Should people who don't disclose STDs be legally punished?

This rather comely looking German pop star* is being charged with aggravated assault for having unprotected sex with three men without disclosing that she is HIV positive.

Ok now look, I'm not going to say this isn't a morally dubious thing to do. However, I don't think she should be charged for it. Frankly, only one person is ultimately responsible for an individual's sexual health: that individual. You should assume that every sexual partner is possibly infected with an STD, because that is the truth. Now if someone outright lies about their HIV status, that's a different and more insidious kettle of fish. But if I'm reading right, that's not what happened here.

*Don't worry, it's not Blümchen.

I think it's absolutely a criminal offense.

This person knowingly allowed someone to enter into a dangerous situation that could have a significant effect on their physical health. She might be able to keep her HIV+ status under control, but the person she's sleeping with may have unrelated conditions that could significantly worsen with the introduction of HIV or may not have health insurance to pay for quality treatment that she, as a pop star, probably has access to.

It is a law in many places that if you knowingly let a person enter a situation unwittingly that could cause them significant physical harm that they may not be aware of, you can be charged as an accessory. Sure they should x, x, or x, but knowing you have a responsibility.

If she used protection? Then yes, I think absolutely she should not be charged, but unprotected sex is a clear indicator that she had little care in whether these men would end up with an HIV+ status. And, additionally, by not telling them she knows that they may not get tested until they actually get ill, usually during which time it is hard to recover lost ground.

I think it's venomous and cruel.

Yeah, what Panther said. I agree completely. I support laws requiring divulgence of HIV status to sex partners. It's fine if someone wants to take the risk of protected (or hell, even unprotected) sex with someone who's HIV-positive. But, if the HIV-positive partner is aware, they should be obligated to tell.

It appears she did know she was HIV positive. If so her act was criminal to my mind. At least criminal endangerment or the like. I can only go my the US law system and don't know the German one but I would say it does not rise to felony but it is criminal at least.

As much as I really hate to see any kind of laws involving people's sex lives, I really can't come up with a good reason that there shouldn't be disclosure laws. It is absolutely intentionally putting another person's life in jeopardy.

From what I have read it is almost certain that she is guilty of the following because she seems to have admitted the basic facts of what happened.

Quote:

---

Section 229 Negligent Bodily Injury

Whoever negligently causes bodily injury to another person shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.

---

The fact that she was minor at the time will reduce any sentence noticeably.

The big question is if she is guilty of 'regular' bodily injury or even the aggravated version. Those would require at least 'conditional' intent, i.e. she willfully accepted the risk. Vaginal female-to-male infection is much less likely than our high school classes tried to make it appear. You can't rule out that she sincerely considered her behavior basically safe. On the other hand reportedly her management put pressure on her to keep her infection secret. (They were the first big casting show band and extremely successful for a while following 2000.) That won't look good.

Of course the man was generally responsible for his own protection, but I still think what she did was criminal. Whether negligently or intentionally, she greatly increased his risk.

Back about ten years ago, just as the HIV treatments started to take an HIV diagnosis from a death sentence to something you could live with a Jamestown man was found to have deliberately had unprotected sex with some 48 women in his home county, and another 28 in NYC.

According to the Wikipedia page on him, he's boasted that the real numbers are closer to 300. To add to the fun, at least two of the women involved were minors.

I remember the complaints at the time, that he should be tried for attempted murder. And I still have a great deal of sympathy for that position.

He's due to be released if the State Attorney General cannot keep him under civil confinement, because of his sex offender status.

I still don't see any good reason why he shouldn't be tried for murder the moment any of the 16 people who contracted HIV from him should die.

Cynically, a disclosure law would be little different than laws requiring people to wear seat belts or wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle--it would reduce potential costs to the state.

This gentleman may have infected "hundreds."