Various Topics on Aids

..rt..

<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=533995&in_page_id=1770>:

----- Begin Quote -----

Anyone deliberately infecting a ***ual partner with HIV through a
one-off encounter should not be charged with a crime, prosecutors
ruled yesterday.

A single ***ual incident will not count as evidence that they have
deliberately tried to infect their partner with the virus, the Crown
Prosecution Service said.

Cases of intentional or reckless transmission of ***ual infection will
only be brought against those who have infected a series of partners,
or have infected one partner during a period of regular risky ***.

The rules were set out to clarify the law on reckless infection and to
guide prosecutors on how to deal with a crime that can lead to a life
sentence for those convicted.

They also said that those accused of reckless HIV infection are
themselves "victims", because they suffer from a devastating
condition.

Eleven defendants have been taken to court in England for transmission
of the Aids virus.

Ten of the cases ended in a conviction. Defendants are charged with
causing grievous bodily harm under the 1861 Offences Against the
Person Act.

The first person to be jailed for infecting partners was given eight
years in 2003 for infecting two women.

The sentence on Mohammed Dica, a married father-of-three, was cut to
four and a half years after a re-trial found that he had deliberately
infected only one woman.

The guidance, set out in a CPS policy do***ent, said it would be
necessary to prove a "sustained course of conduct" in order to find a
defendant guilty - in other words a single ***ual encounter does not
amount to a crime.

"It will be highly unlikely that the prosecution will be able to
demonstrate the required degree of recklessness in factual
cir***stances other than a sustained course of conduct during which
the defendant ignores current scientific advice regarding the need for
and the use of safeguards, thereby increasing the risk of infection to
an unacceptable level," it said.

The do***ent also said: "We appreciate too that those who are
defendants in these cases may be seen as victims themselves, as they
also have the infection that they are alleged to have transmitted to
another person."

The statement set out a series of other reasons for prosecutors to be
cautious before bringing charges.

Those newly told that they have an infection could be in a state of
shock or might not have fully understood the diagnosis.

Prosecutors were told that someone who spread a ***ual infection could
also have a defence to a charge if the victim knew of their infected
status.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, said:
"Although these types of cases are rare, we are publishing this
statement because we recognise the importance of consistent
decision-making. We hope that it provides clarity."

Dr David Green, of the Civitas think-tank, warned that the new rules
would encourage risky behaviour among those with HIV.

"Someone who has *** in those cir***stances is subjecting the other
person to a potentially deadly illness and to suffering over a long
period of time," he added.

"These rules are too lenient, and they will lead people to think they
will not be prosecuted."

----- End Quote -----
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>
Moible: +447939991519
4,811 days and counting...

..o.. ..y

"Martin" <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote in message...
news:197.1205701717.20080316@hiv-poz.co.uk...
>
> <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=533995&in_page_id=1770>:
>
> ----- Begin Quote -----
>
> Anyone deliberately infecting a ***ual partner with HIV through a
> one-off encounter should not be charged with a crime, prosecutors
> ruled yesterday.
>
> A single ***ual incident will not count as evidence that they have
> deliberately tried to infect their partner with the virus, the Crown
> Prosecution Service said.
>
> Cases of intentional or reckless transmission of ***ual infection will
> only be brought against those who have infected a series of partners,
> or have infected one partner during a period of regular risky ***.
>
> The rules were set out to clarify the law on reckless infection and to
> guide prosecutors on how to deal with a crime that can lead to a life
> sentence for those convicted.
>
> They also said that those accused of reckless HIV infection are
> themselves "victims", because they suffer from a devastating
> condition.
>
> Eleven defendants have been taken to court in England for transmission
> of the Aids virus.
>
> Ten of the cases ended in a conviction. Defendants are charged with
> causing grievous bodily harm under the 1861 Offences Against the
> Person Act.
>
> The first person to be jailed for infecting partners was given eight
> years in 2003 for infecting two women.
>
> The sentence on Mohammed Dica, a married father-of-three, was cut to
> four and a half years after a re-trial found that he had deliberately
> infected only one woman.
>
> The guidance, set out in a CPS policy do***ent, said it would be
> necessary to prove a "sustained course of conduct" in order to find a
> defendant guilty - in other words a single ***ual encounter does not
> amount to a crime.
>
> "It will be highly unlikely that the prosecution will be able to
> demonstrate the required degree of recklessness in factual
> cir***stances other than a sustained course of conduct during which
> the defendant ignores current scientific advice regarding the need for
> and the use of safeguards, thereby increasing the risk of infection to
> an unacceptable level," it said.
>
> The do***ent also said: "We appreciate too that those who are
> defendants in these cases may be seen as victims themselves, as they
> also have the infection that they are alleged to have transmitted to
> another person."
>
> The statement set out a series of other reasons for prosecutors to be
> cautious before bringing charges.
>
> Those newly told that they have an infection could be in a state of
> shock or might not have fully understood the diagnosis.
>
> Prosecutors were told that someone who spread a ***ual infection could
> also have a defence to a charge if the victim knew of their infected
> status.
>
> The Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, said:
> "Although these types of cases are rare, we are publishing this
> statement because we recognise the importance of consistent
> decision-making. We hope that it provides clarity."
>
> Dr David Green, of the Civitas think-tank, warned that the new rules
> would encourage risky behaviour among those with HIV.
>
> "Someone who has *** in those cir***stances is subjecting the other
> person to a potentially deadly illness and to suffering over a long
> period of time," he added.
>
> "These rules are too lenient, and they will lead people to think they
> will not be prosecuted."
>
> ----- End Quote -----
> --
> <http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>
> Moible: +447939991519
> 4,811 days and counting...

I disagree with Green. And this is because I
find it unbelievable that there is a large number
of people out there who have unprotected ***,
and who are unaware of the risks of contracting
any one or more of several STD's.

Even in the worst possible cases, I find it hard
to believe that the seduced victims are all that
"innocent".

Being "in denial" is no excuse.

--
Sincerely yours,
Scotty

P.S. http://scotty.secretsgolden.com