dsals@vms.macc.wisc.edu (David Sals) (02/01/91)
Hello, My name is David Sals. I apologize for the last message
I sent--I am still learning this system. I am currently taking
a debate class at the University in Madison, and am involved in
the following issue:
If a person knows that they have AIDS (or HIV), and engages in
sexual activities without telling their partner of this disease,
and if the partner contracts the AIDS virus and dies, should the
first person be charged with murder?
I am arguing that they should not be charged. As of yet, I have
only gut feelings about the issue and some questions:
Does this same question apply to lesser diseases, such as
Herpes?
Should it matter if the person tells their partner or not?
Can the contracting of the disease be considered a crime
even if no one has yet died?
I do not wish to offend anyone with these questions. I am
regrettably quite ignorant around legal AIDS issues, but I am
open to any information, suggestons, criticisms or arguments
that you would like to give, for either side of the issue. Also,
If you have suggestions as to where I might go for additional
information, that would be deeply appreciated.
Thank you for any responses. I would love to engage in one or
more discussions about this or a related issue.
Sincerely,
:-D avebcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) (02/11/91)
In article <1991Feb1.115859.12276@cs.ucla.edu>, dsals@vms.macc.wisc.edu (David Sals) writes: > > If a person knows that they have AIDS (or HIV), and engages in > sexual activities without telling their partner of this disease, > and if the partner contracts the AIDS virus and dies, should the > first person be charged with murder? I don't believe that this would constitute murder in most States. In order for murder to be found, there has to be malice, and this would be very difficult to show under these circumstances. It could very well be construed as manslaughter - killing someone inadvertently through reckless disregard for the safety and lives of other people. That's still a felony, but _much_ less serious: nobody gets executed for manslaughter. In practical terms, I sort of doubt that such a case would ever be brought to trial - it would be difficult to _prove_ that that was how AIDS had been contracted (rather than from another source), and besides most court systems are busy enough as it is, this kind of case would have to drain effort away from other important cases. A case of reckless endangerment might be more tenable (since you don't have to prove cause). Even so I sort of doubt most criminal courts would find it worth their while. Not so for civil suits which could be brought by the injured party or their estate ... but that's a different matter. Bruce C. Wright
bob@ozdaltx.UUCP (Bob Culmer) (02/12/91)
In article <1991Feb1.115859.12276@cs.ucla.edu>, dsals@vms.macc.wisc.edu (David Sals) writes: > > If a person knows that they have AIDS (or HIV), and engages in > sexual activities without telling their partner of this disease, > and if the partner contracts the AIDS virus and dies, should the > first person be charged with murder? What I'm suspicious of is why the people who think this should be so aren't all "jacked up" about other fatal diseases, including some that transmit easier than AIDS? And of course, people who get drunk and kill folks with their automobiles are only charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide, but for the transmission of a disease that you could have protected yourself from by your own actions and precautions (but didn't) someone else should be guilty? Sounds more like AIDSphobia and hysteria. People sometimes like to justify draconian punishments on the basis of determent. Even if this works in normal circumstances, what pray tell does someone with a terminal illness have to lose by this charge that isn't already in jeopardy? -- Bob Culmer - Dallas | Auntie Em - Somewhere over the rainbow | Hate you. Hate Kansas. Taking the dog. ...in the Land of OZ | - Dorothy {mic,void,egsner}!ozdaltx!bob