what do you guys think of this ?

[Guest coolguy]

http://publicola.com/2010/06/02/police-say-male-escort-knowingly-exposed-clients-to-hiv/

 

You never know which escort is hiv+ but atleast you can make conclusions as who could it be. Since the guy mentioned in here only posted on craigslist, adam4adam and all the free sites, he ofcourse needed the money. he was offering unprotected sex without for only 100 bucks. All of these signals that something is wrong. clients should have thought abt it b4 hiring. So, Escorts with their own websites or on rent boy are less likely to lie abt their status.

[doitb4ugo]

Any HIV+ escort really needs to keep his status a secret if he wants to stay in business....the best protection is safer sex always followed by client being tested regularly to make sure they are still clean. From one who knows.

[Steven_Draker]

I think that "one year sentence" isn't enough, but that's just me.

 

If proven to knowingly exposing a sexual partner (a client, a fuck buddy, a trick) to HIV and intentionally transmitting the disease he should be severely punished.

[Phil_musc]

I agree.

[JT Brooklyn]

I think that "one year sentence" isn't enough, but that's just me.

 

If proven to knowingly exposing a sexual partner (a client, a fuck buddy, a trick) to HIV and intentionally transmitting the disease he should be severely punished.[/color]

 

Totally Agree! Hiv/AIDS is not a 1 Year Sentence is it?

[josephga]

imo if its on purpose the charge should be murder

[Steven_Draker]

A very insightful article regarding this subject

 

Criminal Transmission of HIV

 

For the vast majority of people living with HIV, preventing others from becoming infected with the virus that they carry is a primary concern. HIV positive individuals are, after all, only too aware of just how difficult it can be to live with the illness, and few would wish it on anybody else.

 

This said, not all HIV positive people take the precautions that they perhaps should. Scare stories of people 'deliberately' or 'recklessly' transmitting HIV to others have appeared in the media since the epidemic first began, and some of the individuals concerned have even been criminally charged and imprisoned for their actions. But while at first it might seem obvious to prosecute someone for recklessly or intentionally infecting another with an ultimately fatal virus, this assumption, and its consequences, can present numerous problems.

 

So what are the issues that must be addressed when prosecuting someone for transmitting HIV? Is it right to try and criminalise HIV positive people in this way? And what can past cases teach us?

 

Intentional, reckless or accidental?

 

Before looking at the complexities of prosecuting people for infecting others with HIV, it is first necessary to understand the different types of transmission that can take place. The definitions below are based on general categories and are not specific to any particular country or legal system.

 

Intentional

 

Intentional (or deliberate or wilful) transmission, is considered the most serious form of criminal transmission. Some cases have involved individuals (both HIV positive and HIV negative) who have used needles or other implements to intentionally infect others with HIV. Others have been based on HIV positive people who have had sex with the primary intent of transmitting the virus to their partner.

 

Intentional transmission can also take place when a negative partner has an active desire to become infected with HIV. This is unlikely to lead to prosecution however, as both parties consent.

 

Reckless

 

This is where HIV is transmitted through a careless rather than deliberate act. If for example a person who knows they have HIV has unprotected sex with a negative person, but fails to inform them of the risk involved, this could be classed as reckless transmission in court. "Reckless" here implies that transmission took place as part of the pursuit of sexual gratification rather than because the HIV positive person intended to give their partner HIV (HIV is of course not 'automatically' transmitted every time someone has unprotected sex).

 

Accidental

 

This is the most common way that HIV is passed on. A person is generally said to have accidentally transmitted HIV if:

 

They were unaware that they had the virus, and therefore did not feel the need to take measures to protect their partner.

They were aware of their HIV positive status and they used a condom during sex, but the condom failed in some way (although there is some debate over whether this should in fact be classed as a reckless act, as we shall see later).

 

The complexities of prosecution

 

Unfortunately deciding if someone has intentionally, recklessly or accidentally transmitted HIV is not as simple as the explanations above may suggest. The divisions between each of the three categories can be very blurred, and depend largely on individual interpretation. Even after a decision has been made on what grounds to prosecute, a court may still have a hard time deciding whether to find someone guilty or not. Some of the most problematic issues include:

 

Proof

 

It might appear that proof is a straightforward issue, but proving that an individual has transmitted HIV can be exceedingly difficult.

 

Firstly it needs to be proven that the accused (let's call them A) was definitely the source of the accuser's (B) HIV. This would involve a range of evidence including sexual history, testing history and scientific evidence in the form of phylogenetics. This compares the DNA of the virus that A and B are infected with (see the Richard D. Schmidt case study, below, for application in US courts). If they are completely different then it means B almost certainly did not acquire HIV from A, and the case would probably be thrown out. If the strains are very similar, however, it is possible, though not conclusive, that A infected B. Phylogenetics can not reliably estimate the direction of transmission and therefore it is possible that B infected A. Furthermore, both could have been infected by the same third party, or different third parties who shared similar strains of HIV. Due to its shortcomings, advocates recommend phylogenetic evidence should only be considered in the context of all other evidence.

 

http://www.avert.org/media/content/diagrams/phylogenetic-analysis.jpg

 

The different ways two people, 'A' and 'B', could be infected with similar HIV strains.

 

 

Often, the only definitive proof would be a negative test on B that was performed after A received a positive test. Even so, if the complainant had had multiple sexual partners, pinning responsibility on a particular individual could be very difficult.

 

In cases where intentional transmission needs to be proven, evidence needs to be found that A actively intended and wanted to infect B. Unless there is physical proof of this (e.g. a syringe filled with HIV positive material, a note, or a written confession), it can often just be one person's word against another. With cases of sexual transmission, proving intention can be virtually impossible as the very nature of sexual HIV transmission means there are no witnesses: what happens in the bedroom is essentially private. If no evidence of intentional transmission could be found therefore, a charge of reckless or careless transmission would probably be chosen. Whether someone can be legally charged with reckless (as opposed to intentional) transmission depends entirely on an individual country's laws and courts. In some places there is no differentiation between the two.

 

Consent and disclosure

 

Almost all criminal convictions involving sexual transmission are brought about because an HIV positive person has failed to inform their negative partner about their status. In some cases, the positive person may have actively lied in response to a direct question in order to persuade their partner to have unprotected sex. In others, they may simply not have mentioned their status. A prosecution involving deception might carry a more severe penalty than a simple failure to disclose, because it affects a person's choice to consent to sex. But again, this depends on local laws.

 

Consent is an important issue in all criminal prosecutions. If the accused had simply not mentioned they are HIV positive, then the prosecution would probably argue that they had been reckless by not disclosing their status and not informing their partner of the risks involved in intercourse. However, the defence could well counter this by saying that the balance of responsibility is 50:50, and that by agreeing to having unprotected sex, the ‘victim’ effectively consented to all the risks involved, including that of HIV. This argument was used in the appeal trial of Mohammed Dica, the first person in England to be accused of recklessly transmitting HIV (see below).

 

If the accused had actively deceived their partner, and told them they were negative when they were not, then the prosecution could quite easily argue that the 50:50 balance of responsibility had been taken away, making the accused more liable to prosecution.

 

The argument that non-disclosure equals guilt could potentially even be applied if the person on trial had used a condom. Some say that sex with a condom, but without disclosure of status should also count as reckless transmission. This is because condoms are not always 100% effective. If a condom fails, and an individual becomes infected with HIV, there is potential for that person to accuse their partner of being 'reckless' for having withheld information that may have influenced their decision to have sex.

 

Assumed status and trust

 

Disclosing one's HIV status to an intimate partner can be extremely difficult. Many people have difficulty coming to terms with having HIV and remain in denial of their condition. The fear of rejection and stigma can also prevent people from being honest, particularly if they are worried about friends, colleagues or members of their family finding out. Likewise, asking about someone else's status can be hard because of the risk of offending them, or 'spoiling the moment'. In such circumstances, many people choose to make assumptions instead.

 

Ironically, this is particularly true in high-prevalence areas or among high-risk groups where virtually everyone has heard of HIV. A positive person who engages in casual sex with a negative person may, for example, assume that by failing to suggest the use of a condom or failing to ask about status, the negative partner is either already positive themselves or does not care about the risks of HIV. Likewise, a negative person may assume that by not using a condom and not talking about status, their partner must be negative too:

 

“If she was HIV positive, she'd ask me to use a condom...” or “He's not using a condom, so he must be HIV positive, like me”

 

There is also the issue of trust. Most would agree that a relationship can only work if both partners have faith in each other to be honest and truthful. But when one partner consistently lies or deceives the other, where does the blame lie - with the person who has been deceptive, or with the person who has been naive enough to trust them?

 

 

full article available at: http://www.avert.org/criminal-transmission.htm

[+ friendofsheila]

In such cases I always think, Mmmm, if you want to have unprotected sex with me, then I won't be the first and I must assume you had unprotected sex with others. If you had unprotected sex with others there's a chance that you're HIV+ (even if you recently tested HIV-). If there's a chance that you're HIV+ and if I would have unprotected sex with you, then I take the risk of you passing it on to me.

 

Bottom line? I won't try to figure out if someone's HIV+ or HIV-. I simply won't do it, period.

 

I don't think it make a difference if you're an escort, a client, a porn actor, or someone wanting to have fun, having unprotected sex means you're taking a risk of getting HIV.

 

Of course this doesn't mean I'm justifying the escorts actions.

 

Sincerely, Anton.

 

I like what you said here, Anton, since it shines some light on the fact that the clients in this case were not entirely free of responsibility for their exposure.

[Lohengrin1979]

I like what you said here, Anton, since it shines some light on the fact that the clients in this case were not entirely free of responsibility for their exposure.

 

This. There's always a risk if it's unprotected, period! If you choose not to suit up, you knowingly embrace a certain amount of risk. I'm not in any way excusing this guy's actions but no one, gay or straight, is unaware of the fact that unprotected sex can lead to infection.

[Guest Merlin]

Of course, positive guys who knowingly expose others with unprotected sex, without advising them, should be seriously punished.

But I point out that there are quite a few escorts who use words which should alert potential clients. On Rentboy, for instance, a very few disclose their positive status. Others however advertise "sometimes safe". This should alert clients. Is it enough? No, but perhaps clients who contact them are advised of positive status. I have seen "never safe" and "no limits" as well. Some clients are positive as well, and prefer to hire positive escorts.

Others escorts simply ignore the question, with the result that the Rentboy ad does not say "always safe" etc. I regard this as a probable admission that the guy is positive. I never hire guys whom I know or suspect are positive, and, in any event, I always practice safer sex. But accidents happen even with safer sex, and avoiding positive escorts is a higher degree of safety.

Criminally, if the escort advises clients of his positive status, he should not, and probably cannot, be prosecuted, depending upon the wording of the statute. Obviously the question will sometime arise of whether the client was advised.

[Steven_Draker]

"always safe"

 

Don't always believe what people say in their ads. Some lie about their status and about their safe practice for various reasons: stigma, being judged, loosing the business ...

 

Don't try to figure out who is positive or who is negative. As Hooboy used to say: the safest sex you can have is when you stay at home and use your right hand (paraphrase).