Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, May 19, 2010
Homo / Sex A Criminal HIV Transmission
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, May 19, 2010 at 3:59 PM
I think we can all agree that this is a pretty lousy HIV-prevention strategy:
He said that every time they had sex, he asked Boone if he was HIV-positive, and that every time, Boone said no.
It turns out that Steven Paul Boone was lying. Boone was HIV-positive, he knew it, and he knowingly put his partner—the person so careful to ask Boone about his HIV-status "every time" they had sex—at risk of HIV infection. Boone's partner got tested after he was informed by a mutual friend that Boone was infected with HIV. When confronted, Boone told his partner that he didn't disclose his HIV-status because he "was scared" and feared rejection if he disclosed his HIV-status. So, you know, what other choice did Boone have but to have unprotected anal intercourse, as a top, with this guy, again and again, until the other guy was infected too?
Boone was arrested after his partner went to the police and Boone's picture was released so that other men who might have had sex with Boone—Boone had sex ads up on various gay websites—could get tested. Boone has been charged with nine counts of aggravated sexual assault and could face more charges if other men come forward. Boone's case has stirred up a huge controversy in Canada about the criminalization of HIV transmission. And while this report claims that the gay community holds "diverse opinions" about prosecuting HIV-positive people who fail to disclose to sex partners, both of the gay people quoted in the story hold pretty much the same opinion: prosecuting Boone is wrong, releasing his picture is wrong, criminalizing HIV transmission is wrong.
Ottawan Michael Burtch said the city’s gay community has diverse opinions on the issue, but that for his part, he doesn’t believe in transmission criminalization.... Burtch said the saddest thing about cases such as Boone’s is that it often discourages people in the gay community from getting tested. “Who wants the responsibility of being HIV-positive and being branded a criminal?” Burtch said everyone needs to take responsibility when it comes to safe sex, and that it takes two to tango.
We've been hearing that one since the HIV test was first developed: no one is allowed to complain about getting infected during consensual unprotected sex even if he was lied to or mislead because, hey, it takes two to tango. (Um... doesn't the deceit nullify the consent?) Or as this immoral piece of shit—excuse me, as this "commenter"—at Queerty puts it:
If you choose to have sex with a stranger and NOT INSIST on a condom—you have no one else but your self to blame. If you won't look after yourself, don't expect others too.
So the person Boone infected—the one who went to the police—is solely to blame for his infection because he chose to have sex without insisting on condoms. He has no one to blame but himself. And Boone is absolved of any and all responsibility for his actions because... um... well, because. Because it's every man for himself out there. And if Boone prefers to blow loads in guys' asses without using condoms, and if he can con someone into letting him, hey, more power to him.
Do you agree with that? Do you agree that a guy has to look out himself, that he shouldn't expect someone he barely knows to protect him, and that if he gets infected because he failed to insist on condoms, he's solely to blame for his infection? Would it change your mind if you knew that Boone was 29 and his partner—the person he infected—was 17?
The "gay community" is probably right to oppose the criminalization of HIV transmission. Anything that discourages testing and disclosure is arguably counterproductive. (Although Boone is in trouble for failing to disclose, not for disclosing, his HIV-status.) But the gay community has to come up with a better response to cases like this than to throw up our bloody hands and say, "Well, hey, it takes two to tango." Yes, it takes two to tango. And it doesn't take much to manipulate vulnerable 17-year-olds into having unprotected sex. And there are malicious predators out there, some of them HIV-positive, and telling a newly-HIV-infected 17-year-old that he alone is responsible for his infection is to blame the victim. Yes, that kid should've known better. He shouldn't have trusted Boone, he shouldn't have taken, "No, I'm not infected," for an answer, and he should've insisted on condoms. But he was 17. And what was Boone? Very likely a monster:
A profile belonging to username BarebackRocker, created in 2007, features photographs of Boone, who lists his age as 29, his location as Ottawa, and, interestingly, openly discloses his HIV status as positive. In a section where users are asked to describe themselves, the user invites HIV-negative men "to the front of the line."
Boone was a HIV-positive guy aroused by the idea of infecting an HIV-negative guy. And he got his hands on this kid and did just that. Boone is the type of person the "gay community" should condemn. We certainly shouldn't be making excuses for him. Or blaming his victims.
1
I remember there being a similar case a few years ago in Australia, only with the man in question infecting a lot of men (I want to say 100+, but that sounds a tad high). I'm all for having people like that be arrested; they know what they're doing, and even though their partners should know better, there should be legal consequences for knowingly infecting someone with HIV without their consent.
2
I'm not trying to compare AIDS to a baby, but if you're a straight man, and you don't cover up because she told you she was using some other form of contraception, and she gets pregnant, and blesses you not only with a baby but with her prolonged, undesired presence in your life and an escalating monthly bill which she uses to keep herself in a new car, society says "That's on you, bro. SHOULD HAVE USED A CONDOM."
The court will now hear the case of "Too Bad" versus "So Sad."
The court will now hear the case of "Too Bad" versus "So Sad."
3
The guy deserves to rot in prison. Hell, he'll get all the unprotected sex he could ever want there anyway.
5
I don't see how any sane person could want anything but to have this guy strung up by his balls.
He was a predator, plain and simple and REQUIRES punishment if we are going to say we have any moral character at all. It seems like the activists are just being paranoid a few people might get scared out of testing and are trying to cover their collective asses.
He was a predator, plain and simple and REQUIRES punishment if we are going to say we have any moral character at all. It seems like the activists are just being paranoid a few people might get scared out of testing and are trying to cover their collective asses.
6
I don't see how any sane person could want anything but to have this guy strung up by his balls.
He was a predator, plain and simple and REQUIRES punishment if we are going to say we have any moral character at all. It seems like the activists are just being paranoid a few people might get scared out of testing and are trying to cover their collective asses.
He was a predator, plain and simple and REQUIRES punishment if we are going to say we have any moral character at all. It seems like the activists are just being paranoid a few people might get scared out of testing and are trying to cover their collective asses.
7
Is it not a crime there to knowingly and willfully infect someone with HIV? It is here in Colorado, and has been for some time. It's a good law.
And yes, this guy is a lower form of life than a fucking maggot. Prison's too good for him.
And yes, this guy is a lower form of life than a fucking maggot. Prison's too good for him.
8
@7: I think knowingly and willfully transmitting a lethal disease can be prosecuted as attempted murder or something.
10
Seattle has its own Boone- a nasty old 50 something drag queen here in Seattle who has sex profiles on Adam4Adam and Manhunt etc (claiming to be 29!) and NEVER (even though there is an option to do so) discloses her/his HIV status (she announced her positive status in SGN about 15 years ago).
This predatory and deceitful behavior is absolutely disgusing. Who knows how many people have been exposed or infected with HIV by him? For that (and other criminal behavior)this nasty old drag queen needs to be dragged (pun intended) off to jail...
her moniker is "not4everyone"
This predatory and deceitful behavior is absolutely disgusing. Who knows how many people have been exposed or infected with HIV by him? For that (and other criminal behavior)this nasty old drag queen needs to be dragged (pun intended) off to jail...
her moniker is "not4everyone"
12
Boone is a scourge on society. My condolences to this 17 year old young man and anyone else this predator outright, bold-faced lied to.
13
I don't think anyone is trying to make excuses for this guy. I think people are just aware that this case could set precedent for future cases, and when it comes down to it, criminalizing HIV transmission is a bad idea. Also, the way the law is right now (in Canada anyway), those who have been convicted end up labelled as sex offenders, and that seems to be an inaccurate label.
Look, this Boone guy is scum. Scum for going after a 17 year old, and scum for lying to him, and scum for putting him at risk and ultimately infecting him. But that doesn't mean he's an example of every HIV-positive guy out there, and we have to be careful about how our reactions to this case can influence future cases.
And, for what it's worth, the consent isn't automatically nullified if it was obtained by lying about one's HIV status. That's only one piece of proving fraud.
Anyway, right now in Canada the law is that if you have unprotected sex and you know you're positive, you're breaking the law. Since that's the case, Boone should be going to prison.
Look, this Boone guy is scum. Scum for going after a 17 year old, and scum for lying to him, and scum for putting him at risk and ultimately infecting him. But that doesn't mean he's an example of every HIV-positive guy out there, and we have to be careful about how our reactions to this case can influence future cases.
And, for what it's worth, the consent isn't automatically nullified if it was obtained by lying about one's HIV status. That's only one piece of proving fraud.
Anyway, right now in Canada the law is that if you have unprotected sex and you know you're positive, you're breaking the law. Since that's the case, Boone should be going to prison.
15
@2,
Child support is for the good of the child and not meant to "punish" the father. And who says the woman has to become part of the guy's life? No law says he has to parent the child.
I'll also venture a guess that most of the men who get women pregnant by accident never bothered asking about birth control.
Child support is for the good of the child and not meant to "punish" the father. And who says the woman has to become part of the guy's life? No law says he has to parent the child.
I'll also venture a guess that most of the men who get women pregnant by accident never bothered asking about birth control.
16
Yeah, latest data I can find shows that thirty-two states have specifically criminalized HIV transmission. According to that table, Washington is one of those states.
17
A few years ago there was a guy in Dallas who got prison time for pulling the exact same shit -- putting up 'fuck me' ads on Craigslist expressly to infect innocent people with HIV -- except his fifteen or twenty victims were all women. What's the difference here?
19
The "gay community" is probably right to oppose the criminalization of HIV transmission. Anything that discourages testing and disclosure is arguably counterproductive.
I'm fairly sure that disclosure is an affirmative defense in ALL of these criminalization statutes. But I could be wrong on that. Anyone have any more info?
20
Anne, I'm fairly certain you're right, but I'd have to pull the statute and read it to be sure. And it's late enough that I've got other fish to fry, so to speak.
21
The "gay community" is probably right to oppose the criminalization of HIV transmission."
What's the alternative? Insulting him?
What's the alternative? Insulting him?
23
Intentionally infecting someone with HIV is so obviously assault that it shouldn't even be debatable. Semi-intentionally passing HIV through gross negligence in not getting tested and then not using a condom seems to me to be a pretty grave offense, as well.
I suppose you could criminalize lying about birth control status, too, but that wouldn't affect the child's right to child support, so I'm not sure exactly what a rational punishment could be, beyond a fine.
Everyone should virtually always use condoms for virtually all sex with men. Dropping the condoms in a relationship should be viewed as an event on a level with marriage. Condoms are the only thing keeping all of us from getting every STD on earth and then breeding new ones. None of that makes it less assault to intentionally or negligently infect someone with HIV. You should wear a seatbelt, but you should be able to count on people not cutting the brakes.
I suppose you could criminalize lying about birth control status, too, but that wouldn't affect the child's right to child support, so I'm not sure exactly what a rational punishment could be, beyond a fine.
Everyone should virtually always use condoms for virtually all sex with men. Dropping the condoms in a relationship should be viewed as an event on a level with marriage. Condoms are the only thing keeping all of us from getting every STD on earth and then breeding new ones. None of that makes it less assault to intentionally or negligently infect someone with HIV. You should wear a seatbelt, but you should be able to count on people not cutting the brakes.
24
We're not talking about most of the men who... We're talking about the men who asked and were lied to.
I'll also venture a guess that most of the men who get women pregnant by accident never bothered asking about birth control.
We're not talking about most of the men who... We're talking about the men who asked and were lied to.
25
@ #2: Fathering a child may be distasteful, expensive and not in your plans, but it won't put your life at risk, keep you from getting a job or an apartment or lessen the likelihood of intimate relationships in the future. Besides, even if your female partner says she's using birth control, there are other reasons to practice safe sex, as this awful story should make very clear.
And thanks for the gratuitous woman-bashing.
And thanks for the gratuitous woman-bashing.
27
We are all assuming the 17 year old is telling the truth. 17 year old could be a jilted lover with an ax to grind. If they met online (Boones profile clearly states he's poz) then 17 year old was aware beforehand. Boone's crime so far is having sex with a minor.
28
Dan, I do have a question. Prosecuting people for, say, infecting someone with anthrax or the plague doesn't require a special law. I'm in favor of prosecuting for the deliberate transmission of HIV, but why does it need a special law?
Thanks for all your good work-and celebrate with us in Pennsylvania as we bid a long overdue goodbye to Arlen Specter!
Thanks for all your good work-and celebrate with us in Pennsylvania as we bid a long overdue goodbye to Arlen Specter!
29
Treating HIV as a Civil Rights and privacy issue instead of an epidemiological issue is the reason AIDS wasn't nipped in the bud when it was limited to a couple of hundred patients in the early 80s.
We are 300,000 dead homosexuals later and there are 15,000 killed every year from AIDS contracted during MSM.
Enjoy your freedom to infect....
We are 300,000 dead homosexuals later and there are 15,000 killed every year from AIDS contracted during MSM.
Enjoy your freedom to infect....
30
@27
Only if the site and the profile quoted are the one that they met because of. I got the impression that it was brought up as an example of what the guy had been up to, not as a quote from his current profile.
Unless the area is unusual, 17 is over the age of consent.
Only if the site and the profile quoted are the one that they met because of. I got the impression that it was brought up as an example of what the guy had been up to, not as a quote from his current profile.
Unless the area is unusual, 17 is over the age of consent.
31
Child support is for the good of the child and not meant to "punish" the father.
Ideally, this is the case. That said, I'd like to poll mothers receiving child support and see how many disagree with that statement.
33
@31,
I'm talking about the legal justification for it and why "she lied to me" is never accepted in a court of law. And #2's contention that women get rich off of child support is laughable.
I'm talking about the legal justification for it and why "she lied to me" is never accepted in a court of law. And #2's contention that women get rich off of child support is laughable.
34
One vote here for lock the door, throw away the key.
I don't think criminalizing behavior like this (deliberate, willful transmission without informed consent) would discourage testing and disclosure for good, decent gay men, poz & neg, who wouldn't even think of pulling shit like this. It would only put the bite on evil shits like Boone, and that's just how a law like this should work!
I don't think criminalizing behavior like this (deliberate, willful transmission without informed consent) would discourage testing and disclosure for good, decent gay men, poz & neg, who wouldn't even think of pulling shit like this. It would only put the bite on evil shits like Boone, and that's just how a law like this should work!
35
@ 28 - Take a look at the infamous Maryland case of Smallwood v. State. Basically, an HIV-positive man who raped three women was charged, on top of rape, with three counts of assault with intent to commit murder. The Court of Appeals of Maryland said:
So it's at least partially an intent thing. You send someone an envelope laced with anthrax, it's pretty obvious you were trying to kill them. It doesn't just happen. HIV transmission, by contrast, takes place during the otherwise normal act of sex. You could be HIV-positive and into barebacking, and really, really hope that you don't infect your partner, but manage to do it anyway.
Another issue is the amount of time between HIV infection and actually getting really sick and/or dying. Murder and manslaughter generally follow the one-year rule; for instance, if you shoot someone and they go into a coma, they must die within a year and a day for you to be liable for murder. The law as it stands now cannot assume that every consequence of an act must fall on the person who initiated the conduct.
More...
In this case, we find no additional evidence from which to infer an intent to kill. Smallwood's actions are wholly explained by an intent to commit rape and armed robbery, the crimes for which he has already pled guilty. For this reason, his actions fail to provide evidence that he also had an intent to kill. As one commentator noted, in discussing a criminal case involving similar circumstances, “[b]ecause virus transmission occurs simultaneously with the act of rape, that act alone would not provide evidence of intent to transmit the virus. . . .
While the risk to which Smallwood exposed his victims when he forced them to engage in unprotected sexual activity must not be minimized, the State has presented no evidence from which it can reasonably be concluded that death by AIDS is a probable result of Smallwood's actions to the same extent that death is the probable result of firing a deadly weapon at a vital part of someone's body. Without such evidence, it cannot fairly be concluded that death by AIDS was sufficiently probable to support an inference that Smallwood intended to kill his victims in the absence of other evidence indicative of an intent to kill.
So it's at least partially an intent thing. You send someone an envelope laced with anthrax, it's pretty obvious you were trying to kill them. It doesn't just happen. HIV transmission, by contrast, takes place during the otherwise normal act of sex. You could be HIV-positive and into barebacking, and really, really hope that you don't infect your partner, but manage to do it anyway.
Another issue is the amount of time between HIV infection and actually getting really sick and/or dying. Murder and manslaughter generally follow the one-year rule; for instance, if you shoot someone and they go into a coma, they must die within a year and a day for you to be liable for murder. The law as it stands now cannot assume that every consequence of an act must fall on the person who initiated the conduct.
37
My opinion is that there are levels, roughly:
1. Someone doesn't know they have HIV, and has unprotected consensual sex. Not a crime.
2. Someone knows they have HIV and has unprotected sex without warning the partner. Should be a crime. (2.5 they actively lie to their partner when asked. Slightly worse.)
3. Someone knows they have HIV and has lots of unprotected sex with lots of partners and brags about infecting them. Should be an even worse crime.
4. Someone knows they have HIV and rapes someone (without protection). Should be the worst crime of all here.
1. Someone doesn't know they have HIV, and has unprotected consensual sex. Not a crime.
2. Someone knows they have HIV and has unprotected sex without warning the partner. Should be a crime. (2.5 they actively lie to their partner when asked. Slightly worse.)
3. Someone knows they have HIV and has lots of unprotected sex with lots of partners and brags about infecting them. Should be an even worse crime.
4. Someone knows they have HIV and rapes someone (without protection). Should be the worst crime of all here.
38
@2 -- I think there's a substantial difference between serious bodily harm and financial harm. If you were talking about a woman being secretly impregnated and then prevented from having an abortion, we might have an analogy (although pregnancy can kill you, I think HIV is a heck of a lot more likely to do so, so its still not a great analogy). But a man being on the hook for child support isn't really at all close to the same.
I know people are worried about precedent, but I think that as long as the standards of evidence are high, its ok. Maybe I have too much faith in prosecutors because of Jack McCoy, though.
I know people are worried about precedent, but I think that as long as the standards of evidence are high, its ok. Maybe I have too much faith in prosecutors because of Jack McCoy, though.
40
I totally agree that Boone is an asshole and that, at the very least, this is assault if not attempted murder. (Hey, if you can shoot a guy in the leg and then have the coroner decide his death 12 years later resulted from the bullet and be charged, this is AM too). That said, the only way to really protect yourself is to fuck as if everyone you fuck has something. HIV, herpes, whatever motivation it takes to get you to use the condom. It's when people try to play the odds ("well, he looks clean so I'll risk it", or "just this one time. what are the odds?") that they get infected. Act like everyone has something and try not to catch it, at least until you're both tested (if it's in the context of a relationship); it's the only mindset that really works.
42
I'm sorry, that was ridiculously insensitive and closing the window did not prevent my comment from being posted.
People, please watch out for yourselves.
People, please watch out for yourselves.
45
I don't care who you are, intentionally having sex with a teen and deliberately not telling the teen that he has HIV, and not wearing a condom should be a crime. I see it as no different than intentionally feeding your lover anthrax spores without telling them. And yes, everyone should be protected, but teens are teens and don't always have the best judgment or correct information.
I abhor the blaming of victims. Everyone can be stupid sometimes, but its no excuse to maliciously exploit them, so you can take some of the blame off yourself by reveling in how dumb your victim was. It's just sick.
And slightly off topic, but I do feel it should be a crime to deceive someone regarding birth control status. There is such a thing as "wrongful birth". It might not be nearly on the same scale as lying about HIV status, but telling someone you're on birth control so condoms can be avoided (or lying about a vasectomy) and becoming or leaving someone preggers ought to be a crime, certainly it's a form of fraud.
I abhor the blaming of victims. Everyone can be stupid sometimes, but its no excuse to maliciously exploit them, so you can take some of the blame off yourself by reveling in how dumb your victim was. It's just sick.
And slightly off topic, but I do feel it should be a crime to deceive someone regarding birth control status. There is such a thing as "wrongful birth". It might not be nearly on the same scale as lying about HIV status, but telling someone you're on birth control so condoms can be avoided (or lying about a vasectomy) and becoming or leaving someone preggers ought to be a crime, certainly it's a form of fraud.
46
What a horrible human being. This is a very, very sad story. My heart goes out to that young man.
47
I don't know, it's all muddy water.
I do know my 17 year old cousin assured her boyfriend that she had started birth control and ended up pregnant. I went with her to the doctor when she got the prescription and knew her plans for college. Yet he claimed she did it on purpose to trap him and ran far and fast. So now she's doing it pretty much on her own with babysitting help from my sister and I and going to collage. Not a penny of help from the father or his family. It's not always men who get screwed when an accidental pregnancy occurs!!
I do know my 17 year old cousin assured her boyfriend that she had started birth control and ended up pregnant. I went with her to the doctor when she got the prescription and knew her plans for college. Yet he claimed she did it on purpose to trap him and ran far and fast. So now she's doing it pretty much on her own with babysitting help from my sister and I and going to collage. Not a penny of help from the father or his family. It's not always men who get screwed when an accidental pregnancy occurs!!
48
"And I'm responding to the obvious strawman of the evil bitch who lied about birth control. "
if you think this doesn't happen on a routine basis then lol
if you think this doesn't happen on a routine basis then lol
51
I'm surprised nobody has discussed the Canada issue in all of this. Sure, the young man's life goals are facing a serious setback, but Boone is creating a major health risk for Ottawa, an area that provides universal health care to its citizens. But this cost/benefit analysis still cannot get past the justification hurdle if it means less people get tested. However, that deterrence argument seems to be counterfactual to me. I'd like to see a study that compares transmission rates in areas with similar levels of sexual activity that either 1)heavily promote condom use, 2)criminalize failure to disclose, 3)encourage disclosure without criminalization or 4)encourage abstinance only (since we're talking about pregnancy in this thread, too).
For the record, I'm actually fine with criminalizing this case not because he didn't disclose voluntarily, but because he lied when directly questioned by his partner. I would be reluctant to call any sex 'consensual' if that consent is not reasonably informed.
For the record, I'm actually fine with criminalizing this case not because he didn't disclose voluntarily, but because he lied when directly questioned by his partner. I would be reluctant to call any sex 'consensual' if that consent is not reasonably informed.
52
If criminalizing HIV transmission will lead to more transmission, I suppose it shouldn't be done, as keeping people healthy comes before punishment, no matter how deserved.
However, that doesn't mean that the community can't mete out its own punishment in the form of hostility and ostracism. Take a page out of small town America, they know how to make someone feel like less than shit when they disapprove. When someone is known to have knowingly transmitted HIV to another they should go instantly to the top of the shit list. Yes their picture should be in the bars, yes businesses should refuse to serve them and people should refuse to fuck them or even speak to them. Let it be known that someone who maliciously gives another a fatal illness will be placed outside society, even if the government doesn't punish it formally.
However, that doesn't mean that the community can't mete out its own punishment in the form of hostility and ostracism. Take a page out of small town America, they know how to make someone feel like less than shit when they disapprove. When someone is known to have knowingly transmitted HIV to another they should go instantly to the top of the shit list. Yes their picture should be in the bars, yes businesses should refuse to serve them and people should refuse to fuck them or even speak to them. Let it be known that someone who maliciously gives another a fatal illness will be placed outside society, even if the government doesn't punish it formally.
53
It's a gray area, but there is quite the fine line. If you say, prick yourself, never get tested and magically end up with aids (which I'm not sure there's ever been a case like that) then give it to your partner, I'm not so sure you can prove intent. With this situation though, or with some social media proof, I think the evidence should be able to convict you. If you get tested and don't disclose the information to people you're swapping body fluids with that's highly immoral, and if not illegal should be. If anything sex education needs to be stressed. Had this 17 year old been learned properly, to either demand test results or refuse sex, maybe this situation could have been different. How much sex education does a 17 year old get about gay sex? And how any type of sex can transmit these diseases? Ignorance should never be an excuse, but with all this abstinence shit flying around school I wouldn't be surprised if this teen thought anal was ok. I don't understand the blame the victim shit, it's totally useless.
55
I agree with #45 but would add that lying about being HIV positive makes it profoundly worse than "deliberately not telling". I'm horrified for that 17 year old boy, and the predator should be prosecuted.
But why is there a comparison being made here about birth control? It's a serious issue that definitely changes your partner's life, but it doesn't ruin their health or have the potential to kill them. You're comparing apples to oranges .
But why is there a comparison being made here about birth control? It's a serious issue that definitely changes your partner's life, but it doesn't ruin their health or have the potential to kill them. You're comparing apples to oranges .
56
@55 - Pregnancy does have potential to kill the pregnant woman, but its a very very small potential compared to HIV. So its more like comparing apples, and microscopic bits of apple juice?
57
He was stupid for not wearing a condom, but considering it's not 100% effective against STD transmission, you can't say for certain he wouldn't have been infected either way since anal sex even with a condom is still riskier than say, vaginal intercourse.
I'm a bit torn on criminal charges being brought against people who lie about their HIV status. They don't have a right to endanger others, but since HIV doesn't carry a death sentence any longer, I think a minor assault misdemeanor charge would be appropriate. The guy who got infected is still free to take his former partner to civil court over it too.
But is he squarely to blame. Not at all!
I'm a bit torn on criminal charges being brought against people who lie about their HIV status. They don't have a right to endanger others, but since HIV doesn't carry a death sentence any longer, I think a minor assault misdemeanor charge would be appropriate. The guy who got infected is still free to take his former partner to civil court over it too.
But is he squarely to blame. Not at all!
59
Yes, the kid was dumb and careless. Last time I checked the crime of young dumb and careless does not generally carry a death sentence.
As I read through the story I couldn't help but think that multiple sexual assault charges was a pretty good punishment for the crime, even if it was grossly insufficient punishment considering what that kid's going to have to deal with for the rest of his life. When I got to the part at the end where he says HIV negative men go to the front of the line I changed my mind.
This guy was clearly a predator intending to spread the disease to other people. He should be charged with multiple counts of attempted murder. Throw him in jail and throw away the key. Keep him in solitary for the rest of his life so he doesn't spread it to anyone else.
As I read through the story I couldn't help but think that multiple sexual assault charges was a pretty good punishment for the crime, even if it was grossly insufficient punishment considering what that kid's going to have to deal with for the rest of his life. When I got to the part at the end where he says HIV negative men go to the front of the line I changed my mind.
This guy was clearly a predator intending to spread the disease to other people. He should be charged with multiple counts of attempted murder. Throw him in jail and throw away the key. Keep him in solitary for the rest of his life so he doesn't spread it to anyone else.
60
On the broader topic of criminalization of intentional HIV transmission I'm 100% in favor of it. Clearly the law has to be carefully written. You don't want to throw people in jail for passing it on accidentally, especially if they were being careful. Knowing, being asked, and lying about it is reprehensible. This shithead has murdered that kid because of his "fear of rejection".
On top of that, anyone who doesn't get tested to avoid the law while having unprotected sex with multiple partners is an evil bastard too. If you're having sex with multiple partners you should be wearing protection AND getting tested regularly. If you're not prepared to do both of those things you're not responsible enough to have sex. Don't go making excuses for these people.
On top of that, anyone who doesn't get tested to avoid the law while having unprotected sex with multiple partners is an evil bastard too. If you're having sex with multiple partners you should be wearing protection AND getting tested regularly. If you're not prepared to do both of those things you're not responsible enough to have sex. Don't go making excuses for these people.
61
I should think that lying about birth control, condoms, or infertility is classified as some sort of attack. You are taking someone's biological material and using it to create a human being without their consent, which is a huge, huge violation. Massive. But it's not a direct infliction of physical harm, so legally ... probably more akin to fraud or violation of privacy?
Deliberately infecting someone with a potentially lethal disease is even more so -- it's definitely assault. If we're going to get extreme, maybe even attempted murder.
Deliberately infecting someone with a potentially lethal disease is even more so -- it's definitely assault. If we're going to get extreme, maybe even attempted murder.
62
This case is particularly egregious, but there are plenty of scenarios where it is not so clear cut. There are some gay guys who aren't that concerned about getting HIV.(pretty crazy, but true). Plus people sometimes have sex without any discussion beforehand. There's got to be a mindset that you need to protect yourself.
63
"Informed Consent". It's not consent if it's not informed. This is true in the world of research and should be true in all cases.
He is a monster; he should go to jail.
He is a monster; he should go to jail.
64
The guy should be prosecuted and go to jail! His actions where criminal in my mind, and I am an HIV+ person. I have a moral and ethical responsibility to disclose my HIV status to ALL my partners.
There is too much acceptance of the callous attitude "each person is responsible for themselves". No, the entire community to responsible for each other and its about damn time we start looking out for one another again.
We also need to quit being so PC and call bare backing out for what it really is....dangerous! We have allowed high risk bareback sex to be glamorized and eroticized within the gay community. No wonder kids think its hot to get loads inside them...everywhere you turn online that's what they see. When you see it enough, you start to believe that normal! You become desensitized to the risk and make mistakes.
There is too much acceptance of the callous attitude "each person is responsible for themselves". No, the entire community to responsible for each other and its about damn time we start looking out for one another again.
We also need to quit being so PC and call bare backing out for what it really is....dangerous! We have allowed high risk bareback sex to be glamorized and eroticized within the gay community. No wonder kids think its hot to get loads inside them...everywhere you turn online that's what they see. When you see it enough, you start to believe that normal! You become desensitized to the risk and make mistakes.
65
"Um... doesn't the deceit nullify the consent?"
Legally it's a little weird. Make a contract based on a "material misrepresentation" (i.e. a lie serious enough that the other party wouldn't have entered the contract had you told the truth) and the contract is voidable. Get someone's money by lying to them and it's criminal fraud, but as soon as we move out of the economic context the law stops saying "Consent obtained by deceit isn't consent at all".
It's not legally rape to have sex with someone who only agreed because you lied to them (be that lie, "I'm on the pill", "I'm HIV negative", or "I'll call you"). I'm fine with it carrying some sort of legal penalty though, since I (and I imagine anyone) would much rather get suckered into buying a lemon than suckered into having unprotected sex with an HIV positive partner or impregnate someone unwittingly. This guy is a much more dangerous threat to society than a shady used car salesman or con man, and society should punish him accordingly for its own protection.
Legally it's a little weird. Make a contract based on a "material misrepresentation" (i.e. a lie serious enough that the other party wouldn't have entered the contract had you told the truth) and the contract is voidable. Get someone's money by lying to them and it's criminal fraud, but as soon as we move out of the economic context the law stops saying "Consent obtained by deceit isn't consent at all".
It's not legally rape to have sex with someone who only agreed because you lied to them (be that lie, "I'm on the pill", "I'm HIV negative", or "I'll call you"). I'm fine with it carrying some sort of legal penalty though, since I (and I imagine anyone) would much rather get suckered into buying a lemon than suckered into having unprotected sex with an HIV positive partner or impregnate someone unwittingly. This guy is a much more dangerous threat to society than a shady used car salesman or con man, and society should punish him accordingly for its own protection.
66
Yes he's scum, criminally responsible, etc. Dan is always on a tear about un-protected sex. But here's the deal-
Until a condom is invented that feels as good or better than unprotected, unprotected will be the default position. Period. End of story. From there, it's all a matter of degrees. HIV+ men will screw bareback- hopefully they only screw other HIV+ guys. Bareback sex happens all the time, no questions asked, because it just feels better.
Then there are the bug-chasers- young men who deliberately get infected just cuz...
Until a condom is invented that feels as good or better than unprotected, unprotected will be the default position. Period. End of story. From there, it's all a matter of degrees. HIV+ men will screw bareback- hopefully they only screw other HIV+ guys. Bareback sex happens all the time, no questions asked, because it just feels better.
Then there are the bug-chasers- young men who deliberately get infected just cuz...
67
So far he's been charged with 18 counts, and I'm not sure that includes the charges from another city (Waterloo). Two people so far have made statements to the media that they claim they became HIV+ after sexual contact with Boone. The papers here are not reporting much, but Xtra the Gay Newspaper is.
http://www.xtra.ca/public/Ottawa.aspx
http://www.xtra.ca/public/Ottawa/UPDATE_…
http://www.xtra.ca/public/Ottawa.aspx
http://www.xtra.ca/public/Ottawa/UPDATE_…
68
Like most crimes, HIV transmission should be criminalized based on intent. Boone's crimes were obviously premeditated. Unintentional transmission, where the person doesn't realize they're positive, shouldn't be criminalized.
Being positive is not a crime, obviously. Willingly transmitting a disease is. If someone knew they had influenza and started sneezing all over an old folks' home, we'd get pissed at them, right?
Being positive is not a crime, obviously. Willingly transmitting a disease is. If someone knew they had influenza and started sneezing all over an old folks' home, we'd get pissed at them, right?
69
I don't quite know how to get this out, but there is a website where he has actually bragged about trying to spread the disease. It's on a disturbing site called bugshare.net. His screenname is Chasingpoz. It's definitely something the authorities should know about if I'm right.
70
So this seems a fairly clear-cut case of one HIV+ guy being dangerously irresponsible. And while a prison sentence may seem to many like a just response, it's not actually going to help the victim any. Wouldn't it make more sense to chase after a civil suit, where Boone would have to pay for his partner's (partners'?) medical expenses?
71
That'd be a great point, if the purpose of a prison sentence were to help the victim. It's not. It's to punish an offender and to protect society at large.
72
This is sad all the way around.
But if someone is willing to have unprotected sex with you, then they're probably willing to have unprotected sex with lots of people. Which sort of leads you to believe that they have nothing to lose by this, hence they must be positive.
if someone is willing to fuck or get fucked without a condom, then the assumption HAS to be that they're positive. In fact, the assumption should always be that they're positive.
Love your neighbor, but protect yourself.
But if someone is willing to have unprotected sex with you, then they're probably willing to have unprotected sex with lots of people. Which sort of leads you to believe that they have nothing to lose by this, hence they must be positive.
if someone is willing to fuck or get fucked without a condom, then the assumption HAS to be that they're positive. In fact, the assumption should always be that they're positive.
Love your neighbor, but protect yourself.
73
I don't understand the logic behind "criminalizing people who fail to disclose their HIV status and put other people at risk is bad " I get how it could prevent people from getting tested in the first place, since "what you don't know, can't hurt you...right?" (except for your health....) but nobody is trying to criminalize HIV, they're trying to criminalize a behavior that shows little or no regard for other people's health and well being.
74
The case happened in Canada, and I don't know how common the prosecution of such cases are in that country. However, I do know many countries, including the UK, Switzerland, Thailand, New Zealand, etc., have laws making it a crime to knowingly infect another person with HIV.
In the U.S., the majority of states, including Washington State, have laws specifically making it a crime to knowingly transmit HIV to another person, and even in states lacking specific statutes against HIV transmission, general criminal assault laws have been applied to intentional HIV transmission cases. (Unintentional transmission does not constitute a crime). Moreover, there is always potential civil liability for transmitting HIV to another person (for that matter, there is potential civil liability for transmitting any sexually transmitted disease to another person, even an easily treatable and fairly harmless one such as genital herpes--which an estimated 1 in 4 individuals in the U.S has).
I support laws making it a crime to knowingly transmit HIV to others. People who knowingly expose others to a serious, incurable, and potentially deadly disease should be prosecuted. Yes, we all agree that people should take care of themselves and use a condom when having sex with a person of unknown HIV-status, but whether or not the victim takes such precautions doesn't diminish the culpability of the individual who intentionally exposes the victim to HIV. Those who want to blame the victim are no different than someone who would object to prosecuting a person who poisoned another's drink because the victim who accepted the drink "should know better than to trust a drink prepared by another." I would also point out that in many (not all) of these cases, the person transmitting HIV has been in serious relationship with the victim (and in some cases, even married to the victim), which makes it even worse that they would have so little disregard for the health and well-being of a person they supposedly cared about.
More...
In the U.S., the majority of states, including Washington State, have laws specifically making it a crime to knowingly transmit HIV to another person, and even in states lacking specific statutes against HIV transmission, general criminal assault laws have been applied to intentional HIV transmission cases. (Unintentional transmission does not constitute a crime). Moreover, there is always potential civil liability for transmitting HIV to another person (for that matter, there is potential civil liability for transmitting any sexually transmitted disease to another person, even an easily treatable and fairly harmless one such as genital herpes--which an estimated 1 in 4 individuals in the U.S has).
I support laws making it a crime to knowingly transmit HIV to others. People who knowingly expose others to a serious, incurable, and potentially deadly disease should be prosecuted. Yes, we all agree that people should take care of themselves and use a condom when having sex with a person of unknown HIV-status, but whether or not the victim takes such precautions doesn't diminish the culpability of the individual who intentionally exposes the victim to HIV. Those who want to blame the victim are no different than someone who would object to prosecuting a person who poisoned another's drink because the victim who accepted the drink "should know better than to trust a drink prepared by another." I would also point out that in many (not all) of these cases, the person transmitting HIV has been in serious relationship with the victim (and in some cases, even married to the victim), which makes it even worse that they would have so little disregard for the health and well-being of a person they supposedly cared about.
75
It was wrong...Steven Boone is an adult and the 17 yr old is clearly a child. Not only was it rape, but it was intent to maliciously infect someone with a communicable disease...that should equal death sentence, no questions.
Steven Boone had adds all over the internet, in Ottawa, Toronto, Kitchener/Waterloo and Montreal, and didn't only sleep with people here in Canada, he was also sleeping with guys in the US, specifically North Carolina and surrounding areas also. Yep, it's true!
He used Facebook, Plentyoffish, Squirt.org, and whatever other disgusting websites are out there. As a homo myself, I have always thought of others as 'infected' in some way or another and have never slept with them until they were tested and we were committed to each other only. Prior to that, it was sex with a condom, and only IF the guy seemed honest.
Myself, I'm not a desperate person, I'm a good looking guy, never had a problem meeting anyone, but never slept around. 3 long-term relationships over the past 20 yrs, with maybe a few dates between them, and when it came time to dating seriously I always asked their history, how many they slept with, how long were their relationships etc...and one wrong answer and I was out of there. One guy said, oh I never slept around much, maybe a few guys a month...WHAT? Whatever, slut...my guess is that he was infected and just didn't want to admit it.
Those are the guys you watch out for...people need to be careful, obviously, but when you're 17 and an adult says something, you tend to believe him. I feel so bad for this kid, what kind of future does he have now?
Whoever said the 17 yr old is responsible for himself will get what they deserve one day, and then who's responsible? Asshole.
No punishment will be great enough as far as I'm concerned.
More...
Steven Boone had adds all over the internet, in Ottawa, Toronto, Kitchener/Waterloo and Montreal, and didn't only sleep with people here in Canada, he was also sleeping with guys in the US, specifically North Carolina and surrounding areas also. Yep, it's true!
He used Facebook, Plentyoffish, Squirt.org, and whatever other disgusting websites are out there. As a homo myself, I have always thought of others as 'infected' in some way or another and have never slept with them until they were tested and we were committed to each other only. Prior to that, it was sex with a condom, and only IF the guy seemed honest.
Myself, I'm not a desperate person, I'm a good looking guy, never had a problem meeting anyone, but never slept around. 3 long-term relationships over the past 20 yrs, with maybe a few dates between them, and when it came time to dating seriously I always asked their history, how many they slept with, how long were their relationships etc...and one wrong answer and I was out of there. One guy said, oh I never slept around much, maybe a few guys a month...WHAT? Whatever, slut...my guess is that he was infected and just didn't want to admit it.
Those are the guys you watch out for...people need to be careful, obviously, but when you're 17 and an adult says something, you tend to believe him. I feel so bad for this kid, what kind of future does he have now?
Whoever said the 17 yr old is responsible for himself will get what they deserve one day, and then who's responsible? Asshole.
No punishment will be great enough as far as I'm concerned.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (75) RSS