Daniel Rick convicted of knowingly spreading HIV virus…
-
Daniel Rick has been found guilty of knowingly spreading the HIV virus through unprotected sex with another man, a felony that could put him behind bars for as long as a decade.
The man who had sex with Rick in the spring of 2009, when the two had known each other only briefly, told police the encounter was wholly consensual. But Rick didn't mention his HIV infection to the other man, who soon fell ill.
Rick, now 26, had known of his own illness for at least three years at that point, but never – not before, during, or after the unprotected sex -- mentioned his affliction to his partner, who figured it out only after doctors told him he was HIV-positive.
On Friday, a jury found Rick guilty of felony assault. His conviction, which is classified as a first-degree assault, is the first of its kind in Hennepin County. Daniel is also facing trial for two other similar cases.
After Rick and the other man met online and exchanged messages for some time, Rick came in to the Saloon Bar, where his victim worked as a bartender. At the end of his shift, the bartender went to meet Rick for a late-night hook-up.
During the anal sex, during which neither man wore a condom, Rick ejaculated inside the other man, according to the criminal complaint filed in March 2010 by the Hennepin County Attorney's Office.
Spokesman Chuck Laszewski confirmed that Rick is the first person in the county convicted under the crime of felony assault for "knowing transfer of communicable disease," and Laszewski said it might also be the first of its kind in Minnesota.
The jury's conviction, which came down on Friday, means Rick's fate now lies in the hands of the judge. A sentencing hearing is scheduled for Nov. 28, which will also be used to set a trial date for two other cases being brought against Rick.
...for more info: hXXp://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/10/daniel_rick_knowingly_spread_hiv_virus_conviction.php
EDIT: Disabled live link
-
Having a lot of experience in dealing with media, the law, criminal HIV transmission, etc. I would really love to see the "disclosure" as it were from the court case simply for the fact of there is one critical element of precedent that is not yet set in the field of criminal HIV transmission. It is more than just a question of did the person disclose or not. It is also a question of whether or not status was asked in conversation, as well as would the "victim" have consented to sexual engagement had they known their status, or for that matter that they would have consented knowing that there was a possibility that they could have contracted HIV from someone and not reached the point of seroconversion in some cases.
That being said, there's also the responsibility of both parties to use a condom, just for the simple fact that you can never be sure of what someone has for a variety of reasons. This also is something that I tend to question when reading such a thing. Don't get me wrong though, if a person knows their status, lies about it, and fails to use a condom, that is a whole other ball of wax on a number of levels than for example, not being asked for your status (generally because the person in question doesn't care) and not disclosing it, but insisting on the use of a condom as not to transmit HIV. In the case of the first example, I would agree that such a sentence for one single case is barely enough, however that brings us to yet another problem.
No clear guideline in terms of criminal HIV transmission has ever been set when it comes to sentencing, the "test of fact" with respect to the medical risk or circumstances determining not only whether or not to convict, but also what is deemed the "standard or maximum guideline" as is outlined with other sexual and/or violent related offences. That brings me to the second point of curiosity to see the disclosure and reference the case…
The different risk factors involved in the case should directly impact on such things, however as historical pattern has shown, they don't. What were the more in depth details of the case? this is most essential to know just for the simple fact of proving yet another example of how judgments on the topic, as well as the standards used in which to determine the sentencing both remain inconsistent...
Don't mind the small rant, it's just this particular type of article hits a little too close to home for it not to spark some curiosity with respect to the details on exactly how things went down, while at the same time also outraging me for a number of personal reasons just reading about such a subject. The only other thing I will say is I've spent WAAAAY too much time in a courtroom recently.
-
The precedent is already set though, with herpes back in the 80s. You have to disclose, even if not asked. So I don't see how HIV would be under different rules.
Even if there wasn't the precedent, people that are infected with a disease should always tell their partner before hand and use safer sex.
