Tuesday, May 27, 2008

ANGOLA: Should intentional infection be a crime?


Millions of HIV positive women in developing
countries face the desperate dilemma- breastfeed
their babies and risk HIV transmission or give
infant formula and risk illness and possible death
from diarrhea and other diseases (Click image
for larger version)

It is somewhat amazing to me people can debate this issue.
Proposed reforms to Angola's Penal Code have divided opinion in the country about whether HIV-positive people who intentionally infect others with the virus should be punished.

I'm no attorney. I have used several through the years, but not criminal attorneys.

It would seem to me nearly fucking impossible to prove intent unless the prosecution had witnesses who claimed the accused told them he knew he was HIV-positive, intended to or intentionally had unprotected sex with others and realized he could transmit the disease in that manner.

Assuming all of those factors are present, intent could be established and of course he should be tried and punished if found guilty. What for I'm not sure. Attempted murder? Nah. HIV isn't always fatal. Reckless endangerment? Yeah. That might work.

Stupidity, callousness, cruelty and several other terms come to mind, but none of them are criminal in most cases even though gross stupidity should be.

Debate on the issue of punishment is unnecessary to my way of thinking.

Note: Headline links to source.

Labels:

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your an idiot. Firstly feeding your child breast milk would not count as intentional infection so why have you linked the two. Intentional infection is also easy to prove, if someone knew about their HIV infection and had unprotected intercourse or shared IV drug works with another, without informing them of the risks involved. Everyone with HIV understands how and why it is tranmitted. In canada such an offense exists and several people have been convicted. Why do you not think those who maliciously infect another with the worst disease on earth should not be prosecuted to the full extent of the law?

As for the conviction, GBH (grevious Bodily Harm) would do but Murder would be better, as 95% of those with HIV die from the disease and it's complications, plus the victims life and prospects for a family would be completely destroyed.

You should really rethink your argument.

10/03/2008 10:37:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home