Should spreading the HIV virus be considered Murder?

Post Reply New Topic

I believe that spreading the HIV virus should be a crime considered akin to murder. HIV almost always develops into AIDS, thus making it an automatic death sentence. This would result in a greater surge of citizens using condoms and other forms of protection, thus preventing the spread of disease. Seatbelt laws in America resulted in more people wearing it as protection against a possible accident. This in turn resulted in car accident fatalities. If people realize they can have a prison sentence for spreading HIV, they will keep in line. Married men would go to fewer prostitutes as well as other potential carriers of AIDS. Many people in the world need negative repercussions to keep them in line.

Last edited by purplesky on 09 Jan 2008, 11:18 am, edited 2 times in total.

It is already a crime in Britain to spread AIDS, though it's not murder. It comes under grievous bodily harm.

I disagree. I think that if you are having noncoercive sex then you get what ya get and I think that rape should already be a crime akin to murder. I don't see the reason to criminalize a noncoercive exchange. If you are afraid of AIDS, well, be careful about putting out, but you are responsible for your own body and what goes in it. I also disagree with seatbelt laws too though, why is it the government's job to tell *me* what to do? I mean, unless I am a slave, I should be at liberty to run my life as I see fit, even if I do run it wrong as millions already do.

No. Because it isn't. A person doesn't die from being infected with HIV. They will most likely die one day when their weak immune system fails to stop a nasty pathogen from doing its damage, but not always. Plus, people may not even know that they're infected.

I don't care so much about intent as much as I care about the consequences. Granted a person doesn't die from having the HIV virus, BUT as we all know HIV eventually leads to AIDS. AIDS may not directly kill a person but it creates the right conditions to do so. Most AIDS patients eventually die of opportunistic infections. A person may not know he is spreading the HIV virus BUT the affect on society is indistinguishable. Perhaps such a person should be charged with involuntary manslaughter. If we were honest with ourselves we would understand the connection between HIV and premature death.

And what about the poor sod who didn't even know that they had it until it's too late for the next poor sod that they've passed it onto?? Unless the person knew that they had HIV/AIDS, they're innocent.

Intent is central to most systems of morality and law. If you push a button on a remote that says "TV On" because you thought it turned on a TV, but it was rigged to set off a bomb, would you be responsible for killing someone? No, because you didn't have the knowledge that pressing that button would do something destructive - your intent was to watch an opera. In any sane system of morality or law, responsibility for the consequences would be laid at the feet of the person who rigged the booby trap and made the trigger look harmless.

Where I grew up, all the farm kids learned to drive a car or truck when they were 10 or 11 (or younger) - you don't need a driver's license to drive on private property. I don't think the seatbelt laws apply on private property, either. So you can drive without a seatbelt - on your own land.

Just last weekend, I heard a story about a young kid that fell out of the back of a pick-up truck and broke her neck. I have no problem with laws that require people to avoid certain foolish behaviors. Kids falling out of pickup trucks on public roads can cause other vehicles (like mine) to crash. The driver might have freedom to do that on their own property (unless you consider it child endangerment), but when they enter the road system, they need to follow the traffic rules.

Most freedoms are not absolute. While the government generally needs a warrant to search a person, people traveling on airplanes fall into a different category. If you don't like having your person and your belongings searched, don't travel on an airplane.

I was of the understanding that certain people of european descent are immune to HIV/AIDS?

As far as I know, several years ago there were one or two people who had become infected with the virus, and did not show any of the typical signs that the disease was progressing after more than a decade. The virus was there, but it was not multiply, not destroying the immune system. In other cases, (even though it takes years to develop full blown AIDS), there are measurable changes going on in the body. The 1 or 2 people did not show these changes. These were considered unusual cases, and are of obvious interest - maybe the source of a new treatment if we figure out the secret. But they were exceedingly rare, and have not been explained.

There seem to be genes that make the disease progress faster or slower. It may be that one 'race' or another will live longer or shorter than average after being infected. But for the most part, everyone is susceptible.

The person is not always as innocent as he seems; let me explain why. One example would be if a husband contracts HIV from visiting prostitutes and spreads the disease to his loyal and faithful wife. Should the husband be held accountable for his actions? Yes.

Intent does not always matter; a person can be drunk on the road and kill someone as a result of his wreckless actions. The person may not intend to kill anyone, he may have intended to go back to his place of residence. Would that person be charged for any form of murder in the court of law? The answer is almost always yes.

Some of the AIDS victims today are faithful married women; should they have to coerce their husbands into wearing condoms for the rest of their marriages? I do believe that couples should be tested for HIV and other diseases from time to time, but a woman shouldn't have to live her life in fear. Perhaps the punishment should only be for married couples, where sex without protection is often the norm.

Ok, so? You also have to understand that I believe there should be less public property and have a strange connection to anarchist theory.


Yeah, clear case of an externality. However, where is the externality with seatbelts? I recognize the legality of the issue, I am not arguing that seatbelt laws are "unconstitutional" or "evil". I merely disagree on their existence as the case for seatbelt externalities is minimal.

Ok? I never made a legal argument, I made an argument that I didn't see the point. Airplane searches are to prevent externalities, such as those seen with 9/11. That is the justification. Really though, your argument says absolutely NOTHING about mine as I explicitly stated that AIDS shouldn't be a crime because there were no externalities, unlike walking around with the bubonic plague might be.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 09 Jan 2008, 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, that is absolutely true. They shouldn't have to coerce their husbands into wearing condoms for the rest of their marriages, and frankly, if a woman doesn't trust her husband then it is ok to force him to wear condoms. I would really tend to prefer that we allow for more flexible marriage contracts though, which would allow for wives to punish their husbands for such behavior. I don't see a reason to have mandatory punishment, I see more reason to have a more contract based society so that way couples can customize their relationship.

Even then, intent is very important. Reckless or negligent conduct can land a person in jail - but ordinarily a person who kills someone while driving drunk driving is charged with manslaughter, which is very serious, but which is a level less serious than murder. If a person got drunk and intentionally ran some one over, it would be murder, with a greater penalty.

The only person I know that had AIDS was a hemophiliac; his exposure to the disease was through a blood transfusion. If (during the 1990s) he had unwittingly infected someone, it would not have warranted criminal charges, as little was known about AIDS and he was not negligent, and he had no intent to harm others. Under some circumstances, you could make the argument that a person was engaged in reckless behavior, and it harmed others.

Under the current law, you cannot be charged with murder or manslaughter unless some is already dead - if a shooter is arrested for putting someone in the hospital, they will change the charges from assault to murder if the person dies. What if they convicted someone for infecting a person with HIV, and then a cure was discovered in time to save both people??

In my idea of the contract called marriage, if one partner has that much distrust for the other, the marriage should be dissolved. Of course, other people negotiate different contracts with their spouses.