IF nothing at all else - the asshole greatly effected the quality (and potentially, the quantity) of her future. Yes, with proper (expensive) medications, HIV+ is not what it was a decade ago, however, the quality of life is greatly affected. Employment, health insurances, social relationships, all are greatly affected.
I think the big difference is motive. Hypothetically, you drive your car onto a sidewalk to kill pedestrians versus, you have a heat-attack and you drive your car onto a sidewalk and kill pedestrians. Two different events. IMHO, one is a crime and one is an accident.
Now I’m not saying what this guy did was an accident but your hypothetical, the only reason that comes to mind is the guy wants to kill people.
The man that infected his fiancee could have 1) been in denial and therefore not of right mind, 2) thought the test was wrong so he was ok, 3) decided if he was going to die early, so was she. The first two, to me, imply that he is a sad man in need of mental health. The last, he is a cruel fuck. However, we don’t know why he did what he did.
Unless I find more facts about the case, I think the guy was an ass but not a murderer (but I could be wrong)
affected, wring, affected.
(hey I got 2 out of 3 right…)
A murderer must kill in order to be a murderer.
If you have the intention to kill, but, through accident or incompetence, fail to actually kill, then you’re an attempted murderer.
If you don’t have the intention to kill, but do something that’s so unbelievably reckless and dangerous as to be likely to kill, and it kills, then you’re a manslaughterer.
Since manslaughter is a general intent crime, there is no “attempted manslaughter.” But various jurisdictions have reckless endangerment laws that apply.
Some jurisdictions may have crimes other than “manslauighter” which more closely fit the circumstances described here.
There was nothing stupid about your post, I was commenting on him.
You have no idea of his education, knowledge, or intelligence. You also cannot accurately know his intent. You are presuming a lot.
I’d like to know why you and jarbaby keep referring to me as my former username.
:dubious:
Yes, there is a potential for a death that is long and painful. A potential. Treatment for HIV is quantum leaps better than it was ten years ago.
Both you and jarbaby are pre-supposing a great deal about the mental workings of this man, and that you have insight into his reasons and understandings of his disease.
As she didn’t know he was infected, and I’d assume that he wasn’t taking any sort of drug cocktail that would betray his status to her, I wonder about his understanding of his status.
Yes, because of the leaps ahead in treatment for HIV+ status, there are many who don’t treat it with the seriousness that it deserves. It has been treated by some as if it is an inconvienience that can be dealt with through drugs and diet.
Still, I didn’t say that you, jarbaby, or anyone else criticizing him was stupid. I was talking about him.
As much as you are assuming about this man, you are assuming about me and misattributing my words to your expectations.
Thanks, Bricker. I’m glad someone else is reading the same information I read.
What’s so hard to understand? If she’s not dead, he’s not a murderer. Yet. It’s not to say he hasn’t committed a heinous crime, but at this point, it ain’t murder. And it may never be murder. Aren’t there people who have already lived with the virus for like 20 years? Who knows what science can do.
Jeez!
I don’t think she should be “blamed,” but YES, she should have asked when he had last been tested for STDs and what the results were. As should everyone who is sleeping with anyone else. NOT that her not specifically asking excuses one bit what he did.
What if the situation had been that he had no idea whatsoever that he was positive. Wouldn’t people think that she should have asked him about his health status, just in case? That they should have asked each other? Isn’t that what people do anymore?
My bottom line is that he absolutely should have told her the second he found out. And she should have asked him his STD status long before that. Again, I don’t think NOT asking excuses this guy at all. He’s an ass, no doubt about it, and if she gets sick and it can be proved that she ONLY got this through him, then I think he should stand trial for manslaughter.
Okay, I can see how my short response could be misconstrued.
To expand on this:
I do not think that from the reports that we can draw pre-meditation. I think that his stupidity is the most evident one, as he infected her whether he did or did not understand his disease.
Fear, I would think plays a factor no matter what, as I cannot imagne keeping the fact of his diagnosis secret could have been without terror and anxiety.
Now, it is possible for the doctors not to have adequately informed him about the disease, and they could have assumed he had a brain and had knowledge about HIV and the ramifications of his diagnosis. That they didn’t make sure and discuss it with him in detail could be a factor that bit them in the ass and led to this woman being Hester Prynned.
The man who infected her isn’t necessarily a bad person per se, but someone who failed his partner through a variety of reasons that we aren’t privy to, nor should we be.
I don’t know why some are leaping to judge this man aside from their own fear.
My lunch break ends soon, so I can’t dig up the cite from the Crime Library web site, but as I recall this has happened in the US. I’ll get a cite later, but I can’t recall how the doctor in question was charged and convicted, since his intent was to commit murder but his victim hasn’t died.
**
In the United States doctor/patient confidentiality can be waived in some cases. If a doctor has good reason to suspect his patient is going to harm another person he has an obligation to inform the authorities.
**
Maybe I’m a weirdo but before we were married I never asked my wife about her HIV status.
Marc
Bricker, by the blackletter, you’re right, of course. In my little world though, this misfit would be slowly lowered into a vat of boiling acid. See how he likes it.
Of course, if the person is set to re-offend, they haven’t confessed. Confession requires repentance. That was a plot hole in the movie Priest - the fellow who tells the priest in the confessional that he is molesting his daughter (?) doesn’t repent, so he doesn’t confess, and therefore the priest wouldn’t be bound by the seal of the confessional. Of course, IIRC.
Thank you for the explanation Mockingbird, but I do believe ( and I know it’s a naive assumption I guess) that youd’ have to be an outback aboriginie with no access to any sort of written or spoken material to NOT KNOW that HIV+ is not something to be giving to your WIFE, whom you’ve professed your love for.
Sorry about the name switcharoo, Mock/Hast, it’s a weird brain function of mine - kinda ‘translates’ your into your previous incarnation because it has more experience with that (I’ve been spending way too much time online with many people under more than one name - easier for me to grab one label I guess, but I’ll refer to you as Mockingbird from now on, as that’s what it appears you wish.) And my confusion as to your intent was mostly due to the brevity of the comment - no harm intended. It was more of a head scratcher from my perspective.
I agree - we don’t really know this man’s mental capacity - he would have to be quite naive/ignorant/mentally disabled not to know the seriousness of what he was going to do/did to his wife. It is possible that the doctors didn’t inform him fully on the means of transmitting his disease - but even then I have a hard time believing he didn’t know exactly what he was doing. Fear may have driven him to keep it from his wife, but I don’t think that keeps him from being a very. bad. person.
I perused the Ohio Revised code on-line http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com
and I was unable to find any verbiage that directly related to the intentional transmission of a disease (AIDS) to an individual. This is, unless, the individual was involved in prostitution (soliciting) or assault against a correctional employee. However, the codes for Assault would, if creatively applied, cover this. In part, they assert:
" § 2903.13 Assault. – Prior to 7-1-96
(A) No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another.
(B) No person shall recklessly cause serious physical harm to another."
I would say that the husband in this case “knowingly caused physical harm to another.”
AND, the ORC stipulates that if, during the commission of another felony, your actions are the proximate cause of death to the victim, you are guilty of manslaughter. Thus, if this woman dies from AIDS, there could be an argument made.
However, since AIDS causes a multitude of other life threatening illness (by suppressing the immune system- as I am sure you all know that HIV itself does not kill you, rather the myriad of other illness that the body is incapable of fighting off) you would have to get a doctor to say that the victim died, solely because of the HIV given to her by the perpetrator.
It would be a hard case, and some new law, but it would be an interesting trial.
I’m not sure I understand why everyone’s presuming she didn’t ask him about his test results. Just because the writer chose brevity over verbosity, doesn’t mean that what really happened wasn’t more along the lines of “The woman told the court [her husband led her to] believe both tests were negative.” From the way I read it, it sounded like they fell in love, decided to marry, went for HIV tests together before doing so, and he just lied to her about the results. If two people go to the doctor to have HIV tests at the same time, it’s much more reasonable to assume they did so for mutual knowledge and therefore had every intention of discussing the results.
He is the lowest of slime for putting her life at risk and I do hope they charge him with something appropriate for his crime. And when she dies, IF it’s of AIDS related causes (as opposed to a car accident or something), then I hope they re-try him for murder at that time.
Fucking bastard.
What would be the priest’s moral duty if say, Man A had been found guilty of murder, and was set to be hanged, but Man B confessed (in confessional) to the crime.
Would he be powerless to act to save an innocent from the gallows?
I think the priest would refuse absolution unless Man B confessed himself.
In this case, I say the man’s a fucking scumbag. I don’t care how “scared” he was-what a selfish motherfucker.