Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!ucla-cs!bob@ozdaltx.UUCP
From: bob@ozdaltx.UUCP (Bob Culmer)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Re: Intentional Transmission of AIDS
Summary: Confusion about is a "right"
Keywords: criminal recklessness
Message-ID: <39630@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 2 Oct 90 17:54:37 GMT
References: <38625@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <39235@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <39582@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Organization: AIDS INFO EXCG/OZ BBS - Dallas, TX
Lines: 67
Approved: phil@wubios.wustl.edu
Note:	Copyright 1990 by Daniel R. Greening.  Permission granted for
Note:	non-commercial reproduction.
Archive-number: 2574

In article <39582@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, li40163@prism.gatech.edu (M. AXFORD) writes:
> 
>      You did not read the first words of my post.  Yes I do believe that
> people should be responsible for their own behavior.  That is, in part,
> my point -- someone who knowingly spreads AIDS is certainly not 
> acting responsibly! 

On the contrary, I did read them - and still come away with the
impression that you go too far in suggesting that this sort of
responsible behavior be legislated. 

> but there are still a lot
> of people who are not well educated about that subject or sadly
> believe themselves invulnerable to terminal illnesses because they
> are young.

While more can always be done in education, I'm very skeptical that
there are any people above a small fraction, that haven't heard of
AIDS.  So, don't they have a responsibility to check it out?  
Wouldn't you agree that is the responsible thing to do?  Should that
be a crime as well?  

I think the law needs to deal with violations of rights, not the
promotion of good and responsible things.

Yes, let's get more explicit educational materials.  As for the infantile
belief in their own invulnerability - no one has ever figured out how
to disabuse young people of this notion before it's time.  It strikes
me that this is primarily an educational problem, not a criminal one.

>     Prosecutions would have to have some grounds of evidence as in
> any other legal case.

Yes, it was the exact nature of that proof, how and where it could
come from and the very real and practical effects it would have on
people's behavior that horrified me the most.

>    Would you advocate no legal punishment for a drunk driver who
> killed someone?

The two examples are not parallel.  A drunk driver runs into me, while
I'm minding my own business.  If someone could infect me with HIV
while walking down the street, with no participation on my part you
would have some sort of basis for this kind of law.

>     But I support laws that punish for violating the rights of
> another. 

You have a right to a risk free life?  A right to risk free sex?

I use a simple test - if, through no act of your own, another harms
your person or property - your rights have been violated.  It covers
the majority of cases like this pretty well.  You have to be involved 
in some act to be at risk.

I had to reconstruct this sentence - but I believe it said:
> Responsibility should be on the part of both people.

As a guide for personal conduct that's fine.  But as a guide to
criminal law, I think pretty poor.  If it is to be equal for both will
it also be against the law to act irresponsibly by agreeing to have
unprotected sex?
-- 
Bob Culmer - Dallas        | "Hearts will never be practical until 
Somewhere over the rainbow |  they can be made unbreakable." - Wizard
...in the Land of OZ       | "But I still want one." - Tin Man
            {mic,void,egsner}!ozdaltx!bob