Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!cyn@mdaali.cancer.utexas.edu
From: cyn@mdaali.cancer.utexas.edu (Cyndi Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Re: Intentional Transmission of AIDS
Message-ID: <39942@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 9 Oct 90 21:23:50 GMT
References: <38625@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <39235@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <39582@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <39630@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Organization: Univ. Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Lines: 31
Approved: phil@wubios.wustl.edu
Note:	Copyright 1990 by Daniel R. Greening.  Permission granted for
Note:	non-commercial reproduction.
Archive-number: 2600

Various posters have brought forth various "reasons" for and against the 
idea of criminal prosecution of those who engage in unprotected sex with 
others when they _KNOW_ they have tested positive for the AIDS antibody.  
I offer three cases of the following analogy (my stand will hopefully be 
clear from the analogy chosen).  

1)  "A" cooks a meal for "B" and _knowingly_ uses some deadly poison.  "B" 
dies.  Should "A" be prosecuted for not telling "B" about the poison?  Or 
is "B" to blame for not taking the antidote before eating?

2)  "A" cooks a meal for "B" using some ingredients that "A" knows could 
likely have been exposed to poison.  "B" dies.  Same questions as above.

3)  "A" cooks a meal for "B" having _no_ idea that some ingredients are 
poisoned.  "B" dies.  Same questions.

Legally - 
1)  "A" can be prosecuted for intentional murder (I don't know the 
legalese).
2)  "A" can be prosecuted for murder - probably not intentional since "A" 
didn't _know_ thi food was poisoned.
3)  "A" can be prosecuted for negligent homocide - but charges would 
probably be dropped if there was no obvious reason for "A" to suspect that 
the food was bad.

Now, this makes sense to me, how about other opinions pro/con (come on, I 
can take it! 8>))

Cyndi Smith
an12349@mdaali.cancer.utexas.edu
My opinions are MINE, I tell you, MINE, MINE, MINE, MINE, MINE!