• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Is This Murder?

Joined
Dec 21, 2011
I'd like to first state that I had no idea what to call this thread lol. I suck at creative titles :\.

So I was watching Law & Order SVU (one of my favorite shows) and it was a really intriguing episdoe that I hadn't seen in a while. I think it would be a good idea to spark a discussion over this topic that was introduced in this episode.

The Scenario: A man knows that he is HIV positive. He understands the risks and how it could harm his other sexual partners. He proceeds to ignore this disease, knowing that it could potentially kill others, and decides to join a online sex chatroom where he has sex with multiple partners a week. We can assume that he has had over 50 sexual partners. One of his partners contracted HIV through contact with this particular man and then dies from its symptoms.

Here are the questions.

1. Do you think that special laws should be in place that require people who have STI's to be restricted from sexual acts?

2. Do you think that there should be a registered STI contracted persons website? (I had no clue how to word that lol) This is similar to how sex - offenders are registered on a sex offenders website.

3. Do you think that the man, who knew he had HIV, should be charged with any sort of crime?

4. If you answered yes to question #3, what crime and why do you think that crime fits the punishment?

My answers!

1. Absoloutley not. It completley infringes on a persons rights and freedoms. Would it be courteous to let your partner know that you have an STI and share with her the consequences of having sex with you? Yes. Should it be required in the form of a law? No. The women doesn't have to have sex with the man because this is not rape. She has every bit of awareness and logic to ask about the consequences of having sex. If he lies, then I still don't think it's the womens fault because she still chose to encounter in sexual actions with another person knowing the consequences and reprucssions it could cause.

2. This is a good idea, but I don't think it should be required, more so an optional thing. If it was required then I'm rooting back to my defence of it infringing on another persons personal privacy. However, if this was optional I don't find any harm in letting the community know who has what and where it's at. It could only do good, in my opinion, if it was optional.

3. No the man who had HIV should not be charged with any sort of crime. As I've said before, it's not his fault enirely. There were two people having sex, not just one. The women had multiple oppurtinities to ask questions about wheter or not he had any dieseases, what are the harms and consequences of having sex, etc. This isn't rape so she had the option to do it or not. If the women knew the consequences of having sex, and did it anyways, she should have to live with those consequences because it's her own fault. If she didn't know the consequences then it's still her fault because she chose to have sex before she actually knew what she was doing which is cimpletley immature. The man shouldn't be at fault just because society wants to make the women seem like the victim 9/10. (made up number)

4. I can't answer this because I don't think that the man should be at fault.

So tell me what you guys think! I'm interested :D

EDIT: Thank you all for noticing my mistake. It was question #3 and I edited it in, thanks!
 
Last edited:

Hanyou

didn't build that
1. Do you think that special laws should be in place that require people who have STI's to be restricted from sexual acts?
No. Koolsholts answered this as articulately as anyone could hope to in his first complete sentence. Put simply, you should never pre-emptively infringe on a person's freedoms.

2. Do you think that there should be a registered STI contracted persons website? (I had no clue how to word that lol) This is similar to how sex - offenders are registered on a sex offenders website.
Again, I agree with Koolsholts.

3. Do you think that the man, who knew he had HIV, should be charged with any sort of crime?
I'm not too knowledgable on criminal law, but I believe there are criminal penalties for intentionally infecting a sexual partner with an STD. It would depend on jurisdiction. When the intent is to infect the victim, I think there should be criminal penalties, though they should not be overly severe so long as sex is consented to by both parties.

There is also potential for a civil suit. There should be some degree of liability. There is plenty of room for recovery in cases of fraud, and this is really no different--it's misrepresentation in the extreme, and the implicit contract between two consenting partners during sexual activity sort of depends on honesty. Since the consequences of dishonesty are in this case so extreme, substantial damages should be awarded. There are various methods of recovery, and the best one in a particular case is a matter for an attorney and his or her client.

Of course, damages will be limited by contributory negligence on the plaintiff's part, and here's where the interesting stuff kicks in. Can the woman be expected to refrain entirely from sexual activity? Given the social climate, it's doubtful. But was she negligent in failing to take the proper measures to ensure that every encounter was as safe as possible? Possibly. It depends on how much of a role the man played in her failure to take the proper measures.

Personally, I see no reason why anyone should have sex with someone before knowing them very, very well. I have waited until marriage. If someone fails to wait until they are at least as dedicated to someone as they would be to a spouse, I personally consider that negligent, and have little sympathy for those who fail to take proper precautions. Personal opinions aside, it's a risk the women took and while I hope civil recovery was an option for all of them, criminal penalties should have been limited.

4. If you answered yes to question #2, what crime and why do you think that crime fits the punishment?
#3, I assume? It may require new statutory law. I don't know.

I like the idea of punitive/compensatory damages more. Again, that would be up to the attorney, their client, the judge, and/or the jury.

I should add that if rape were involved, I would favor a charge of murder.
 
Last edited:

TheMasterSword

The Blade of Evil's Bane
Joined
Dec 21, 2011
Location
Temple of Time
First, they aren't STI's. HIV is a disease, thus it is a STD.

1: No. I mean honestly, it would be practically impossible to keep track of them, unless they put a chip in someone. Also, the person himself should have enough knowledge to know NOT to do it.

2: No, because no one would check the website. They wouldn't spend time when their in the mood to go online and check if the person they're about to have sex with has been tested recently. Seriously?

3: Yes. He was ignorant and it wasn't as if he did it once. he did it over 50 times approximately, and joined a sex chatroom? Thats ignorance and maliciousness, and that shouldn't be allowed.

4: If someone dies, second degree murder. If someone simply gets infected, i have no idea. I've thought about this before, and I saw that episode too, but I never came up with something for this question.
 
Joined
Apr 16, 2010
Koosholts said:
1. Do you think that special laws should be in place that require people who have STI's to be restricted from sexual acts?

No, that would be rather stupid. That's like telling someone with the flu that they're not aloud to touch anyone or anything in public. Anyone can ask if someone has an STD and choose not to have sexual intercourse with them if they do have one or if they think they're lying.

Also, the person with the STD couldn't have children unless they adopted. That's restricting their pursuit of happiness.


2. Do you think that there should be a registered STI contracted persons website? (I had no clue how to word that lol) This is similar to how sex - offenders are registered on a sex offenders website.

Again, no. Like I said before, anyone can ask if the person they're about to have sex with has one and choose not to. That's invasion of privacy, and I'm sure many people who have contracted an STD are very self-aware about it as it is. There's not a website for people with diseases that aren't sexually-transmitted, so why should be there be one for people that do?


3. Do you think that the man, who knew he had HIV, should be charged with any sort of crime?

Once more, no. Sorry, but I'm going to use the same two examples as before. There's no charges for people that have non-sexually-transmitted diseases and spread them, so why should there be for people that do? Also, people can ask and choose not to have intercourse with the person. And besides, how can you say for certain whether or not they knew they had the STD? I suppose you could check their medical record or something, but that's too much effort being placed on a "crime" that is much less severe than other crimes that should be focused on solving and preventing.


4. If you answered yes to question #2, what crime and why do you think that crime fits the punishment?

Well, I don't think there should be any crime or punishment in knowingly or unknowingly having sex with an STD, but if there were to be one, I'd say that a small fine would do, or - for those of you that don't believe in capital punishment - a few months in jail.
 

All Might

Remember who you are
Forum Volunteer
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Location
The Circle of Life
1. Do you think that special laws should be in place that require people who have STI's to be restricted from sexual acts?
Not at all. As you essentially said, it impedes certain rights and freedoms for human beings to mobilize as independent creatures. It'd be like the government censoring designated websites in an attempt to restrict unlawful activity online, such as piracy. Not only this, but it would interfere with relationships as well. If a couple wishes to take the risk of being infected, that's their call and decision. We don't need the eyes of the government watching over us and controlling where we place our every step. Moreover, how would others know if people had STI? They'd have to go in and investigate, correct? So that'd further go against our rights and freedom while at the same time invade our privacy, which to me would be inexcusable.

2. Do you think that there should be a registered STI contracted persons website? (I had no clue how to word that lol) This is similar to how sex - offenders are registered on a sex offenders website.
A website might be a good idea, but then that would go almost in direct line with my previous point. I don't want to see any foreign behest over the issue; it's a personal issue, and the person who has STI can go to the appropriate person, like a doctor, if he needed to. There's always the likelihood that the government could take over and make it mandatory that all STI-carrying persons register to it.

3. Do you think that the man, who knew he had HIV, should be charged with any sort of crime?
The man with HIV should not have any charges pressed against him so long as his intent was not rape and he and his partner knew full well about the dangers. However, if the man purposively infected the woman with his diseases, thereby killing her, then prerequisite charges must be set up in the case under the indictment of intentional murder. Even for one of a sick or mentally ill mind there are places where he could go to spend his sentence or be rehabilitated.

4. If you answered yes to question #3, what crime and why do you think that crime fits the punishment?
As one who doesn't support capital punishment, I think the appropriate amount of years in jail for this sort of scenario would do. Doesn't have to be long. I mean, even if the "murder" was intentional he shouldn't spend the rest of his life behind bars...though this is very dependent on the circumstances.
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2011
@TheMasterSword: The women joined in on the sex chatroom too so how come she's excused? We can also assume that she has had sex with multiple partners so she might be just as ignorant to the dangers of having sex as the man is to spreading his disease.

I also agree with what everyone else sais that if the intent was to harm or kill, then it should be charged with some sort of crime. My only argument to this is that how can you prove the intent was to kill if both partys concented?
 

SinkingBadges

The Quiet Man
My only argument to this is that how can you prove the intent was to kill if both partys concented?
Hmm... I can see the intent being somewhat careless, but I see how something seems off saying the intent was to kill can sound a bit off. The women can be called out as careless for not taking precautions as much as the guy could because of going around having sex with random people despite being perfectly aware of his condition. I do think there's something to be said about his carelessness, but then again, that's why services like public sex chat rooms and the like are not considered safe practices (not saying the services should be condemned either, since I think that their use should be more to individual judgement, but there's always the possibility of coming across someone with STDs and getting infected yourself), especially if you're careless about your partner's health record.

I agree that saying the intent was to kill sounds a bit off, but I can't see him being exactly well-meaning there. That said, I agree with those against a law restricting people with STDs or registering them publically like sex offenders (against their will, that is) does sound like it ignores the person's rights. But I agree with Hanyou that there should be a certain degree of liability on the man.
 
Last edited:

Agent Spaghetti

Advanced Noodle
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Location
The Pasta Kingdom.
1. No, it would only cause too many problems. I would personally like to do that, but it wouldn't work. You guys say that doing this would impede their rights while you completely ignore the victims rights to a life. What the infected person is doing an evil act, in my opinion.

2. Yes, but I'm still not sure exactly how much help it would be.

3. If the partner went into it comepletely willingly knowing the danger (they're complete idiots in my opinion), then no. And if its rape. Otherwise, yes.

4. Jail time. The length would probably depend on the circumstances.

Listen, its bad, whatever he and people in the real world like him are doing. Having sex with someone while you have an STD is like pulling the trigger on a gun against someone's head. If it jams, your safe. If it doesn't, you're screwed. You can't just say that you had no idea that shooting a bullet at someone could kill them.
 
Joined
Apr 16, 2010
Agent Spaghetti said:
You can't just say that you had no idea that shooting a bullet at someone could kill them.
But you can say that you didn't know the gun was loaded. If the person didn't know they had the STD, they shouldn't be punished as though they did. Unless you check their medical record, there is no way to prove that they knew about it.
 

Agent Spaghetti

Advanced Noodle
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Location
The Pasta Kingdom.
But you can say that you didn't know the gun was loaded. If the person didn't know they had the STD, they shouldn't be punished as though they did. Unless you check their medical record, there is no way to prove that they knew about it.
Yeah, if someone was unaware, then I wouldn't punish them. And yet your analogy fails since it's absolutely idiocy to pull a trigger on someone anyway. Same in the STD case. People should know about their health before they go off and have sex as someone should know if a gun was loaded before they pull the trigger. But some people are unwilling or just too stupid to go and check, they shouldn't for punished for that. Guilt should take care of that.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom