Basically you can guess at the question with the thread title. I did a search and I didn’t see if this question has ever arose. So what I’m asking, should a person who is only CHARGED/ACCUSED of rape be forced to submit to AIDS testing even without their consent. Personally, I really don’t know, I’m going back and forth with it in my head and I wanted to toss it out into the forum to hear other people’s opinion. So?
If both the rapist and the victim is found to be infected, is it possible to determine with some accuracy if the victim has been infected by the rapist through comparing the virus DNA of the rapist and victim? It is said the HIV virus is mutating at a very accelerated rate, perhaps each infected individual has his own identifiable strain?
IIRC from various mentions in class, the HIV virus isn’t mutating rapidly enough to give each new infected person their own variety. I mean, there are parts of Africa where 1 in 5 adults is infected. . Og help us if they all have different strains.
Taking a wild stab, I’m pretty sure that forcing someone to take an HIV test when they haven’t been convicted of wrong-doing is a violation of their privacy. But maybe the laws on this have changed recently. If I wasn’t getting off of work right now, I’d look it up.
It wouldn’t serve any purpose. It wouldn’t be useful as evidence at the trial. If the victim is positive, you can’t prove that the accused infected her, and if she’s negative, it could be that she’s very, very lucky and simply did not catch the virus.
Well, when I asked the question it really wasn’t intended to use the results as evidence in prosecution, but rather the decision to administer post exposure prophylactics.
Nevermind, wiki tells me that to be effective the PEP’s need to begin within an hour of exposure. Which really doesn’t seem reasonable in the scenario of a rape.
I cannot see any reason to require such a test. The victim does or does not have the virus. How she got it is not a matter for law enforcement.
Of course I am no expert on the AIDS virus and if I am wrong I would appreciate being educated.
You might think so, but I managed to parse it as “Wow, you know those people who test for AIDS? Well, some of them just got charged with rape!!!”
Is there anyone who would know whether post-exposure prophylaxis is normally part of rape treatment? Say, if a woman manages to get herself to the police or to a hospital, soon after she’s raped. Besides the medical exam and stuff, do they assume she’s been exposed to HIV and start treatment?
I had that exact reaction, which I take as a sad sign on an increasing litigious society where we assume that even patently ridiculous accusations are being made by someone, somewhere.
As it can take upwards of six months to develop antibodies to HIV, I support required testing of rape suspects if a judge approves a warrant, or the legal equivalent. I would expect a judge to carefully weigh the suspect’s right to privacy and due process against a victim’s right to know,
No, it does not provide a final answer. However, it does give a certain peace of mind to a person who has gone through a hellish experience. I have very little patience for a person who refuses an HIV test under those circumstances.
Any results that might pertain to DNA evidence should be available if the DA can obtain a warrant for that specific information. It shouldn’t be given out freely or thrown away.
Is the suspect being released on bail or remanded? Prisons do test inmates for HIV since they have a clear interest in isolating them for health and safety reasons.
If you are arrested you are forced to have your fingerprints taken.
If you are charged with rape, you need to be submitted to an aids test for the beneifit of the victim and reasonable cause for an even more serious offence like maybe attempted murder
You may also be forced to; submit a DNA sample (& if Law & Order is to be believed a semen sample), strip naked and have government officials take photographs of your genitalia, urinate and deficate in front of members of the opposite sex, be video-taped nude, etc. Arrestees are already subject to worse violations of their privacy than an HIV test.
As someone mentioned above, if you knowingly have a fatal STD and knowingly force someone to have sex, it can be construed as attempted murder. So I think that accused rapists could, for their and their victims’ safety, be forced to submit to an HIV test. There are worse things that could happen to you (being tested for HIV, that is, rather than being infected with it by rape).
~Tasha
An accused rapist has their chest and pubic hair combed, their fingernails scraped, and their penis swabbed. Against their will, in police restraint if necessary. Adding a blood test isn’t that big a deal. Although anti-retroviral therapy is best started immediately, it’s worth doing after a much longer interval than 1 hour (I’ll check the time), so yeah I’d favor testing.