BF2S Forums If You Knowingly Infect Someone with Aids Are You a Murderer?

FEOS wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

it can only be murder if its pre-meditated,if not then its boring old manslaughter .

It can still be murder even if it's not premeditated. That's just 1st degree murder.
.

The unlawful killing of a human being, under the Queen's Peace, with "malice aforethought")

In English law the mens rea requirement is an intention to cause death or to cause serious injury.

Last edited by mafia996630 (2009-04-11 15:25:01)

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Its harder for a man to get HIV from a woman during regular sex. I had heard that there hasn't been a recorded case of HIV being transmited from a woman to a man through regular sex.... but that's probably a myth.

Here are some stats
Male-to-female transmission is estimated to be eight times more likely than female-to-male; 3 in 1997, 38% of women contracted HIV through heterosexual contact, as opposed to 7% of men. Reasons for this are twofold: there are more men than women in the US infected with HIV, which increases the likelihood that women would have an infected sex partner; and HIV is more easily transmitted from men to women due to the greater exposed surface area in the female genital tract.

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

Technically he could. He had the necessary intent, that death is a virtual certainty, and the act of committing murder will eventually occur because she will die.

If you call a 0.2% chance a virtual certainty.

That is (roughly speaking) the chance of catching HIV from an infected partner through a single act of heterosexual intercourse....



Which is why I think classing this as murder is wrong. Manslaughter would be fine, but for murder you need to establish intent and I don't think they could for a case like this. I think his intent was to get laid, not to kill them - but I don't know the details.

'If You Knowingly Infect Someone with Aids Are You a Murderer'


Mens rea is satisfied rigggght there. His intent may be to get laid, but any decent prosecution could argue that knowingly infecting with aids should suffice any intent of murder.  Woolin intention of virtual certainty may not necessarily be satisfied but so long as the actus reus has been satisfied and there is intent, murder could be a potential charge. You could even argue he had a duty of care, i.e, not to sleep with her knowing of his condition which would satisfy an omission to act (by not sleeping with her.)

Manslaughter? he wouldn't be able to claim provocation unless ofc she'd provoked him..."i bet you can't give me AIDS you weak weak man." There's no diminished responsibility because he ain't retarded.

Involuntary manslaughter? What he did was clearly voluntary

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

He would know there is the potential for causing lethal harm, but that by no means makes it a certainty. He is running a foolhardy, selfish and stupid risk, putting other peoples lives in danger. But I can't see anything anywhere in this case that would make me consider it murder.

I see what you're saying, but we charge drunk drivers with murder when it involves the death of someone.  So, when it comes to legal consistency, it would make sense to charge this man with murder if he was in the U.S.

I don't know how consistent it is with respect to Canadian law.

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I see what you're saying, but we charge drunk drivers with murder when it involves the death of someone.  So, when it comes to legal consistency, it would make sense to charge this man with murder if he was in the U.S.

I don't know how consistent it is with respect to Canadian law.

We don't.

We charge them with causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs - which has a shorter sentence than murder and I believe rightly so. It is one thing to kill someone through your own stupidity, but another entirely to want them dead and so kill them.

I think the reasoning behind the sentencing here is that drunk driving is more of a problem here than it is in the U.K. (so far as I can tell), and that the extent of the punishment is supposed to be a deterrent.

Whether or not it actually works as a deterrent remains to be seen.

Bertster7 wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

If you call a 0.2% chance a virtual certainty.

That is (roughly speaking) the chance of catching HIV from an infected partner through a single act of heterosexual intercourse....



Which is why I think classing this as murder is wrong. Manslaughter would be fine, but for murder you need to establish intent and I don't think they could for a case like this. I think his intent was to get laid, not to kill them - but I don't know the details.

'If You Knowingly Infect Someone with Aids Are You a Murderer'


Mens rea is satisfied rigggght there. His intent may be to get laid, but any decent prosecution could argue that knowingly infecting with aids should suffice any intent of murder.  Woolin intention of virtual certainty may not necessarily be satisfied but so long as the actus reus has been satisfied and there is intent, murder could be a potential charge. You could even argue he had a duty of care, i.e, not to sleep with her knowing of his condition which would satisfy an omission to act (by not sleeping with her.)

Manslaughter? he wouldn't be able to claim provocation unless ofc she'd provoked him..."i bet you can't give me AIDS you weak weak man." There's no diminished responsibility because he ain't retarded.

Involuntary manslaughter? What he did was clearly voluntary

Provocation? How is that relevant? As far as I'm aware it's still murder if provoked.

For it to be murder, he had to want her dead. That's what murder is. Wanting someone dead and killing them. If you kill someone by accident, stupidity or as a involuntary result of your actions, it is manslaughter.

He would know there is the potential for causing lethal harm, but that by no means makes it a certainty. He is running a foolhardy, selfish and stupid risk, putting other peoples lives in danger. But I can't see anything anywhere in this case that would make me consider it murder.

bertster wrote:

Provocation? How is that relevant?

As far as I'm aware it's still murder if provoked.

For it to be murder, he had to want her dead. That's what murder is. Wanting someone dead and killing them. If you kill someone by accident, stupidity or as a involuntary result of your actions, it is manslaughter.

Last edited by ..teddy..jimmy (2009-04-12 11:31:29)

Uzique wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

Technically he could. He had the necessary intent, that death is a virtual certainty, and the act of committing murder will eventually occur because she will die.

Teddy, there is a specific statutory-defined law for this in the Offences Against The Persons Act... look it up.

FYI, if you are aware you have a damaging or life-threatening disease, you can be charged with a serious offence against the person, e.g. GBH.

Last edited by ..teddy..jimmy (2009-04-13 01:36:11)

imortal wrote:

Here is a question.  Since any child you have is going to die eventually (of old age, if nothing else) as a direct result of being born, can you be charged with murder for having a baby?