AIBU to think a 14 month sentence for passing on herpes is thin end of wedge?

[Cheria]

This article has really annoyed me. Herpes is a common virus. Her ex- boyfriend denied passing it on, and lied so is a twunt, of course, but jailing him for 14 months?

With all the STDs tehre are now, some of which are really serious, is this not the thin end of the wedge? Herpes, for me, is a nuisance, but there is no way I would want the person who gave it me to go to jail. It's not AIDS FFS.

Suing someone over this is just opening the way for so many revenge cases. It's worrying that the judicial system is wasting time on this. Disclaimer: if he had knowingly infected her with AIDS it would be a different story.

I wonder how many of the woman on this thread arguing herpes is no big deal are still in relationships with the men who recklessly/knowingly infected them

In that case The QueenOfDenial I HAVE to agree with you.

FFS!

isn't chicken pox a herpes virus?

I dont know how many times I have to say it - deliberately infecting anyone with anything is wrong. If he truely set out to infect her than of course he deserves to be punished.

Where do you draw the line though. Do you jail every man that recklessly infects a women with clamydia, possibly leaving them infertile? What about infection with the HPV strains that can lead to cervical cancer? Surely most people would agree that either of these senarios are a lot more serious that a coldsore, regardless of location yet I have not heard of anyone being jailed for this The jails are going to be full if they do go down this route.

smallwhitecat - the stigma point is not bollocks - it is exactly the point. Because he wouldn't have been jailed if he had deliberately/recklessly given her exactly the same virus but on her face.

And this case aside - it doesn't change the fact that many people are very ill-informed about genital herpes - no reason they would know much about it. But if you dont know know much about a subject, they shouldn't post their ill-informed opinions as facts. This just causes more distress to those with the condition.

This thread reminds me of the recent debate about the jail sentences given out to the looters (a whole other issue), but the "crime should fit the time". It should be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.

Both subjects are unsavoury and debatable but I've already made my opinion clear on previous posts so I shall bow out until someone else riles me enough to post once again

I think the point is he knew and didnt tell her. I think when anyone has sex with anyone, they should tell the other person about important facts and give them the choice to say yes or no. She wasnt give this choice and he even lied about having it, when she asked him.

I dont get it had he punched her, he would have deserved to go to jail, but knowingly passing on a condition that is life changing for her and some think he doesnt

myob cross posted.

I'm with you on the deliberately infected thing. Did my ex b/f know he had a herpes....no. Did I willingly have sex with him....yes. Do we know the whole and true facts of that case reported in the newspapers today....NO!

Go in fear all ye who enter into the carnal sin.....you could be next

Hahaha tales

smallwhitecat - good point, I should have said in my opinion he wouldn't have been jailed. I am not aware of any cases where someone has gone to jail for infecting someone with a facial coldsore. But even if they had, I'd bet my last dollar that if someone posted about it on here, the majority of people would have agreed that it was an excessive punishment.

Yes chicken pox is a form of herpes, yes cold sores are a form of herpes.

When you have sex with someone, you have to ?consent? to it, you cannot consent to something, if someone withholds important facts. I dont see what chicken pox and cold sores have to do with this.

what about parents who deliberatly expose thier children to chicken pox?

or rugby players scrumpox? do all players have to inform opposing sides?

Festi, chicken pox isn't going to be an ongoing infection.....

And it wouldn't be transferable years later.

What about parents who do that, its not against the Law. The Law covers STD's and the deceit of spreading those to someone else.

but they are still deliberatly infecting someone with a dissease

In the Soviet Union having been diagnosed with an STD was serious bad news, you could have "immoral lifestyle" stamped in various important personal records. Hence it was driven underground and people would pay doctors on the side for treatment. If you couldn't afford to pay - you went untreated.

Stigmatising STDs and creating fear of a criminal record may lead people to avoid going to the clinic/doctor for treatment which will lead to those STDs that have life and fertility threatening consequences being passed around even more.

As far as I understand it, the law equating GBH with passing on a STD was created to imprison those who were knowingly passing on HIV. Now for the first time it has been used for herpes. Soon perhaps for Chlamyida, syphillis and HPV? Add in those who decide to go for revenge when they had actually been told in advance and the courts could end up very, very busy. Imagine if one had an abusive ex who wanted to get more access to DCs and was looking for angles to get the other in trouble?

Not unless they are planning on having sex with the opposing players and have an STD they could infect them with.

The Law covers sex and the consent to it, for anyone to consent to sex fully, you have to know what you are consenting to, if catching a life changing condition is part of what you are consenting you, you have to right to choose whether to have sex with that person or not.

As i stated the Law covers STD's and the deceitful spread of them, they are deceiving someone into having sex with them. Scrumpox, is not an STD and doesnt involve sex. I assume the Law covers STD's as these affect millions of people and have the potential to affect millions more. Scrumpox is i assume restricted to some rugby players, so not so serious.

I get what you are saying and agreee on the moral principle but also dont think that the seriousness of genital herpes is any worse than that of other accosiated diseases and as it has only been classified as an std from fairly recently I just dont think in my opinion it would be clear to determine deliberate infection in other cases that are not so black and white with a confession. I just dont think jail terms sit to well for me, in other possibly similar cases. I find it moraly very similar to parents knowingly infecting kids who are unable to consent to the spread of chicken pox which can be life limiting changing and can spread later on life, maybe to a lesser extent but with possibly mere serious effects.

It has to proven beyond reasonable doubt that the person passing on the infection had knowledge of it.

I assume the only way to prove this would be if the person had already sought treatment for it hence it wouldnt stop them from seeking treatment or if they plead guilty (i cant see anyone pleading guilty unless they had to ie the court had proof they had sought treatment prior to the other person being infected)

I mentioned in another post that a friend was told at the GU she had the cold sore virus and that she may never have another outbreak so thier was no nessetity to inform other partners? this is not very clear advice if she where to pass it on and then end up in jail as it would be proven that she knew, that seems confussing.

Cold sores and genital herpes are different strands of the virus. The Law only covers genital herpes.

But even if you could prove the person passing in the infection had prior knowledge of it, how on earth would you prove whether they had informed their partner or not.