand it correctly (or if I understand it incorrectly use whatever it is that I am describing rather than the words I used) means that through negligence the driver caused the death of some bystander. I'm pretty sure these laws have clear definitions of culpability and standards for due care on the part of the driver.
On the other side you have the analogy to the cold or flu. While being infected with the cold or the flu (more people die of the flu than AIDS is western societies by a large margin) can be just as harmful as being hit by a car no legal standard seems to apply to carriers of the flu virus.
Some US jurisdictions have similar laws.
Semi-famous case a while back where a distinctly unmagical negro gave half the graduating class of a school in upstate New York the bug.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 24, 2012, 07:16:28 AM
Some US jurisdictions have similar laws.
Semi-famous case a while back where a distinctly unmagical negro gave half the graduating class of a school in upstate New York the bug.
Talk about jungle fever.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 24, 2012, 07:16:28 AM
Some US jurisdictions have similar laws.
Semi-famous case a while back where a distinctly unmagical negro gave half the graduating class of a school in upstate New York the bug.
Surely he must have been magical if he got that much tail.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 24, 2012, 07:16:28 AM
Some US jurisdictions have similar laws.
Semi-famous case a while back where a distinctly unmagical negro gave half the graduating class of a school in upstate New York the bug.
Impressive!
Quote from: Syt on July 24, 2012, 07:24:44 AM
Surely he must have been magical if he got that much tail.
Well he could have just given it to one person and it spread around. Of course...how would they know it was he who started it?
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 06:59:41 AMOn one side you have the analogy to vehicular manslaughter with if I understand it correctly (or if I understand it incorrectly use whatever it is that I am describing rather than the words I used) means that through negligence the driver caused the death of some bystander. I'm pretty sure these laws have clear definitions of culpability and standards for due care on the part of the driver.
The duty of care of a vehicle driver is quite different though than a duty of... well, who exactly? Someone breathing and as a result infecting someone else with a disease that can be transmitted that way? So I don't think this is a very good comparison. Unless you are making a point that each person's duty of care should be to act as if he or she was suffering from all existing transmittable diseases and take all applicabe precautions.
And as I said before, if this law only applies to HIV, this is a completely ridiculous case of discrimination compared to other lethal disease carriers.
Btw, does the law make it a crime even if the victim was aware of the disease or only if this wasn't disclosed?
If one does search convicted and infected in google, looks like all the top hits are a handful of stories about people who deliberate tried to infect others with HIV. And so yeah sounds a little bit like laws on the books because of scaremongering around HIV.
Though this one suggests that the UK convicted someone of causing grievous bodily harm for herpes : http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/19/jail-herpes-sexually-transmitted-infection
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 08:13:20 AM
The duty of care of a vehicle driver is quite different though than a duty of... well, who exactly? Someone breathing and as a result infecting someone else with a disease that can be transmitted that way? So I don't think this is a very good comparison. Unless you are making a point that each person's duty of care should be to act as if he or she was suffering from all existing transmittable diseases and take all applicabe precautions.
And as I said before, if this law only applies to HIV, this is a completely ridiculous case of discrimination compared to other lethal disease carriers.
Btw, does the law make it a crime even if the victim was aware of the disease or only if this wasn't disclosed?
No, I'm suggesting that there is a reasonable standard of care one can expect from a living breathing human living in a human society. Having or participating in disease risk factors would suggest a moral responsibility to be informed of one's own infection status. If you have lots and lots of unprotected anal sex at bath houses with lots and lots of different men who have lots and lots of unprotected anal sex at bath houses with lots and lots of different men then I think it is reasonable that you are responsible for determining your own HIV status and acting accordingly.
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 08:34:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 08:13:20 AM
The duty of care of a vehicle driver is quite different though than a duty of... well, who exactly? Someone breathing and as a result infecting someone else with a disease that can be transmitted that way? So I don't think this is a very good comparison. Unless you are making a point that each person's duty of care should be to act as if he or she was suffering from all existing transmittable diseases and take all applicabe precautions.
And as I said before, if this law only applies to HIV, this is a completely ridiculous case of discrimination compared to other lethal disease carriers.
Btw, does the law make it a crime even if the victim was aware of the disease or only if this wasn't disclosed?
No, I'm suggesting that there is a reasonable standard of care one can expect from a living breathing human living in a human society. Having or participating in disease risk factors would suggest a moral responsibility to be informed of one's own infection status. If you have lots and lots of unprotected anal sex at bath houses with lots and lots of different men who have lots and lots of unprotected anal sex at bath houses with lots and lots of different men then I think it is reasonable that you are responsible for determining your own HIV status and acting accordingly.
I don't see why "I don't know" wouldn't be a reasonable admission.
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 08:34:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 08:13:20 AM
The duty of care of a vehicle driver is quite different though than a duty of... well, who exactly? Someone breathing and as a result infecting someone else with a disease that can be transmitted that way? So I don't think this is a very good comparison. Unless you are making a point that each person's duty of care should be to act as if he or she was suffering from all existing transmittable diseases and take all applicabe precautions.
And as I said before, if this law only applies to HIV, this is a completely ridiculous case of discrimination compared to other lethal disease carriers.
Btw, does the law make it a crime even if the victim was aware of the disease or only if this wasn't disclosed?
No, I'm suggesting that there is a reasonable standard of care one can expect from a living breathing human living in a human society. Having or participating in disease risk factors would suggest a moral responsibility to be informed of one's own infection status. If you have lots and lots of unprotected anal sex at bath houses with lots and lots of different men who have lots and lots of unprotected anal sex at bath houses with lots and lots of different men then I think it is reasonable that you are responsible for determining your own HIV status and acting accordingly.
Again, why are you singling out HIV? It is neither as deadly a disease as it used to be nor is it the only lethal disease out there, nor the most vicious of them. So this law seems to be motivated by anti-HIV (read: anti-gay) scare.
And besides, your example only shows your ignorance - cases like this are never as clear cut. For example, currently the fastest growing HIV infected group in the US are straight monogamous Black and Latino women who are faithful in their marriages.
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 08:42:22 AM
And besides, your example only shows your ignorance - cases like this are never as clear cut. For example, currently the fastest growing HIV infected group in the US are straight monogamous Black and Latino women who are faithful in their marriages.
For the most part that group probably isn't infecting anyone (beyond potentially childbirth) if they are monogamous halves. :P
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 08:42:10 AM
I don't see why "I don't know" wouldn't be a reasonable admission.
Well, to get back to the traffic analogy. "I don't know" is not a reasonable admission if the fact in question is "is there a pedestrian in on the road in front of my car" when you are not looking at the road in front of your car. You are expected to be vigilant in traffic and if you are not vigilant then you a liable for the consequences of your negligence.
I'm trying to figure out at what point the onus is on you the check if you are HIV positive, there is a point at which your risk factors are such that it would be irresponsible to not investigate.
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 08:57:04 AM
Well, to get back to the traffic analogy. "I don't know" is not a reasonable admission if the fact in question is "is there a pedestrian in on the road in front of my car" when you are not looking at the road in front of your car. You are expected to be vigilant in traffic and if you are not vigilant then you a liable for the consequences of your negligence.
I'm trying to figure out at what point the onus is on you the check if you are HIV positive, there is a point at which your risk factors are such that it would be irresponsible to not investigate.
But that's not similar. After all, you don't need a test to see if pedestrians are in front of your car or not - you just look out. Learning if you are HIV-positive costs some amount of money/time - I'm not sure why there should be any onus on a person to find out and then divulge this sort of health information.
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 08:42:22 AM
Again, why are you singling out HIV? It is neither as deadly a disease as it used to be nor is it the only lethal disease out there, nor the most vicious of them. So this law seems to be motivated by anti-HIV (read: anti-gay) scare.
And besides, your example only shows your ignorance - cases like this are never as clear cut. For example, currently the fastest growing HIV infected group in the US are straight monogamous Black and Latino women who are faithful in their marriages.
The law singles out the HIV. I'm don't think I am. HIV is my example. I think the same questions apply to any infectious diseases. I could have used Typhoid Mary as an example here for the same effect. I used HIV since it is singled out in this specific law.
I'm trying to figure out why HIV needed it's own law, if deliberate infection or inadvertent infection (I asked out this in the OP) is punishable by law anywhere for any other diseases and what the moral and legal obligation I have to ensure that I don't infect others if I have a communicable disease.
I know this is not clear cut this is why I am confused. I suggest you take of your pink ghey goggles and read what I wrote and not filter it through your homophobe detection subroutine you use in daily life, you already know I am not a homophobe; I just find male gay sex icky.
Viking, you haven't answered my question - what about prior disclosure.
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 08:42:22 AM
For example, currently the fastest growing HIV infected group in the US are straight monogamous Black and Latino women who are faithful in their marriages.
And we need to come down hard on those deviants!
But seriously the most new cases of HIV every year are married monogamous people? Go figure.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 09:03:31 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 08:57:04 AM
Well, to get back to the traffic analogy. "I don't know" is not a reasonable admission if the fact in question is "is there a pedestrian in on the road in front of my car" when you are not looking at the road in front of your car. You are expected to be vigilant in traffic and if you are not vigilant then you a liable for the consequences of your negligence.
I'm trying to figure out at what point the onus is on you the check if you are HIV positive, there is a point at which your risk factors are such that it would be irresponsible to not investigate.
But that's not similar. After all, you don't need a test to see if pedestrians are in front of your car or not - you just look out. Learning if you are HIV-positive costs some amount of money/time - I'm not sure why there should be any onus on a person to find out and then divulge this sort of health information.
I would suggest that looking is the test and the act of looking has an opportunity cost; I could spend those seconds snorting coke off my dashboard.
But, to restate the analogy. Remember, I'm not trying to argue a point, I'm using Languish to clarify my thinking on this. How is the cost of the HIV test (free and anonymous at walk in clinics here in Norway) different from the cost of a gun safe for storing guns when it comes to children and self inflicted gun wounds. The owner of the gun is liable for it's use if it is not stored correctly. If the law doesn't specify correct storage there is still a standard of what any reasonable person would consider safe storage that would have to be me.
I'm saying that somebody who had repeated sexual encounters with Magic Johnson, Freddy Mercury and Rock Hudson while injecting HIV infected blood twice a day into his blood stream has cannot use the excuse "I didn't know", while a virgin who has never been pierced by a hypodermic needle can use it. In between there is a wide spectrum of people and behaviors. At what point on that spectrum does the excuse "I didn't know" cease to be reasonable?
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:11:05 AM
Viking, you haven't answered my question - what about prior disclosure.
The law punishes unknowing infection with up to 3 years and intentional infection with 6. I think the law considers having unprotected sex while HIV positive as intentional infection. I don't know what effect the state of knowledge of the person being infected has on this, but knowing norway; presumably agreeing to be infected or agreeing to risk being infected is a sign of mental illness or coercion (in which case it would be rape as well).
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 08:42:22 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 08:34:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 08:13:20 AM
The duty of care of a vehicle driver is quite different though than a duty of... well, who exactly? Someone breathing and as a result infecting someone else with a disease that can be transmitted that way? So I don't think this is a very good comparison. Unless you are making a point that each person's duty of care should be to act as if he or she was suffering from all existing transmittable diseases and take all applicabe precautions.
And as I said before, if this law only applies to HIV, this is a completely ridiculous case of discrimination compared to other lethal disease carriers.
Btw, does the law make it a crime even if the victim was aware of the disease or only if this wasn't disclosed?
No, I'm suggesting that there is a reasonable standard of care one can expect from a living breathing human living in a human society. Having or participating in disease risk factors would suggest a moral responsibility to be informed of one's own infection status. If you have lots and lots of unprotected anal sex at bath houses with lots and lots of different men who have lots and lots of unprotected anal sex at bath houses with lots and lots of different men then I think it is reasonable that you are responsible for determining your own HIV status and acting accordingly.
Again, why are you singling out HIV? It is neither as deadly a disease as it used to be nor is it the only lethal disease out there, nor the most vicious of them. So this law seems to be motivated by anti-HIV (read: anti-gay) scare.
And besides, your example only shows your ignorance - cases like this are never as clear cut. For example, currently the fastest growing HIV infected group in the US are straight monogamous Black and Latino women who are faithful in their marriages.
With agressive drug therapy HIV is no longer lethal - it doesn't mean the disease itself isn't still lethal. You'll still die without your retroviral drugs if you're HIV positive.
The issue is subtle enough that I'm probably missing something reading a machine-transleted article.
In Canada, people can and are convicted of aggravated sexual assault if they
knowingly have unprotected sex without disclosing they are HIV positive. I suppose there is some risk that might discourage people from finding out their HIS status, but given that it is a lethal disease without treatment I think there is a pretty large incentive to getting tested no matter what.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 09:11:18 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 08:42:22 AM
For example, currently the fastest growing HIV infected group in the US are straight monogamous Black and Latino women who are faithful in their marriages.
And we need to come down hard on those deviants!
But seriously the most new cases of HIV every year are married monogamous people? Go figure.
:huh:
That demo is expanding because while the female partner is monogamous, the male partner is not.
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 09:17:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:11:05 AM
Viking, you haven't answered my question - what about prior disclosure.
The law punishes unknowing infection with up to 3 years and intentional infection with 6. I think the law considers having unprotected sex while HIV positive as intentional infection. I don't know what effect the state of knowledge of the person being infected has on this, but knowing norway; presumably agreeing to be infected or agreeing to risk being infected is a sign of mental illness or coercion (in which case it would be rape as well).
Are you saying that under Norwegian law a person who is HIV positive cannot legally have sex with another person without committing a crime? That's fucked up beyond anything that was said in this thread so far. :wacko:
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 09:13:39 AM
At what point on that spectrum does the excuse "I didn't know" cease to be reasonable?
I think it should be reasonable across the board. After all, in most cases said individual can't infect anyone unless there is a willing partner. (In the cases of unwilling partners - we have a crime for that.)
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 09:20:16 AM
In Canada, people can and are convicted of aggravated sexual assault if they knowingly have unprotected sex without disclosing they are HIV positive. I suppose there is some risk that might discourage people from finding out their HIS status, but given that it is a lethal disease without treatment I think there is a pretty large incentive to getting tested no matter what.
Is it also a crime if one had sexual relations with someone without disclosing they had Ebola?
Anyway, your last bit is odd considering a big part of the HIV epidemic is that people aren't getting tested and then continuing to have unprotected sex.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 09:20:16 AM
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 is what the status of the law in norway as is. It is illegal to unknowingly transmit HIV in Norway. Punishable by up to three years in prison.
This is the law the bi-partisan ghey lobby in norway wants to remove.
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?"
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:22:00 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 09:17:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:11:05 AM
Viking, you haven't answered my question - what about prior disclosure.
The law punishes unknowing infection with up to 3 years and intentional infection with 6. I think the law considers having unprotected sex while HIV positive as intentional infection. I don't know what effect the state of knowledge of the person being infected has on this, but knowing norway; presumably agreeing to be infected or agreeing to risk being infected is a sign of mental illness or coercion (in which case it would be rape as well).
Are you saying that under Norwegian law a person who is HIV positive cannot legally have sex with another person without committing a crime? That's fucked up beyond anything that was said in this thread so far. :wacko:
Well unprotected sex isn't the only kind of sex but I agree with your sentiment.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 09:11:18 AM
But seriously the most new cases of HIV every year are married monogamous people? Go figure.
Fastest growing population does not equal most new cases. You go from 2 to 10 cases in one year that's a very fast growing population.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 09:20:16 AMIn Canada, people can and are convicted of aggravated sexual assault if they knowingly have unprotected sex without disclosing they are HIV positive. I suppose there is some risk that might discourage people from finding out their HIS status, but given that it is a lethal disease without treatment I think there is a pretty large incentive to getting tested no matter what.
The problem with such law is that, except for a situation when you have truly intentional HIV infection (i.e. someone deliberately trying to get the other person infected), there is no such thing as "safe" sex - there are just various degrees of protection and risk involved. This makes for very bad grounds for criminal liability unless you are saying that a HIV positive person should not be having sex at all - for example using a condom is not a 100% protection against infection, while on the other hand some forms of "unprotected" sex are mostly safe (e.g. oral sex). In such cases, when would someone be facing criminal liability? When the infection actually happened? (So you would go to prison based on a luck or lack thereof) Or something else?
If anything, we should base criminal liability on the up-front disclosure - and let the other sex partner decide if he wants to take the risk or not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 24, 2012, 09:27:16 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 09:11:18 AM
But seriously the most new cases of HIV every year are married monogamous people? Go figure.
Fastest growing population does not equal most new cases. You go from 2 to 10 cases in one year that's a very fast growing population.
Yeah.
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:22:00 AM
Are you saying that under Norwegian law a person who is HIV positive cannot legally have sex with another person without committing a crime? That's fucked up beyond anything that was said in this thread so far. :wacko:
Yes, it seems that an HIV positive person cannot have unprotected sec with an HIV negative person regardless of his or her knowledge of HIV status without it being a crime.
Safe sex and unprotected sex between two HIV positive partners doesn't seem to be a crime.
Edit; and by sex I think the law means anal and vaginal penetration.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 09:26:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:22:00 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 09:17:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:11:05 AM
Viking, you haven't answered my question - what about prior disclosure.
The law punishes unknowing infection with up to 3 years and intentional infection with 6. I think the law considers having unprotected sex while HIV positive as intentional infection. I don't know what effect the state of knowledge of the person being infected has on this, but knowing norway; presumably agreeing to be infected or agreeing to risk being infected is a sign of mental illness or coercion (in which case it would be rape as well).
Are you saying that under Norwegian law a person who is HIV positive cannot legally have sex with another person without committing a crime? That's fucked up beyond anything that was said in this thread so far. :wacko:
Well unprotected sex isn't the only kind of sex but I agree with your sentiment.
No method offers 100% protection, so in a sense all sex is unprotected.
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:30:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 09:26:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:22:00 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 09:17:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:11:05 AM
Viking, you haven't answered my question - what about prior disclosure.
The law punishes unknowing infection with up to 3 years and intentional infection with 6. I think the law considers having unprotected sex while HIV positive as intentional infection. I don't know what effect the state of knowledge of the person being infected has on this, but knowing norway; presumably agreeing to be infected or agreeing to risk being infected is a sign of mental illness or coercion (in which case it would be rape as well).
Are you saying that under Norwegian law a person who is HIV positive cannot legally have sex with another person without committing a crime? That's fucked up beyond anything that was said in this thread so far. :wacko:
Well unprotected sex isn't the only kind of sex but I agree with your sentiment.
No method offers 100% protection, so in a sense all sex is unprotected.
:hmm: Interesting theory.
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:30:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 09:26:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:22:00 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 09:17:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:11:05 AM
Viking, you haven't answered my question - what about prior disclosure.
The law punishes unknowing infection with up to 3 years and intentional infection with 6. I think the law considers having unprotected sex while HIV positive as intentional infection. I don't know what effect the state of knowledge of the person being infected has on this, but knowing norway; presumably agreeing to be infected or agreeing to risk being infected is a sign of mental illness or coercion (in which case it would be rape as well).
Are you saying that under Norwegian law a person who is HIV positive cannot legally have sex with another person without committing a crime? That's fucked up beyond anything that was said in this thread so far. :wacko:
Well unprotected sex isn't the only kind of sex but I agree with your sentiment.
No method offers 100% protection, so in a sense all sex is unprotected.
Do you think that's what their law means?
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 09:30:13 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:22:00 AM
Are you saying that under Norwegian law a person who is HIV positive cannot legally have sex with another person without committing a crime? That's fucked up beyond anything that was said in this thread so far. :wacko:
Yes, it seems that an HIV positive person cannot have unprotected sec with an HIV negative person regardless of his or her knowledge of HIV status without it being a crime.
Safe sex and unprotected sex between two HIV positive partners doesn't seem to be a crime.
"Safe sex" is a misnomer. So are you going to set some arbitrary "infection risk percentage" below which you are not liable? What is it? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%?
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:27:18 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 09:20:16 AMIn Canada, people can and are convicted of aggravated sexual assault if they knowingly have unprotected sex without disclosing they are HIV positive. I suppose there is some risk that might discourage people from finding out their HIS status, but given that it is a lethal disease without treatment I think there is a pretty large incentive to getting tested no matter what.
The problem with such law is that, except for a situation when you have truly intentional HIV infection (i.e. someone deliberately trying to get the other person infected), there is no such thing as "safe" sex - there are just various degrees of protection and risk involved. This makes for very bad grounds for criminal liability unless you are saying that a HIV positive person should not be having sex at all - for example using a condom is not a 100% protection against infection, while on the other hand some forms of "unprotected" sex are mostly safe (e.g. oral sex). In such cases, when would someone be facing criminal liability? When the infection actually happened? (So you would go to prison based on a luck or lack thereof) Or something else?
If anything, we should base criminal liability on the up-front disclosure - and let the other sex partner decide if he wants to take the risk or not.
"safe sex" means a condom. Fair point that condoms are not 100% effective, but that seems to me to be a fairly bright line for determining criminal behaviour.
Of course people should be up front and disclose their status. It is one option to say "you must disclose your status before engaging in any kind of sexual behaviour, protected or not", but that seems a bit harsher than perhaps it needs to be.
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 09:30:13 AM
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. :lol:
Mart, Mart, Mart...
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 09:26:01 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 09:20:16 AM
In Canada, people can and are convicted of aggravated sexual assault if they knowingly have unprotected sex without disclosing they are HIV positive. I suppose there is some risk that might discourage people from finding out their HIS status, but given that it is a lethal disease without treatment I think there is a pretty large incentive to getting tested no matter what.
Is it also a crime if one had sexual relations with someone without disclosing they had Ebola?
Anyway, your last bit is odd considering a big part of the HIV epidemic is that people aren't getting tested and then continuing to have unprotected sex.
Oh and though I picked a far out example here - I'm still trying to get at what Marti had asked. Is HIV that different that it should have special rules? (Or maybe in Canada it doesn't?)
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 09:35:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:27:18 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 09:20:16 AMIn Canada, people can and are convicted of aggravated sexual assault if they knowingly have unprotected sex without disclosing they are HIV positive. I suppose there is some risk that might discourage people from finding out their HIS status, but given that it is a lethal disease without treatment I think there is a pretty large incentive to getting tested no matter what.
The problem with such law is that, except for a situation when you have truly intentional HIV infection (i.e. someone deliberately trying to get the other person infected), there is no such thing as "safe" sex - there are just various degrees of protection and risk involved. This makes for very bad grounds for criminal liability unless you are saying that a HIV positive person should not be having sex at all - for example using a condom is not a 100% protection against infection, while on the other hand some forms of "unprotected" sex are mostly safe (e.g. oral sex). In such cases, when would someone be facing criminal liability? When the infection actually happened? (So you would go to prison based on a luck or lack thereof) Or something else?
If anything, we should base criminal liability on the up-front disclosure - and let the other sex partner decide if he wants to take the risk or not.
"safe sex" means a condom. Fair point that condoms are not 100% effective, but that seems to me to be a fairly bright line for determining criminal behaviour.
Of course people should be up front and disclose their status. It is one option to say "you must disclose your status before engaging in any kind of sexual behaviour, protected or not", but that seems a bit harsher than perhaps it needs to be.
Just to clarify, are we talking only about anal and vaginal sex or e.g. also oral sex? You have a higher chance of getting HIV as a passive partner in anal sex when the active partner is wearing a condom than you have when engaging in oral sex without a condom, btw.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:37:17 AM
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.
:hmm: I think I know why.
Quote from: The Brain on July 24, 2012, 09:38:51 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:37:17 AM
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.
:hmm: I think I know why.
I corrected that post. :D
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:35:32 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 09:30:13 AM
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. :lol:
:huh: WTF marty? If you're running around stabbing people with a dirty syringe there's a whole separate category of crime you're committing...
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.
sigh.... the faggity polack lawtalker has lost it...
This one shrills to 11.
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:44:38 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 09:20:16 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus
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.
Quote from: dps on July 24, 2012, 10:36:33 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 09:26:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Gups on July 24, 2012, 11:13:20 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 09:26:32 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 09:20:16 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 11:34:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Gups on July 24, 2012, 11:50:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 11:34:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 09:47:45 AM
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?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 01:18:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 09:47:45 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 02:32:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 01:18:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 09:47:45 AM
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.
You assuming gay sex. My examples are broader than that. For example if person B does not know that person A is an intravenous drug user and there is no other indication that person A is involved in any other risky behaviour then why should person B have a legal obligation to assume their would be partner might be infected.
Also, if a woman has no idea that her male partner is engaging in gay sex (or any other risky behaviour) then why should she have to assume a risk of infection?
As for gay sex, I will have to take your word the chances are so great that your partner is infected that there should be a legal presumption of infection. But I know a number of gay couples that would likely find such an inference rather insulting.
Quote from: The Brain on July 24, 2012, 09:38:51 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:37:17 AM
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.
:hmm: I think I know why.
:lmfao: There is a Pollack joke in there somewhere.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 09:20:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 08:42:22 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 08:34:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 08:13:20 AM
The duty of care of a vehicle driver is quite different though than a duty of... well, who exactly? Someone breathing and as a result infecting someone else with a disease that can be transmitted that way? So I don't think this is a very good comparison. Unless you are making a point that each person's duty of care should be to act as if he or she was suffering from all existing transmittable diseases and take all applicabe precautions.
And as I said before, if this law only applies to HIV, this is a completely ridiculous case of discrimination compared to other lethal disease carriers.
Btw, does the law make it a crime even if the victim was aware of the disease or only if this wasn't disclosed?
No, I'm suggesting that there is a reasonable standard of care one can expect from a living breathing human living in a human society. Having or participating in disease risk factors would suggest a moral responsibility to be informed of one's own infection status. If you have lots and lots of unprotected anal sex at bath houses with lots and lots of different men who have lots and lots of unprotected anal sex at bath houses with lots and lots of different men then I think it is reasonable that you are responsible for determining your own HIV status and acting accordingly.
Again, why are you singling out HIV? It is neither as deadly a disease as it used to be nor is it the only lethal disease out there, nor the most vicious of them. So this law seems to be motivated by anti-HIV (read: anti-gay) scare.
And besides, your example only shows your ignorance - cases like this are never as clear cut. For example, currently the fastest growing HIV infected group in the US are straight monogamous Black and Latino women who are faithful in their marriages.
With agressive drug therapy HIV is no longer lethal - it doesn't mean the disease itself isn't still lethal. You'll still die without your retroviral drugs if you're HIV positive.
The issue is subtle enough that I'm probably missing something reading a machine-transleted article.
In Canada, people can and are convicted of aggravated sexual assault if they knowingly have unprotected sex without disclosing they are HIV positive. I suppose there is some risk that might discourage people from finding out their HIS status, but given that it is a lethal disease without treatment I think there is a pretty large incentive to getting tested no matter what.
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.
I dunno. Some serious crimes don't require a mens rea. Why would this be different? Theoretically speaking--I certainly agree from a policy standpoint, but is there a Canadian requirement that, say, felonies or your precious little hybrid offenses (bastards) include a mental element of intent rather than ours, which require, in some circumstances, none whatsoever? (Famously, statutory rape--which when the perp is unaware of the age and has no reason to know it, is very similar to unwitting infection in the sense that the perp had no idea what he was doing was either wrong or was a crime.)
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:22:00 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 09:17:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:11:05 AM
Viking, you haven't answered my question - what about prior disclosure.
The law punishes unknowing infection with up to 3 years and intentional infection with 6. I think the law considers having unprotected sex while HIV positive as intentional infection. I don't know what effect the state of knowledge of the person being infected has on this, but knowing norway; presumably agreeing to be infected or agreeing to risk being infected is a sign of mental illness or coercion (in which case it would be rape as well).
Are you saying that under Norwegian law a person who is HIV positive cannot legally have sex with another person without committing a crime? That's fucked up beyond anything that was said in this thread so far. :wacko:
I believe you're incorrect. Infection appears to be an element, doesn't it? I mean, it's in the name.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 05:39:44 PM
As for gay sex, I will have to take your word the chances are so great that your partner is infected that there should be a legal presumption of infection. But I know a number of gay couples that would likely find such an inference rather insulting.
Then like Mart they'd be easily offended. I don't think it is offensive or odd to suggest that as a gay man one should start with the assumption that a potential sexual partner has HIV.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2012, 08:40:40 PM
I dunno. Some serious crimes don't require a mens rea. Why would this be different? Theoretically speaking--I certainly agree from a policy standpoint, but is there a Canadian requirement that, say, felonies or your precious little hybrid offenses (bastards) include a mental element of intent rather than ours, which require, in some circumstances, none whatsoever? (Famously, statutory rape--which when the perp is unaware of the age and has no reason to know it, is very similar to unwitting infection in the sense that the perp had no idea what he was doing was either wrong or was a crime.)
:huh:
There are some regulatory offences which operate on strict liability - which means no
mens rea.
But EVERY CRIME requires mens rea. Stat rape has a
mens rea - you need to show the accused knew, or more likely the accused should have known and was willfully blind, to the girl's age.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 09:45:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 05:39:44 PM
As for gay sex, I will have to take your word the chances are so great that your partner is infected that there should be a legal presumption of infection. But I know a number of gay couples that would likely find such an inference rather insulting.
Then like Mart they'd be easily offended. I don't think it is offensive or odd to suggest that as a gay man one should start with the assumption that a potential sexual partner has HIV.
I think it is a diligent assumption if one engages in straight sex with a random partner, too. I always love when straight people are surprised and shocked to find out they caught something from some girl or guy they just fucked (like one Languish poster for example).
Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2012, 08:40:40 PMI dunno. Some serious crimes don't require a mens rea. Why would this be different? Theoretically speaking--I certainly agree from a policy standpoint, but is there a Canadian requirement that, say, felonies or your precious little hybrid offenses (bastards) include a mental element of intent rather than ours, which require, in some circumstances, none whatsoever? (Famously, statutory rape--which when the perp is unaware of the age and has no reason to know it, is very similar to unwitting infection in the sense that the perp had no idea what he was doing was either wrong or was a crime.)
But once you accept the fact that it should not be the crime once the "victim" is aware that his or her partner may be infected, then I don't really see why the infecting party "should have known" that he or she is infected, but the "victim" "should not have known" that her partner may be infected. If you are engaging in risky sex with strangers, I don't think you should be able to cry foul and have criminal charges brought against someone who infected you - because you were as likely to infect him or her in such situation, had you been infected by someone else earlier.
And while HIV is harder to pass between heterosexuals in situations where the woman has HIV and the guy does not, there is a host of other diseases like syphilis that are now having a renaissance of sorts that can be deadly if untested/untreated (and I would like to see the statistics on how many of people posting in this thread got tested for syphilis at any time in their lives), among both gay and straight populations, so I don't think how assuming your newly met sex partner is infected with something is wrong or insulting.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 05:39:44 PMAs for gay sex, I will have to take your word the chances are so great that your partner is infected that there should be a legal presumption of infection. But I know a number of gay couples that would likely find such an inference rather insulting.
It's not about the chances, it's about the fact that it's enough to be "wrong" once in a thousand and it's still bad for you. You could just as well claim that it is offensive to require a good driver to wear a seat belt, because it's insulting to suggest he has a high chance of being in a car crash.
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 01:00:00 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 05:39:44 PMAs for gay sex, I will have to take your word the chances are so great that your partner is infected that there should be a legal presumption of infection. But I know a number of gay couples that would likely find such an inference rather insulting.
It's not about the chances, it's about the fact that it's enough to be "wrong" once in a thousand and it's still bad for you. You could just as well claim that it is offensive to require a good driver to wear a seat belt, because it's insulting to suggest he has a high chance of being in a car crash.
Holy crap. Did you just make a relevant and coherent analogy? :o
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 05:39:44 PM
You assuming gay sex. My examples are broader than that. For example if person B does not know that person A is an intravenous drug user and there is no other indication that person A is involved in any other risky behaviour then why should person B have a legal obligation to assume their would be partner might be infected.
Also, if a woman has no idea that her male partner is engaging in gay sex (or any other risky behaviour) then why should she have to assume a risk of infection?
First of all, I love how "gay sex" is automatically risky behavior to you - I thought this was about using protection and not who you fuck.
Now, to the point. The duty of care when you are having a new sexual partner should be:
1. Have safer sex initially.
2. Once you decide to go "exclusive" and want to drop the protection, both of you should get tested.
3. Once you get the negative tests, you should start fucking without protection.
Now, indeed, if a situation like this, one of the partners continues to cheat on the other partner, without that partner's knowledge or consent, and infects the faithful partner, this should in principle be actionable - but then I have always said that, when I made a caveat for fraud/misrepresentation.
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 01:03:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 01:00:00 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 05:39:44 PMAs for gay sex, I will have to take your word the chances are so great that your partner is infected that there should be a legal presumption of infection. But I know a number of gay couples that would likely find such an inference rather insulting.
It's not about the chances, it's about the fact that it's enough to be "wrong" once in a thousand and it's still bad for you. You could just as well claim that it is offensive to require a good driver to wear a seat belt, because it's insulting to suggest he has a high chance of being in a car crash.
Holy crap. Did you just make a relevant and coherent analogy? :o
:showoff:
Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2012, 08:41:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:22:00 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2012, 09:17:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 09:11:05 AM
Viking, you haven't answered my question - what about prior disclosure.
The law punishes unknowing infection with up to 3 years and intentional infection with 6. I think the law considers having unprotected sex while HIV positive as intentional infection. I don't know what effect the state of knowledge of the person being infected has on this, but knowing norway; presumably agreeing to be infected or agreeing to risk being infected is a sign of mental illness or coercion (in which case it would be rape as well).
Are you saying that under Norwegian law a person who is HIV positive cannot legally have sex with another person without committing a crime? That's fucked up beyond anything that was said in this thread so far. :wacko:
I believe you're incorrect. Infection appears to be an element, doesn't it? I mean, it's in the name.
Ok but then as I said before, whether you would be committing a crime or not in this particular instance would depend on luck, which in my opinion does not meet the standard for criminal liability - because no method is 100% safe; you could be fucked in the ass by 10 HIV infected dudes and not catch HIV; but you could get a blow job from a HIV infected girl, who inadvertently bites your dick and her cheek at the same time and get HIV. That's why I asked before if we set the standard of care at some arbitrary percentage of infection risk (apparently, getting HIV while getting a blow job has about 0.0001% of chance of infection - but it can happen).
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 01:03:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 01:00:00 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 05:39:44 PMAs for gay sex, I will have to take your word the chances are so great that your partner is infected that there should be a legal presumption of infection. But I know a number of gay couples that would likely find such an inference rather insulting.
It's not about the chances, it's about the fact that it's enough to be "wrong" once in a thousand and it's still bad for you. You could just as well claim that it is offensive to require a good driver to wear a seat belt, because it's insulting to suggest he has a high chance of being in a car crash.
Holy crap. Did you just make a relevant and coherent analogy? :o
Who hacked his account?
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 10:43:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2012, 08:40:40 PM
I dunno. Some serious crimes don't require a mens rea. Why would this be different? Theoretically speaking--I certainly agree from a policy standpoint, but is there a Canadian requirement that, say, felonies or your precious little hybrid offenses (bastards) include a mental element of intent rather than ours, which require, in some circumstances, none whatsoever? (Famously, statutory rape--which when the perp is unaware of the age and has no reason to know it, is very similar to unwitting infection in the sense that the perp had no idea what he was doing was either wrong or was a crime.)
:huh:
There are some regulatory offences which operate on strict liability - which means no mens rea.
But EVERY CRIME requires mens rea. Stat rape has a mens rea - you need to show the accused knew, or more likely the accused should have known and was willfully blind, to the girl's age.
No, you don't.
And don't go look up the federal statute, because, yeah, it
does have a mens rea component. However, many state ones don't.
That's why I asked if "in Canada," which is not all the common law world. :P
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 10:43:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2012, 08:40:40 PM
I dunno. Some serious crimes don't require a mens rea. Why would this be different? Theoretically speaking--I certainly agree from a policy standpoint, but is there a Canadian requirement that, say, felonies or your precious little hybrid offenses (bastards) include a mental element of intent rather than ours, which require, in some circumstances, none whatsoever? (Famously, statutory rape--which when the perp is unaware of the age and has no reason to know it, is very similar to unwitting infection in the sense that the perp had no idea what he was doing was either wrong or was a crime.)
:huh:
There are some regulatory offences which operate on strict liability - which means no mens rea.
But EVERY CRIME requires mens rea. Stat rape has a mens rea - you need to show the accused knew, or more likely the accused should have known and was willfully blind, to the girl's age.
There are a number of UK criminal laws which are strict liability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 01:03:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 01:00:00 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2012, 05:39:44 PMAs for gay sex, I will have to take your word the chances are so great that your partner is infected that there should be a legal presumption of infection. But I know a number of gay couples that would likely find such an inference rather insulting.
It's not about the chances, it's about the fact that it's enough to be "wrong" once in a thousand and it's still bad for you. You could just as well claim that it is offensive to require a good driver to wear a seat belt, because it's insulting to suggest he has a high chance of being in a car crash.
Holy crap. Did you just make a relevant and coherent analogy? :o
:o Must be that "once in a thousand" thing Marty was talking about.
Quote from: Gups on July 25, 2012, 08:42:59 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 10:43:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2012, 08:40:40 PM
I dunno. Some serious crimes don't require a mens rea. Why would this be different? Theoretically speaking--I certainly agree from a policy standpoint, but is there a Canadian requirement that, say, felonies or your precious little hybrid offenses (bastards) include a mental element of intent rather than ours, which require, in some circumstances, none whatsoever? (Famously, statutory rape--which when the perp is unaware of the age and has no reason to know it, is very similar to unwitting infection in the sense that the perp had no idea what he was doing was either wrong or was a crime.)
:huh:
There are some regulatory offences which operate on strict liability - which means no mens rea.
But EVERY CRIME requires mens rea. Stat rape has a mens rea - you need to show the accused knew, or more likely the accused should have known and was willfully blind, to the girl's age.
There are a number of UK criminal laws which are strict liability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)
Unless the term has a different meaning in the UK, strict liability offences still have a
mens rea - it's just one of due dilligence. There are offences which are absolute liability, which accords no defence of due dilligence, but those are limited to regulatory offences.
Strict liability in the UK means precisely that the prosecutor does not need to demonstrate mens rea to secure a conviction. I don't think there is such a thing as absolute liability.
To take an example from the Wiki article:
The imposition of strict liability may operate very unfairly in individual cases. For example, in Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain (1986) 2 ALL ER 635, a pharmacist supplied drugs to a patient who presented a forged doctor's prescription, but was convicted even though the House of Lords accepted that the pharmacist was blameless.
Quote from: Gups on July 25, 2012, 09:27:07 AM
Strict liability in the UK means precisely that the prosecutor does not need to demonstrate mens rea to secure a conviction. I don't think there is such a thing as absolute liability.
To take an example from the Wiki article:
The imposition of strict liability may operate very unfairly in individual cases. For example, in Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain (1986) 2 ALL ER 635, a pharmacist supplied drugs to a patient who presented a forged doctor's prescription, but was convicted even though the House of Lords accepted that the pharmacist was blameless.
Well then maybe the two systems have diverged on that point.
Your own link does discuss the Canadian approach and the
Sault Ste. Marie case.
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 01:06:57 AM
First of all, I love how "gay sex" is automatically risky behavior to you - I thought this was about using protection and not who you fuck.
Ok if you are going to shift from 99.9999 percent of the time it is risky to now making this comment we are through here.