Murder through AIDS?
Another moral conundrum from Canada. Is not telling your sexual partner that you have AIDs murder? According to the Supreme Court of Canada, yes...According to the AIDs awareness community...no.
Murder, not policy
April 7, 2009
It is not exactly true that the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. Rape isn't tolerated in the bedroom. Murder isn't tolerated in the bedroom. This may seem obvious, but when Johnson Aziga of Hamilton was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder on Friday for failing to tell his sex partners he had HIV, the AIDs community got up in arms.
Alison Symington of the Canadian HIV/AIDs Legal Network objects to criminalizing those who give HIV to their sex partners. "Do we as a society think not telling someone you're living with a sexually transmitted infection is the equivalent of murder?" she asks rhetorically. In her view, this country has not had an "informed public debate." Others, including top medical researchers such as Mark Wainberg of Montreal, say criminal charges spread "stigma" and may cause at-risk people to spurn medical attention, in the hopes of avoiding criminal charges if they infect someone.
The AIDs advocates misunderstand the role of the state. The state can never overlook rape or murder on policy grounds. To argue that a generalized stigma is a bigger concern than an actual victim of rape or murder (or in Mr. Aziga's crimes, both) is nonsensical. For a society to give up, in light of policy considerations, the protection it extends to each and every individual would require a debate the likes of which this society has never had. But to equate Mr. Aziga's willful spreading of HIV with murder is simply to apply the law's protection to all, within Canadian norms.
When Pierre Trudeau said the state should keep out of the bedroom (he was advocating the decriminalization of homosexuality), he explained that "what's done in private between two consenting adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code." The key is consent. Sexual intercourse without consent is rape. And if the rape victim dies in the course of a violent assault, it is murder. Elsewhere, Ms. Symington says that human rights, and in particular women's rights, should be at the core of the response to the HIV/AIDs pandemic. It is a strange view of women's rights in which the criminal law offers women no protection from rape in certain cases.
Stigma? If Canadians felt that people with AIDs were free to knowingly spread a deadly disease, the stigma would grow by leaps and bounds. There is no evidence that people will resist medical attention so they can be free to act recklessly. To throw the criminal law overboard on the basis of such guesswork would be ridiculous. In any event, Mr. Aziga himself was mightily concerned with his own health, but ignored repeated warnings from public-health officials to act responsibly.
To knowingly expose others to the risk of death from HIV is to commit a serious crime.
More links: http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/614215
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1115347.html
If they knew they had aids, its murder. Others have been charged successfully with attempted murder when they have used a syring filled with blood as a weapon. Just because the tools differ, the knowledge is still there
Well we don't have the death penalty in Canada, so it's life in prison.
If the person knowingly passes it on, then yes, it should be murder, however if they don't know, then...well, it just sucks.
why not a loving man? He can have as many loving girls and what guarantee is that the girls are gonna be faithful enough
If an individual plans and executes the killing of another then it is premeditated and with malice aforethought. Therefore if an individual knows they can transmit a deadly virus to others and deliberately plans to pass it on then it is surely murder.
Granted there may be other factors involved such as mental instability etc .
However in my opinion it is murder.
But Hu,
There are some who in general dont think there should be blanket rule to consider such characters as guility.
I believe other wise.. there cannot be any other option but a straight gallows for such people
He's guilty, because according to the story, he was convicted for two counts of first-degree murder. His lawyer would surely appeal.
No matter how many times public health officials tell couples to practise safe sex until the know and can trust their partner (and they have each been screened for communicable diseases) people seem happy to go on having unprotected sex.
Burp!!!!!!!
I am back - Is he guility or not????
Hell hath no fury like a Canadian with Aids !
He had AIDs, he KNEW he had Aids and he deliberately slept with as many women as he could to give them Aids. To me that's murder.
why has nobody raised this aspect? This is the issue here. But my question, is there an existing law that was violated here (am not familiar with Canadian laws) for him to be charged with murder? And here's the rub, would it be the same if I so angered someone and he died of a heart attack, knowing beforehand he has a heart problem. Can I be charged with murder too? Totally redefines our idea of murder.
Mr. Aziga's sexual acts reeks of malice hence his is a moral issue. AIDS advocates raises a howl. Did the state stepped on his individual rights? What would it be?
Stigma- so precious in that part of the world. But back home authorities literally mark with red paint the houses of known drug-pusher's.
But people kill people all the time by accident, and they dont' go to jail. It's only manslaughter if they've done something wreckless.
Got to go for lunch.
V V V V hungry.
Will be back after a short break.
Don't forget the toilet seat. I heard that its a common way of catching AIDS..
Getting back to the question at hand. If someone knows that they have AIDS or perhaps even Hepatitis (the form that kills) , then they have a moral duty to inform their partner. If they don't, then it should be treated as premeditated murder.
I dont agree with you.
murder my mistake might not keep the murderer behind bars for a life time but for few years for sure.
If a murder by mistake is not considered an intentional murder - dont you think there are great legal sharks on this planet to prove atleast some percentage of murders as mistakes and let the murderer go scot free.
hearing. So let the facts be laid and the court to give judgment!
"dgoodrebel will always be the rebellious good one"
Well it depends on the mistake, but no usually if it was a genuine mistake the person wouldnt' go to jail.
If a person kills another person without any intention (PURELY BY MISTAKE). Does he not go behind the bars???????
Then why any leniency in death because of AIDS transmitted through sex with an infected person.
If lots of people have AIDS and they dont know then AIDS test need to be made mandatory, If not by government then by people themselves.
Maybe people will start doing such tests if as Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to the case as a murder case. Let such cases be filed and similar stand be taken by all courts world over.
mandatory AIDS test. No one is allowed to go-out of the country without going thru it! Actually, it is becoming a standard requirement for certain offices and companies locally.
"dgoodrebel will always be the rebellious good one"
AIDS does not come from doors or windows but surely if u had a blood transfusion / had drugs / slept outside.
In all the cases, one has to be sure that he does not have it. so test the damn blood
Lots of people have AIDS and don't know it Skdkak.
How can anyone know he has AIDS? Does it come knocking and announce you got AIDS
PM, lets stick to topic where AIDS is mentioned. How can any one not know he has AIDS.
that's why it depend on the aggravating circumstances. If one knows he has the disease and intentionally did not tell it, then yes, he is guilty of a crime (not necessarily murder). But if he doesn't know it, then he's not guilty. Unless they make it mandatory for a medical check-up or clearance prior to marriage, that is a different story.
But you know, the prevailing mentality is "sex first before asking.....". And really a very dangerous mind-set.
"dgoodrebel will always be the rebellious good one"
My point is simple.
If a man has had drugs / slept ouside / or has any disease - He knows what he has or might be carrying.
Result is he needs to inform his partner before they indulge in any act.
Whatever way he got this, if he knows about it, he should tell.
He wouldn't? I'm not sure what you're getting at?
I think we are (AS USUAL IN QL) deviating from the topic - GUILITY or NOT GUILITY
Hemophilia usually occurs only in males (with very rare exceptions.
If one has Hemophilia, he would know it anyway. why to hide his problem.
I'm confused? A Hemophiliac has a disease that requires blood transfusions, in the 80's many unfortunate people contracted AIDS through these transfusions and then passed the disease unknowingly on to thier wives and children, they didn't do it through malice or because they were bad men.
and who will decide what category one falls into gypsy???
there should no scope of ambiguity in such cirmustances. Its a matter of someones life
Or a man with hemophilia...
LOL, Mikaylas & Gypsy.
What ever reasons you have mentioned are all traits of a dirty AND unfaithful man.
The very reason of him hiding his flirtations and drug habbits with his partner.
If he was unaware he was HIV positive then it wouldn't be murder, but he used his disease like a weapon to kill these women.
Gypsy beat me to it...
Motherhood...The hardest job you'll ever love! : )
You can get HIV?AIDS by sharing needles in drug use, you can get it from unscreened blood in blood transfusions. So yes, you can get a sexually transmitted disease without sleeping around.
Motherhood...The hardest job you'll ever love! : )
Either case (sleeping around / needle), one needs to have a medical checkup before intercourse
Agree.... this is definitely murder!!!
Well he could have gotten AIDS from a blood transfusion or a dirty needle.
How can a man have any damn sexually transmitted disease if he has not slept around.
This is no excuse.
You can't teach experience...
that maybe transferred thru sexual contact!
"dgoodrebel will always be the rebellious good one"
Intent. If there was really intent to harm, then there is a probable cause. But if unknowingly, then .....
Even if it's not HIV/AIDS!
"dgoodrebel will always be the rebellious good one"
This is pure murder and that too slow death.
Where is the point to discuss anything in such a situation.
Alison Symington should be hanged to even raise points regarding national / public discussion etc etc etc.
WHAT THE HECK IS THERE TO DISCUSS IN MURDER
I agree. What the man did was murder, especially since he did it with the intent of giving these women the disease so they would die.
Agree with Alexa... definately obligated to tell the other person..
on both sides!
"dgoodrebel will always be the rebellious good one"