Is it Illegal to knowingly spread HIV?

[hottxboi16]

So the story goes....

I have a friend who was recently in a sexual engagement with someone who did not tell them they had HIV and had bareback sex. He eventually came inside him after instructed not to and they got into a fight and he kicked the infected fellow out and as he left he said "Oh and by the way, I have HIV"

few months later the other person became infected.

I know its probably one of the most horrible stories ive ever heard, and its sickening to think people like that are even walking this earth but yeah so my question is, are there any laws or statutes regarding the transmission of knowingly spreading HIV or other STDS in TEXAS....

I have tried searching for this myself and have seen some things in other states but i couldnt find anything very specific in texas. SO if you could help or have any knowledge of the situation I would appreciate any response. Thanks

 

[AlteredEgo]

Depending on where, I think so. I have read of such people (if you can all them that) being charged with assault with a deadly weapon, endangerment, and I once heard of an attempt to get a grand jury to go for attempted manslaughter, but I don't know what happened.

 

[joyboytoy79]

I know there are laws against this in Wisconsin, a few other Midwestern States, and California. I'm not sure about Texas. A good place for you or your friend to look would be a local chapter Lamda Legal Defence. They tend to know all the laws pertaining in any way to gay folk for just about any locality one could imagine. Good folks they are! And good luck to your friend. I know he is not in a good place right now, but he with the support of friends (and hopefully family) he will come to terms with it.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Of course it is very very illegal. But prosecution probably centers on intention. It may be difficult to prove that the guy intended to infect someone. Although it sounds cut and dried in the story you just told, did anyone besides your friend hear what the guy said?

See a lawyer I guess. You know this is just reckless. No buttfuck or orgasm is worth that.

 

[novice_btm]

OK, the first call should be to the closest gay & lesbian center. They typically have an anonymous hotline, where you can call in, and get facts, information, etc., and since it is anonymous, you don't have to get too specific with your info, and the details involved. They're also usually the most up-to-date on local statutes pertaining to related issues.

Beyond that, any authority's first question is going to be the same as my first question, "Why did he bareback?". It makes for a difficult case, because it implies that the act was consensual, and everything stops there. It's a difficult case anyway, because the intent of the infected has to be proven, and really unless it can be shown that he was somewhat calculated in a pursuit to infect, again, it's not much of a case. If the bottom specifically asked, "Are you positive?" and the top knowingly lied and answered, "No", then you can show some intent, but it's still a tough he said-he said situation. Another huge snag in this, unfortunately, is that to really do much, and develop a case, the bottom almost has to contract HIV, unless the prosecutor could prove all the other issues and go for a lesser charge.

To find out about state-specific statutes, you could contact the state's prosecutor, or district attorney, depending on who the local authority is. Again, unless you can find someone that wants make a point, or set an example, about this issue, there will still have to be strong enough circumstances for someone to think that this warrants a case, regardless of whether or not TX has specific legislation on the subject. Prosecutors have discretion as to whether or not they think a case is of benefit to the people, if the case warrants a trial, and if it stands a chance of winning, the exception being someone that wants a nice little media circus to draw attention to the issue, in hopes of dissuading others from attempting it in the future.

Overall, it's really a tragic situation.

 

[ClaireTalon]

If he knows about his infectuous state, and sleeps with other people nonetheless, a clever lawyer could carve a case of personal injury from that, be it malicious, or by negligence. Possibly one with fatal consequence, if the infected person dies in the aftermath.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

You might keep an eye on the first infected fellow. If he infects others, that would make the case against him. It sounds ridiculous to wait and see if he makes others sick.

I read about some guy who used to be on TV who infected about twenty people sick. His name was something like Sharky. There was a guy in porno who did the same.

 

[Heather LouAnna]

I don't think it has anything to do with state. Federal laws oversee all in the US and knowingly spreading a fatal disease IS illegal. I think that'd apply to any country.

 

[hottxboi16]

Well I thought it was, or atleast i was under the impression it was based on a Law and Order episode I saw, and I know that sounds ignorant to base knowledge on a television series, but it usually tends to be accurate...


anyways in my own personal opinion I think it should be illegal and tried as manslaughter or atleast involuntary manslaughter

 

[D_Adoniah Sheervolume]

original poster: i sympathize with your situation. just this week a friend of mine here in ct found out he was hiv-positive, after having unprotected sex a few months ago with someone who said he was negative, but wasn't.

btw: my friend is a strict top--nothing gets NEAR his butt...

guys and gals: people lie about their ages. basic stats. cock sizes. what makes you think they'll be truthful about hiv status? please for your sakes assume new partners are poz and act accordingly!

 

[novice_btm]

...knowingly spreading a fatal disease IS illegal...

But that's exactly the problem that I mentioned. The "knowingly" part, means that you have to prove intent to infect, criminal intent. You have to prove the guy knew he was poz. You have to prove the poz guy, at the time of the act, wasn't drunk, or otherwise impaired in a way that would effect his judgement, etc., so that he can't dismiss it with an easy, "I didn't know what I was doing. I'd NEVER do that to someone." It SEEMS like an easy case to us, because it outrages us, and flies in the face of our senses of decency and morals, but in talking to lawyers tonight, it's actually a very tough case, and would be even tougher to find a lawyer that would take it on, especially depending on where you are. I live in L.A. now, but where I'm from, bashings are still pretty common. If I walked into a police station there to file a criminal report, I'd be laughed right out of the building. I'd end up being the one treated as though I'd done something wrong. Again, along these same lines of blaming the victim, the most damning problem, is that you have to explain why the neg guy agreed to bareback.

 

[hottxboi16]

Im sure it is a very hard case to try, because you have to prove someones thoughts, but its not as if they havnt proven people to have intent before, It can be done, it just harder because its unprecedented for the most part...it just takes that one case that sets a precedent for all other cases to make them more common and easier to convict....

And I positively know he knows he has HIV because this isnt the first person he has infected...and other mannerisms he had during a previous partner which included uses 3 condoms at once...I dont know why the other guy would agree to going bareback...but i know ive done it because i was naive and ignorant...it could be the same case.....

But that's exactly the problem that I mentioned. The "knowingly" part, means that you have to prove intent to infect, criminal intent. You have to prove the guy knew he was poz. You have to prove the poz guy, at the time of the act, wasn't drunk, or otherwise impaired in a way that would effect his judgement, etc., so that he can't dismiss it with an easy, "I didn't know what I was doing. I'd NEVER do that to someone." It SEEMS like an easy case to us, because it outrages us, and flies in the face of our senses of decency and morals, but in talking to lawyers tonight, it's actually a very tough case, and would be even tougher to find a lawyer that would take it on, especially depending on where you are. I live in L.A. now, but where I'm from, bashings are still pretty common. If I walked into a police station there to file a criminal report, I'd be laughed right out of the building. I'd end up being the one treated as though I'd done something wrong. Again, along these same lines of blaming the victim, the most damning problem, is that you have to explain why the neg guy agreed to bareback.

 

[novice_btm]

Im sure it is a very hard case to try, because you have to prove someones thoughts, but its not as if they havnt proven people to have intent before, It can be done, it just harder because its unprecedented for the most part...it just takes that one case that sets a precedent for all other cases to make them more common and easier to convict....

And I positively know he knows he has HIV because this isnt the first person he has infected...and other mannerisms he had during a previous partner which included uses 3 condoms at once...I dont know why the other guy would agree to going bareback...but i know ive done it because i was naive and ignorant...it could be the same case.....

OK, I'm NOT trying to come off as negative, but just realistic. Yes, your case COULD be the landmark case, but again, you have to find someone that will take that case. And no one is going to let go of the teeth they've sunk into the neck of the fact that the neg guy agreed to bareback.

A couple other comments you made that unsettled me a bit. First, it's been shown that ironically, the use of multiple condoms at once can actually be more prone to breakage than a single condom. Something about increased friction, and a latex-on-latex reaction, that I'm too lazy to look up right now. The other was, and don't take this the wrong way, the comment about yourself, and in turn the other guy. There's been WAY too much information and education out there, for over 20 years, for anyone to be "naive and ignorant" about protecting themselves. Since the advent of herpes in the early 1980s, there has never been a point in which sex with a condom hasn't been encouraged by health officials, and that especially became true with the identification of HIV.

 

[D_Sheffield Thongbynder]

guys and gals: people lie about their ages. basic stats. cock sizes. what makes you think they'll be truthful about hiv status? please for your sakes assume new partners are poz and act accordingly!

Wise words! The barebacking thread addresses some of these issues. To bareback with a stranger is tantamount to running through crossfire and not expecting to get hurt. As for the legality of the issue, you should check with barebackjack, who seems to be more aware of the problems than anyone else I know.

 

[Cobalt Blue]

Yes, it most certainly is. At present, in English law there is no specific criminal offence of having unprotected sexual intercourse without disclosing one's HIV-positive status but a prosecution could possibly be brought under any one of a number of existing offences. The most common charge is GBH (causing grievous bodily harm).

Sarah Jane Porter from London, was jailed for three years. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,29389-2233442,00.html
Feston Konzani, 28, was convicted in Middlesborough, northeast England, for giving HIV to three women aged 15 to 27 and sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Paulo Matias, from London, jailed for three years: http://www.aegis.com/news/afp/2005/AF050449.html
Mohammed Dica, who went on trial in November 2003, was sentenced by an appeal court to four years and six months for infecting two lovers.

Australia: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/16/1100574458100.html?from=storylhs

 

[SiamGuy]

Do you think they should have a infected database like they do of sexual offenders? Shouldn't you be allowed to find out if they move into your neighborhood?


I'm not saying I'm against or for any of it. Just something to think about

Knowingly spreading a fatal disease should be worse than murder, and should hold a punishment even harsher than that for murder. Dying from a disease is much more torturous as well as many years of suffering from not being able to function like anyone else without the disease. Add to it that it becomes mass murder as it is spread unknowingly to any others.

 

[DC_DEEP]

OK, I'm NOT trying to come off as negative, but just realistic. Yes, your case COULD be the landmark case, but again, you have to find someone that will take that case. And no one is going to let go of the teeth they've sunk into the neck of the fact that the neg guy agreed to bareback.

A couple other comments you made that unsettled me a bit. First, it's been shown that ironically, the use of multiple condoms at once can actually be more prone to breakage than a single condom. Something about increased friction, and a latex-on-latex reaction, that I'm too lazy to look up right now. The other was, and don't take this the wrong way, the comment about yourself, and in turn the other guy. There's been WAY too much information and education out there, for over 20 years, for anyone to be "naive and ignorant" about protecting themselves. Since the advent of herpes in the early 1980s, there has never been a point in which sex with a condom hasn't been encouraged by health officials, and that especially became true with the identification of HIV.

I'm sure that once a defense laywer got started up, he would not only question the motive of bottoming bareback (i. e., bug-chasing) but also I'm sure he would try to plant the seeds of doubt regarding whetner or not the defendent was even the one who gave the other litigant the infection. I'm sure past sexual history (not usually admissible in most cases) would be relevant and permitted.

Novice, I agree with everything else you posted here. There is some complacency, but it's not in education. Bareback sex with a "trick" is something where if you do it, you just assume the other person is positive, regardless of what they tell you.

 

[D_Adoniah Sheervolume]

Do you think they should have a infected database like they do of sexual offenders? Shouldn't you be allowed to find out if they move into your neighborhood?

there already is a database. when i went to the local testing center recently, they informed me they no longer do anonymous testing, and that all postive results are reported to the cdc.

this doesn't mean one couldn't provide false info of course, but...

 

[Matthew]

please for your sakes assume new partners are poz and act accordingly!

THANK you.

First, it's been shown that ironically, the use of multiple condoms at once can actually be more prone to breakage than a single condom. Something about increased friction

Yep.

Do you think they should have a infected database like they do of sexual offenders? Shouldn't you be allowed to find out if they move into your neighborhood?

HELL no! Are you serious???

Back to the first point - protect yourself in all situations. It's the simple way to prevent stories like this one.

 

[Thedrewbert]

isn't there a "morning after" pill for HIV also?

If you know you just got fucked by a guy who is HIV+ and he came in you, I think there is a 72 hour window do get an ultra high dose of the morning after "cocktail" to prevent the infection. The side effects are quite unpleasent, but it's better than the alternative.