Woman jailed for giving lover HIV

[The Bacon Guy]

A woman who recklessly infected her lover with HIV has been sentenced to more than two-and-a-half years. Sarah Jane Porter, 43, of Seaton Close, Kennington, south-east London, was sentenced to 32 months after admitting inflicting GBH recklessly. The court heard that, knowing she had the virus, she had unprotected sex with her 31-year-old lover of two years. At the Inner London Crown Court Porter was told she will serve half her sentence in prison and half on licence. An inquiry started when detectives were alerted by a 36-year-old man who said Porter did not reveal she had HIV but had encouraged him to have unprotected sex with her. more...

Perhaps I'm missing something but knowingly giving somebody HIV equates to murder in my eyes. Yet the woman was only charger with GBH, will serve only 16 months in jail and there are even people arguing that she shouldn't have been convicted at all. So was her sentence just, too light or too heavy? What are your thoughts?

[Mia]

For it to be murder, she would have had to have intent to kill. it can't even be manslaughter, because her victim isn't dead.

It should be a massive penalty, though.

This part doesn't make sense to me:

The court heard Porter had refused to help police trace her previous partners but that forensic tests had proved she was the source.

For the current guy, OK, but how could they prove where a prior partner got it, or that she didn't get it from him?

On the general subject, there have been cases of people purposefully spreading this disease. That is so sick, and I cannot understand the motivation for that. Misery loves company?

If the man is telling the truth that she encouraged him to have unprotected sex, it sounds intentional.

I'm sure there are others who have protected sex, hoping not to infect their partners, but not wanting to reveal they have this. That is also negligant.

[The Bacon Guy]

For it to be murder, she would have had to have intent to kill.

I didn't mean it was legally murder, I just meant that in my view, it was no differnt from murder. Also, I think knowing she had HIV and encouraging a man to have unprotected sex with her suggests an intention to give him HIV and therefore an intention to kill him.

it can't even be manslaughter, because her victim isn't dead.

He will be thanks to her.

It should be a massive penalty, though.

Agreed. What I don't understand is why some people are saying she shouldn't have been convicted at all. They argue that it stigmatises people with AIDS but I really don't see how.

[Mia]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I didn't mean it was legally murder, I just meant that in my view, it was no differnt from murder. Also, I think knowing she had HIV and encouraging a man to have unprotected sex with her suggests an intention to give him HIV and therefore an intention to kill him.

I agree, I was just speaking legally.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy What I don't understand is why some people are saying she shouldn't have been convicted at all. They argue that it stigmatises people with AIDS but I really don't see how.

What I understood from the article is that they were talking about tracking former partners in general, not convicting her specifically.

"The prospect of the police investigating the sexual history of people living with HIV in this speculative way is profoundly stigmatising, and appears to treat everyone with HIV as a potential criminal," she said.

[Paramonkey]

I agree, I was just speaking legally.

Hmm... A converse legal point is what happens if the man dies of AIDS before the woman who infected him?

The woman is a "substantial cause" as required, naturally the man is under the queens peace, the woman’s actions was pivotal for the chain of causation. The situation is foreseeable. Despite the gap in time a murder charge can still be tried under the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act (1996). She had infected the man, and this has been confirmed in court. The bloke is dead and the kill was unlawful. Finally she had the Actus reus and the Mens Rea.

Sounds like a pretty sound case to me....

On account of her inaction to trace her former sexual partners she could technically be arrested under the police act 1996 for obstructing a police officer, as it qualifies all the criteria:
- The obstruction was wilful
- It is a primary duty of a constable to protect life and prevent and detect a criminal offence
- It made the constables execution of his duty more difficult
- There is no lawful excuse not to assist the officer

[underbear1]

The man STILL had the choice to use protection, or to not have sex with her, it takes two to have sex, and sometimes more.

[PatrickHenry]

Illustrates the difference between sex and love.

[Paramonkey]

The man STILL had the choice to use protection,

But he wasn't in full possession of the facts, so how can he make a valid quantified decision?

The woman in question was reckless when choosing to have sex, she knew that having sex with the individual was cause grievous bodily harm, emotional pain and ultimately death and yet continued along her chosen course of behaviour. The criminal action was on her part, not the man, as a result criminal charges against her were justified.

[Mia]

Of course he should have used protection - what if she was infected with something and didn't know it? But this case is different - she knew she had a lethal illness and had an obligation to disclose it.

[greeneyedgirl]

I think she got off too easy. Granted, the man should have insisted upon protecting himself, but the fact remains that she knowingly handed him a death sentence. What is the difference in what she did and someone who slips poison in their spouses food? People who do that get long jail sentences.

[underbear1]

You need to ASSUME someone might lie about their sero status, or may not know their sero status, so just have safer sex.....................and LIVE!

[Mia]

While that is true, it does not negate the fact that what she did was wrong and it should be punished. I wouldn't have protected sex with a known HIV carrier, so a partner would be obligated to tell me to allow me an informed choice.

Which reminds me of something Iheard someone say once - that somewhere we must believe that no one has HIV or we wouldn't sleep with them with 10 condoms.

There is zero room for promiscuity if one wants to be safe. Testing after 3 months of celibacy after the last partner before engaging. Most of us run a crude calculation of our risk based entirely on what we are told by the other person, and if they are honest, they still don't know if THEIR partners were.....I hate that little chart that shows you your REAL exposure.

Many of us feel if there is not a drug user or homosexual sex in a person's past, things are Okey-dokey, and to a certain extent that is true.

But if I remember correctly, 7 partners = thousands assumming each of your partners had the same number of partners and so on and so forth.

In thousands, I'm sure there is some needle use and anal sex.

This should serve as a warning to single and cheating people!!!!!!

[Paramonkey]

You need to ASSUME someone might lie about their sero status, or may not know their sero status, so just have safer sex.....................and LIVE!

Currently the English legal system is built around guilty actions by guilty minds not the actions of the victims (except provocation on account of manslaughter). You have to remember that this bloke lives in the UK and is therefore under the queens peace, therefore has the rights afforded by it. People have a right to a safe, healthy life, if this is deliberately and maliciously or recklessly affected, like what happened in this situation he is protected.

The woman was guilty of recklessly infecting the man with HIV. Its not disputed. This is a guilty action by a guilty mind, it is therefore a crime, whether or not the man chose to use a condom is negligible, the causal action is still guilty.
Think it in this context, should a rapist get off his crime since the victim was walking home late at night? Using your argument,the victim had made him/herself more vulnerable by walking home late at night, does that make the rape less criminal? No, because we all enjoy a right to not be raped wherever and whenever the situation is the same for being infected with HIV.

[underbear1]

Fine stick your head in the sand, trust abstinence only education for children, deny anal sex is quite common among straights, and refuse to believe that half the HIV infected people do not know their sero status, because they haven't been tested.............it's your lives and your deaths.

Seems to me safer sex practices and condom use would save more lives, but you don't want to listen. The woman was reckless to endanger her partner, I don't deny her part in it, but the man was equally culpable.

[underbear1]

For those willing to adapt here are safer sex practices:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2...b-safe-sex.xml

Alternatives to Intercourse

Kissing — Many people explore different ways of kissing. They may also explore kissing different body parts.

Masturbation — Many people enjoy masturbating — touching their own sex organs for pleasure. It's the most common way we are sexual. Partners can masturbate alone or together.

Erotic Massage — Many couples touch and rub each other's sex organs with their hands, bodies, or mouths.

Body-to-body Rubbing/Frottage — Many couples rub their bodies together — especially their sex organs — for pleasure and orgasm.

Fantasy — Couples can read or watch sexy stories or pictures together. It can also be exciting to share sexy fantasies. People do it in person, on the phone or Internet, or through e-mail.

Sex Toys — Vibrators, dildos, and other toys can be used to explore and
caress the body. Condoms need to be used if partners share the same toy. Follow the cleaning instructions that come with toys.

Oral Sex Play — Many people like to use their mouths on each other's sex organs. On a woman it is called cunnilingus. On a man, it's called fellatio. It cannot cause pregnancy. But it can pass infection. Latex or plastic barriers reduce the risks.

Anal Sex Play — Many people enjoy exploring each other's buttocks, anus, or rectum with their hands, mouths, sex organs, or with toys. Anal sex play cannot cause pregnancy — but it can easily pass infection. Latex or plastic barriers reduce the risks.

[Paramonkey]

Fine stick your head in the sand, trust abstinence only education for children, deny anal sex is quite common among straights, and refuse to believe that half the HIV infected people do not know their sero status, because they haven't been tested.............it's your lives and your deaths.

Where did I say I believed any of that? :rolleyes:

Seems to me safer sex practices and condom use would save more lives, but you don't want to listen.

Actually I believe condoms do save lives, and I've never said anything different, perhaps if you actually consider the context and content of my statements you may understand where you are going wrong.

and refuse to believe that half the HIV infected people do not know their sero status,

The thing is, if you don’t know your status its not an offence, since you lack the mens rea (intent) therefore there is no crime.


As we seem to have difficulty communicating the point, I will simplify it for you.

- Passing on HIV accidentally through not knowing = No crime
- Passing on HIV intentionally to a fully informed individual = No crime
- Passing on HIV recklessly or maliciously to an uninformed individual = Crime

The woman was reckless to endanger her partner, I don't deny her part in it, but the man was equally culpable.

You still don’t understand. The man was not "equally cuprable". You seemed to have avoided my example using a rape victim, one can only speculate why...
The fact is her act was criminal, a fundamental cornerstone of the British legal system is the queens peace, a person deserves a life free from harm. This situation would not have happened if the woman had not acted in her criminal way, her actions therefore directly afflicted another, whether or not the individual chose not to use condoms its negligible since the criminal action and intention remains, and thus she has commited a crime.

[brien]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Perhaps I'm missing something but knowingly giving somebody HIV equates to murder in my eyes. Yet the woman was only charger with GBH, will serve only 16 months in jail and there are even people arguing that she shouldn't have been convicted at all. So was her sentence just, too light or too heavy? What are your thoughts?

Are there any precedents in law that cover the same scenario that involved syphylis before a cure was found?

Did AL Capone have a case against the woman who infected him?

One side: Best to use condoms until one is 100% sure their partner is not infected.

Question: Is the manufactuer of a defective condom legally responsible for one who contracts HIV when they have used a defective condom? No intent but still, there are statutes that cover crimes which lack intent, as in Manslaughter.

Other side: It is legally incumbent upon consenting adults to advise each other of their health status.

Question: Can one blame the victim of this action if it is indeed a crime?

Answer: In the legal system, victims are not held responsible for a crime perpetrated upon them. For instance, one can't blame a promiscuous woman for being raped by a violent sloth of a man.

To answer your question, it seems the woman is guilty with mitigating circumstances. Those being, the partner should have perhaps used condoms until he was 100% sure she was disease free.

[Paramonkey]

To answer your question, it seems the woman is guilty with mitigating circumstances. Those being, the partner should have perhaps used condoms until he was 100% sure she was disease free.

The nature of the criminal action is not in the Actus Reus, but in the Mens Rea of the woman, the query use of a condom by the man does not affect the mens rea, so a crime is still committed.

Also remember as this crime happened in the UK the man is protected by the queens peace, where he is protected from such incidents, wearing a condom was advisable, however it doesn’t make the actions of the woman less criminal.

[underbear1]

I didn't respond to the rape analogy because it doesn't fit the situation. Rape is AGAINST THE VICTIM'S WILL, a male can not be forced to penetrate a woman, that's biologically impossible, did she stick a gun to his head and say, " get it up, or I'll blow your head off?"

[underbear1]

Condoms and sex in general has a minimal risk, none of it is perfectly safe if one is sexual. One just has to look at the lowered levels of HIV infections in the late 80's through the 90's to see the dramatic difference the use of condoms made.btw. there was the analogy made to syphlis, AIDS and specificly the gay community was the FIRST time in History a community CHANGED their sexual practices because of an STD.....even before pennicilan those sexually active people didn't change their practices, and it was lethal, and led to insanity and blindness.