Man gets prison for knowingly exposing women to HIV

[Ping898]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/24/hiv.trial.ap/index.html

LAWRENCE, Kansas (AP) -- An HIV-positive man accused of knowingly exposing three women to the virus has been sentenced to nearly three years in prison.
Robert Richardson II, 30, apologized at his sentencing Wednesday, but he argued that while his behavior was unethical, it wasn't criminal.
Richardson was found guilty last month of four counts of HIV exposure involving three women, and he was found not guilty of exposing a fourth woman.
Jurors said they were appalled by how he deceived the women by telling them his health problems were from a heart condition. Richardson said he didn't lie, and that he did have a "HAART" condition -- short for Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy, the name he used for his HIV-treatment drug regimen.

I am interested what other people think of this. Is his behavior just unethical or do you think it should be illegal as well?
I am not sure how I feel because on the one hand I think he probably did purposely deceive these women. On the other hand, safe sex involves both the man and the woman. I know several people who won't engage in anything sexual until they both go in for tests for STD's together and show each other the results.

But then at what point does it stop. If a person doesn't disclose say a known genetic defect to his/her partner and it gets shows up in the kids resulting in the death of the kid or constant life lond care, should they be held criminally liable for not disclosing their genetics or lying about it...?....

 

[matt.m]

Wow, just wow. I think it is criminal to knowingly have an STD and not share the information with others before getting it on. Geez, nothing suprises me anymore.

 

[CoryKS]

My initial reaction is that the guy needs to be put away. But this paragraph seems relevant:

Defense attorneys said that Richardson had been taking drugs to lower the amount of the virus in his blood and that he believed it was physically impossible for the women to get the virus.

I doubt it's "physically impossible" for the women to get the virus from him, but if the drugs made it highly improbable, and a doctor could back that claim up, then I think it would put into question the charge that he "knowingly exposed" them to the virus.

Either way, though, he's an unethical scumbag.

 

[Tez3]

I think it's the fact the disease passed on was HIV/Aids that makes it more emotive. If you knowingly pass on any potentially deadly infection/virus/dieases it should be illegal. If someone who knew they had typhoid took a job as a cook in a kitchen, you couldn't blame the customers who subsequently caught typhoid just because they agreed to eat at the restraurant. The customers and in this case the man's lovers had a right to feel they could trust this person. They had the right to trust him, now whether they were wise to is something we can't know as we don't know the extent of their relationships. Certainly I think it was criminal as well as immoral. People certainly think that the sending of anthrax designed to kill people is illegal so why wouldn't knowingly passing on a potentially fatal disease be?

 

[Kacey]

Actually, I believe that in many places it is illegal to knowingly pass on an STD; it's just not enforced. The man certainly cannot claim that he was unaware of his condition, and I find it difficult to believe that a doctor told him, with complete certainty, that he definitively could not pass on the virus - therefore, he was, at least, criminally negligent in not taking precautions - I saw no sign in the article that he was using a condom, and certainly, he should have been. In addition, he lied about his health condition - which says to me, at least, that he thought the women wouldn't have sex with him if they knew about his disease - and he'd probably have been right - but he took that choice away from him, as surely as one them had become ill from eating food he knew to be tainted and he hadn't told them.

 

[michaeledward]

I am curious to see the law that states it is illegal to knowing pass on sexually transmitted diseases. I find it hard to believe that those laws exist. Even though laws against oral sex are still on the books.

It is estimated that 20% of the adult population in the United States are infected with the herpes virus. It is possible to have a sexual relationship without a barrier contraceptive, and not pass the virus to your partner. So, how can we define 'knowingly' to a legal standard? Would having sexual intercourse with an infected person qualify, even if the virus was not transmitted to the other partner?

It is unethical to not disclose a sexually transmitted disease prior to sexual contact. In the event of HIV, I am even inclined to think we should add a criminal penalty to withholding disclosure. HIV is still fatal.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I am interested what other people think of this. Is his behavior just unethical or do you think it should be illegal as well?
I am not sure how I feel because on the one hand I think he probably did purposely deceive these women. On the other hand, safe sex involves both the man and the woman. I know several people who won't engage in anything sexual until they both go in for tests for STD's together and show each other the results.

But then at what point does it stop. If a person doesn't disclose say a known genetic defect to his/her partner and it gets shows up in the kids resulting in the death of the kid or constant life lond care, should they be held criminally liable for not disclosing their genetics or lying about it...?....

First, I think this is a horrible situation to be in and would hope people are honest.

If there are laws about exposure then there should be laws about measles or small pox or, ..., . Are these issues of terrorism?

What about radiation?

What about Cyanide? (* Loaded Question as Cyanide is in Cigarette smoke in trace amounts *) This is a pet peeve of mine, and Not to reduce what has happened here, but are chemicals or viruses or drugs being used and exposed to others, are illegal, then we should make sure people know they are illegal and take actions as such.

 

[Drac]

3 Years!!!! He should get 300 years...

 

[MA-Caver]

It's definitely a moral and ethical outrage that this guy went on (I don't give a damn what he said) and knowingly exposed these women to a potentially lethal disease. It's almost like that urban legend of the woman who went around sleeping with different men leaving a lipstick message on their bathroom mirror that they now had AIDS... only this is for real.
1 year for each offense isn't enough and that is clear. If the women contract the disease their whole lives are changed forever. They're already changed to the extent that they may never trust anyone ever again. The guy was being a knowing ***-hole and that just made him worse than one.

As far as the legalities of it all... :idunno: They should make it illegal because the ones who have the disease (and KNOW they do) should realize that they cannot ever have normal (sexual) relations again with anyone (gay/straight/otherwise). Hard fact of life but any real decent human being would abstain from it or seek out others who are (HIV Positive) if they can't stick to mastrubation for self-gratification. It was just pure selfishness on that guy's part. Now he's ruined the lives of three (4?) women.

Way to go scumbag!