Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!rob@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US
From: rob@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (Rob Boldbear)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Re: Intentional Transmission of AIDS
Message-ID: <39964@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 10 Oct 90 15:13:16 GMT
References: <39582@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <39630@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <39942@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Organization: Mt. Diablo Software Solutions
Lines: 49
Approved: phil@wubios.wustl.edu
Note:	Copyright 1990 by Daniel R. Greening.  Permission granted for
Note:	non-commercial reproduction.
Archive-number: 2601

In article <39942@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> cyn@mdaali.cancer.utexas.edu (Cyndi Smith) writes:
>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.

I think these examples show why the analogy is misleading. It is uncommon
for someone to knowingly or unknowingly add poison while cooking a meal.
It is very common for someone to deliberately deceive someone about known
STDs. It is very common for someone to not know that they are HIV+.

It is reasonable to assume that food is unposioned. It is not reasonable
to assume that a person has no STDs.

>Legally - 
>1)  "A" can be prosecuted for intentional murder (I don't know the 
>legalese).

I think "A" should be prosecuted for manslaughter or negligent homicide
(or whatever your state calls it), but not murder, simply because "A"
did not intend on harming "B" (unless you meant to imply that "A" did -
the example isn't specific enough).

>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.

No prosecution at all. No intent to harm. No particular reason to suspect
things are other than the default: that "A" might knowingly or unknowingly
have STDs. "B" took risks that the average person (I think there's something
in law about what a typical/average person knows/believes) knows about.
-- 
Rob Bernardo                             Mt. Diablo Software Solutions    _ /
email: rob@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US        phone: (415) 827-4301           <_/><
S0/8 b-/+ g- l y- z- n o a-- u+ v-- j-   B3 f+ t- dvcv sv w- m+ r+ p      /
	    "There is no right 'not to be offended'." -Bob Culmer