PDA

View Full Version : Lying about an AIDS infection/passing it to someone else is...a misdemeanor?



Candor
02-20-2015, 08:49 PM
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - An HIV-positive man who told a partner that they could safely have unprotected sex should face a misdemeanor reckless endangerment charge, not a felony, New York's highest court ruled Thursday.

The Court of Appeals said Terrance Williams didn't expose his partner "out of any malevolent desire" to give him the virus that causes AIDS, though he lied about having the infection and his partner did get sick. The court said the Syracuse man didn't show "depraved indifference," which is necessary to support the felony charge.

The judges declined to decide whether HIV infection no longer "creates a grave and unjustifiable risk of death" because of advances in medical treatment. Two lower courts had reached that conclusion while knocking down the felony indictment to the lesser charge.

The felony could have sent Williams to prison for seven years. He still faces the misdemeanor and a possible year in jail if convicted.

"Without a doubt, defendant's conduct was reckless, selfish and reprehensible," the court majority said in a memorandum. "Under our case law, though, this is not enough to make out a prima facie case of depraved indifference."

----------------------------

Yet another example as to why some New York judges need to find another profession. Lying about having AIDS and infecting someone else is not depraved indifference? Gimme a break.

Tgo01
02-20-2015, 08:57 PM
So because medical advances means you can live longer with HIV it now means lying about having the disease and passing it onto a partner isn't "depraved indifference" to their life? :/

So. Wait. The act of lying hasn't changed. How dangerous and deadly the disease is hasn't changed. How easily one can pass this disease on to a partner with unprotected sex hasn't changed. This man's HIV status hasn't changed. The only variable that has changed is advances in modern medicine and because of that this man is not a piece of shit when 15 years ago he would have been a piece of shit for doing everything exactly the same?

Democrats. What ya gonna do?

I gotta add one thing though; I'm obviously not trying to defend this piece of shit but it's probably a good idea to always insist upon using a condom regardless of what the other person says. Doesn't make it right for someone to lie about their HIV status.

JackWhisper
02-20-2015, 09:05 PM
I've had my share of sexual partners, and I'm clean. I got tested before and after every partner because I just don't trust people. I can honestly say that if I had been given an STD by someone in my life, I would have considered a wildly intricate murder plot. This guy deserves a lot worse than a year in jail.

Wrathbringer
02-20-2015, 09:30 PM
I've had my share of sexual partners, and I'm clean. I got tested before and after every partner because I just don't trust people. I can honestly say that if I had been given an STD by someone in my life, I would have considered a wildly intricate murder plot. This guy deserves a lot worse than a year in jail.

Before every partner? Hold on, were these prostitutes or did you just test before all three dates in case you got lucky?

Latrinsorm
02-21-2015, 03:26 PM
So because medical advances means you can live longer with HIV it now means lying about having the disease and passing it onto a partner isn't "depraved indifference" to their life? :/No.

"The judges declined to decide whether HIV infection no longer "creates a grave and unjustifiable risk of death" because of advances in medical treatment."

Silvean
02-21-2015, 03:28 PM
There's a Law & Order about this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0629198/

JackWhisper
02-21-2015, 03:29 PM
Before every partner? Hold on, were these prostitutes or did you just test before all three dates in case you got lucky?

Dude. Regular checkups. Look into it. =)

Tgo01
02-21-2015, 03:30 PM
No.

"The judges declined to decide whether HIV infection no longer "creates a grave and unjustifiable risk of death" because of advances in medical treatment."

Yes.


Two lower courts had reached that conclusion while knocking down the felony indictment to the lesser charge.

Ceyrin
02-21-2015, 04:26 PM
Choosing not to make a decision is still a decision. They can decline all they want. Their decision then becomes one of capitulation if nothing else.

I wonder if a claim could be filed against the judges involved for their "depraved indifference"?