HIV murder

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/04/04/aziga-verdict.html


An HIV-positive Ontario man has been found guilty of first-degree murder in the deaths of two of his sex partners in what was considered a precedent-setting trial in Canada.

The jury also convicted Johnson Aziga, 52, on 10 counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of attempted aggravated sexual assault.

Aziga, of Hamilton, had been accused of endangering the lives of 11 women by recklessly exposing them to the virus that causes AIDS.

bump... guy gives aids to sex partners... two of whom later die... found guilty of murder... no comment?

I'm puzzled by it all.

In his instruction to jurors, Justice Thomas Lofchik said they need not find that Aziga planned and deliberately killed the two Toronto women for him to be found guilty of first-degree murder.

That just throws my definition of 'murder' down the tubes. Is the law different in Canada? This just opens up a can of worms. I agree that he's a lowlife and should probably be charged with something. But murder? Aggravated sexual assault? There's another word where my definition is totally different - 'assault'.

And let's not forget that 49 and 51 year old women having unprotected sex are way more than old enough to know better. It's not like this is 1940.

That's kind of where I went with it also... I cant attest to the laws in Canada... I could see something like manslaughter or reckless homicide...

I wonder too how it would tie into the more civil side of things... eg: is the a precedent that could be used against a tobacco company?

hey now pez i have been occupied or woulda commented sooner ;-)
this has already been to trial here in usa.

http://www.kcci.com/health/2840098/detail.html

http://www.poz.com/articles/frisco_assault_45_years_1_16730.shtml

Pez wrote:I wonder too how it would tie into the more civil side of things... eg: is the a precedent that could be used against a tobacco company?

I think the disclosure is key - tobacco companies are required to say that their product is carcinogenic, blah blah blah; this guy did not disclose what he should have. I agree that it probably should be manslaughter or something - it's more like driving drunk and killing someone than murder. And Mark is right with his statement -they put themselves at risk and it's unfortunate because there are certainly losers out there like this guy. Even if the guy didn't know, this kind of thing can happen and then who's fault is it? They, unfortunately, bear some of the responsibility for their situation - though, legally, they were perfectly within their right.

What if this guy gave a woman poison in her drink and it took 5 years to fully erode her body to the point of death? Isn't this about the same thing?

He deliberately had sex with her, he knew he had hiv/aids, he knew that hiv/aids is spread through sex.

IrishGuy wrote:What if this guy gave a woman poison in her drink and it took 5 years to fully erode her body to the point of death? Isn't this about the same thing?

He deliberately had sex with her, he knew he had hiv/aids, he knew that hiv/aids is spread through sex.

I would say that the big difference is he wouldn't have been fulfilling a basic human need had he poisoned her. It would be pretty obvious in that case that he was trying to do harm. Yes, he deliberately had sex. But did he deliberately kill the women? I really doubt it.

On another note, is HIV an automatic death sentence these days?

Markwes wrote:
I would say that the big difference is he wouldn't have been fulfilling a basic human need had he poisoned her.

A basic human need that he could have filled with one hand and not contaminated anyone else.

Whoa, whoa, hold on here. I am trying to find the data, but I am certain AIDs transmission is not 100%. So if someone can find that info, I think that should be in mind when thinking about this. Say drunk driving has a 1% chance of killing someone (I think that's a little high, but just an example) - and is not done with the purpose of killing someone in mind. The hypothetical poison has a 98% chance of killing someone - and done only with the purpose of killing someone in mind. Where does this act lie in terms of lethality to the victim and in terms of done for pleasure of the perpetrator vs. done for killing the victim?

Anyway, it's definitely not possible to defend this guy for what he did, but there are legal lines for a reason. I say manslaughter over murder because I'm guessing the act wasn't done because he had killing them on his mind. He may not have cared whether they got AIDs or not, but that doesn't mean it was the purpose. Just my opinion.

I thought the current law stated if you knew you were infected you were required to disclose that information?

IrishGuy wrote:What if this guy gave a woman poison in her drink and it took 5 years to fully erode her body to the point of death? Isn't this about the same thing?

He deliberately had sex with her, he knew he had hiv/aids, he knew that hiv/aids is spread through sex.

the woman knew she was having unprotected sex... If she died playing the Poison Drink game I doubt there would be such a hubbub...

Aggie Transplant wrote:

Markwes wrote:
I would say that the big difference is he wouldn't have been fulfilling a basic human need had he poisoned her.

A basic human need that he could have filled with one hand and not contaminated anyone else.

True, and I don't think anyone is denying that he is lower than low. But my question was does that qualify for a murder charge?

yes it does. even if he had sex with some who didnt get aids it is still justified.

floridafun wrote:yes it does. even if he had sex with some who didnt get aids it is still justified.

I guess that is a little extreme for me... two people have to consent here, and any reasonable adult knows unprotected sex is dangerous because you could get AIDS and die. Wouldn't you think this guys partner would bear some level of responsibility for the transmission of this virus?

but flimsey excuse that it may seem, the partner did not KNOW the guy currently has aids. if someone with aids works at a food establishment and spits in your iced tea every time you come in and the customer is celibate..say bristol palin..and tests positive for aids months later AND it is discovered the aids infected person was spitting in their tea, should a murder charge apply? i know i know..its definately a different scenario than sex. but still..

floridafun wrote:but flimsey excuse that it may seem, the partner did not KNOW the guy currently has aids. if someone with aids works at a food establishment and spits in your iced tea every time you come in and the customer is celibate..say bristol palin..and tests positive for aids months later AND it is discovered the aids infected person was spitting in their tea, should a murder charge apply? i know i know..its definately a different scenario than sex. but still..

or sasha obama

floridafun wrote:but flimsey excuse that it may seem, the partner did not KNOW the guy currently has aids. if someone with aids works at a food establishment and spits in your iced tea every time you come in and the customer is celibate..say bristol palin..and tests positive for aids months later AND it is discovered the aids infected person was spitting in their tea, should a murder charge apply? i know i know..its definately a different scenario than sex. but still..

Agree that the guy knowingly engaged in an activity that was extremely likely to distribute AIDS, and that the partner didn't know. But I think a charge of murder implies malice... this is manslaughter if you ask me... Your iced tea example is different because drinking iced tea isnt an activity normally associated with the transimission of STDs (despite that the virus cant be spread that way).

If the woman were raped by the HIV guy, murder. If the sex was consensual, manslaughter.

i think manslaughter is sufficient too

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:

floridafun wrote:but flimsey excuse that it may seem, the partner did not KNOW the guy currently has aids. if someone with aids works at a food establishment and spits in your iced tea every time you come in and the customer is celibate..say bristol palin..and tests positive for aids months later AND it is discovered the aids infected person was spitting in their tea, should a murder charge apply? i know i know..its definately a different scenario than sex. but still..

or sasha obama

sasha...if and after she becomes an unwed mother who says abstinence is unrealistic to the msm then becomes the spokesperson that same unrealistic idea.