“I find it odd that some of the comments include arguments such as, at sixteen he should know better.

This misses the point. The person who owns the gun is responsible if he shoots someone.”

Maybe you know much more than is reported in the newspapers. From what I take from the above article, XXXX had a date with Everett. He met him first on Grindr, then phoned with him and then went to him in his flat to have sex with him. There is no hint in the report that Everett forced him to have sex with hin or talked him into it.

While it is illegal in Texas to have consensual sex with 16 year old persons and Everett should have sent him home and while it is certainly irresponsible to have anal sex without a condome, these acts are not similar to the wilful killing of a helpless victim.

Another aspect is missing from this long and heated discussion: If knowingly HIV-positive persons who have sex are treated as criminals, people will prefer not to know their HIV-status. That makes prevention and treatment extremely difficult.

In Germany Pop Singer Nadja Benaissa got a conditional sentence of 2 years + an unconditional sentence of 200 hours of social work because she had unprotected sex with several men while she knew that she was positive and one man turned seropositive after having unprotected sex with her. This relatively mild sentence is still critisized by all AIDS-prevention activists because it gives a wrong signal.

Chris that’s a valid point. But I see this sort of bizarre, and quite frankly frightening point where people seem to be suggesting that the victim/recipient/consumer is responsible but the other person is not.

This discussion pops up about “Personal responsibility” but it would seem that people like Everett are not personally responsible or don’t need to take personal responsibility for their actions. Or that their involvement is minimal (and therefore exempt from personal responsibility) even though they hold the power to do the most damage or good in the situation.

I did not mean to imply that Mr Everett was innocent, or should be treated as not guilty, or that blame should be placed on the victim.

To use the previously stated example of leaving the door to your house unlocked – of course the thief that robs your unlocked house is guilty of robbery. There’s no question there. However, does that mean we should all go around leaving our houses unlocked?

Let me again state that I am in no way holding the victim guilty in either the real sexual assault case, or the hypothetical robbery I give above.

As I stated, I think this case should be used to highlight the dangers of unprotected sex. This victim chose risky behavior with a stranger who consciously failed to disclose his HIV status. I think this case, and the increasing prevalence of bareback porn, shows that we need better targeted education to sexually mature teens and young adults.

Teaching people to take steps to protect themselves from harm is not equal to advocating that people who do not protect themselves enough are somehow blameworthy should harm befall them.

Really?

You said:

“Sleeping with someone involves trust and trust is a risk, in all sorts of ways. When you sleep with someone, you assume that risk. If you fail to establish trust, you’re accepting more risk.”

Nowhere in this quote do I see anything about the other person’s responsibility. I have a hard time finding it in anything else you write, either.

Again, personal responsibility is solely in the lap of those who take “risks”.

I get it, you think people should be careful. Valid. You think people should be personally responsible and accept risk.

Accepting risk means accepting consequences.

So should HIV+ folks who go around infecting people be subject to any consequences whatsoever?

Someone who has an aggressively violent dog would be at fault if they left their gate open and it attacked and killed a baby. Even if the kid walked right up to it. The onus is on the owner, being aware of the danger his dog represents and taking responsibility for that danger. No, it’s not a crime to have a dog, even a dangerous one. It is, however, a crime to not take reasonable precautions to prevent the animal from maiming/killing people. Even stupid people who walk right up to it.
The analogy isn’t exact, but it’s a decent illustration that responsibility is not always 50/50 between two parties.

Not taking responsibility for those you infect is no different than saying “it’s not my fault my sperm got that lady pregnant, she shouldn’t have had sex with me.”

Although that does bring me to an idea Dan Savage proposed. A sort of HIV “child support”. You infect, you get to foot the bills(at least partway) for medication and related expenses.

We are all responsible for stopping the spread of HIV and AIDS. But we are not all equally responsible. Whether or not you think it fair, those with HIV have a greater responsibility.

There simply is no equality in the morality of avoiding getting HIV and avoiding spreading HIV. These simply are not equal responsibilities; endangering myself is morally, legally, and socially different from endangering others.

There is a great national campaign called “HIV Stops With Me” in which they seek to get HIV positive people to commit to stopping the spread of the virus by them. Those who participate make the decision to live responsibly.

I hope that conversations of this sort don’t harm this campaign. I am troubled by any discussion that suggests that those who have HIV need not control the containment of the virus because it is the responsibility of others to always play safe.

Perhaps a bit of clarity and a reminder.

Yes, for most HIV infected persons, a lifetime of taking a drug, suffering side effects, regular check-ups, significant expense, and being in a group that can to some extent limit your dating/partnering prospects, will probably be the worst results of seroconverting. Life expectancy will not be greatly reduced, if one is careful and consistent.

And we have a decent expectancy that drugs will continue to improve and finally the medical community is beginning again to whisper the word “cure”. So there is no assumption that HIV = death. That simply is not true anymore.

But – and for me this is a big but – not everyone responds well to AVRs. Not everyone has the financial, social support, and other resources to fight this virus. People do still die from AIDS-related disease in the United States.

“I see this sort of bizarre, and quite frankly frightening point where people seem to be suggesting that the victim/recipient/consumer is responsible but the other person is not.”

I see it as bizarre that no one has actually said this — yet you, Brutus, and others seem obstinately devoted to interpreting any statement of differing opinion in these black-and-white terms.

Brutus quoted me as saying:

“Safety is not solely the onus of those who know they are positive. They are not solely responsible, let alone criminally so.”

Then, he immediately replied:

“You are – to my disgust – arguing that HIV+ have NO responsibility to avoid infecting healthy people.”

I think there’s a pretty evident difference between saying that someone does not have sole responsibility and saying that someone has no responsibility. I don’t see how that could be more evident than the in the juxtaposition that Brutus provided. Yet he chose to misinterpret what I said, all the same.

If you expect your responses to be given an credence, you’re going to need to do the same.

This discussion pops up about “Personal responsibility” but it would seem that people like Everett are not personally responsible or don’t need to take personal responsibility for their actions. Or that their involvement is minimal (and therefore exempt from personal responsibility) even though they hold the power to do the most damage or good in the situation.

I find it very odd, Jim.

What I see you saying, in a nutshell:

“When Person A puts their trust in Person B, Person B has no moral or ethical obligation to be honest or honorable in regards to Person A.
Whatever happens is entirely the fault of Person A.”

It’s a rather cynical argument.

I read it more as “Caveat Emptor”.

More resources need to be expended in HIV education to highlight to young people dangers such as the one highlighted in this case.

I think Jim’s point was that, hypothetically, even if Mr Everett did not know is HIV status, XXXX took a risk in having unprotected sex with a stranger.

Mr Everett knowing his HIV status increases the crime from “criminal negligence” to “reckless endangerment.” Unless the defense can prove Mens rea, that Mr Everett sought to intentionally infect XXXX, the severity of the crime is limited to Recklessness.

“Actually, being reckless is factored into our laws and sentencing.”

Of course it is. I never said otherwise. However, wreckless endagerment is a lesser offense for precisely the reasons I gave.

Brutus: That being said, it is not illegal for an adult to lie to another adult while trying to pick him up in a bar or on a hook up site.”

“Yes it is, if you don’t use protection. Stop spreading nonsense.”

Please cite the law that makes it illegal to lie in a pick up bar or to have sex without a condom.

“Riiiiight, someone else gave that person HIV, but that person does not think that he can give others HIV. The arguments in favor of your position get more ridiculous by the minute.”

Ummm… I never said that such people weren’t wrong. However, you must be living in a closet if you don’t know there are those who think that having an undetectable viral load means they are not contagious. And what position do you think I am arguing, exactly? Your “point” has nothing to do with what I was saying.