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 think it just opens up a whole mine field that the law i can understand can be represented within law.

It would be very difficult, but i guess a deciding factor might be whether the other person also sought treatment or not. If someone tells you they have given you an STD, i should imagine most people would seek treatment for it also?

And you can seek treatment for the symptoms, but the actual virus never goes away. Therefore, you know you can transmit it.

I'm not sure what you meant claw when you said that coldsores and genital herpes are different strands. This isn't really true. HSV1 is mainly the coldsore virus but can be contracted genitally. HSV2 is usually what people mean when they think of genital herpes but people can carry this on lips (or anywhere)M the two strands are contractable at either site.

The sentance is justified giving someone an illness for life is grevious bodily harm.

They didn't prove it custardcake, he chose to plead guilty for some reason. Dreadful legal advice. I wonder if he thought that if he pleaded guilty to GBH he would get a non custodial sentence and could keep quiet about it and not have to tell work.

Good line here from the Private Eye article written by a medical doctor
"Mr Golding is extremely unfortunate to be infected with the triad of incompetent legal representation, an ignorant judge comparing HSV to HIV and then misinterpreting the CPS guidelines, and a medical ?expert? who called herpes ?incurable?. In nearly all cases, there?s nothing to cure. We all carry all sorts of viruses for life, and most we don?t even know about"

Weird he pleaded guilty if he infected her when he had no signs of an infection.

I shared a house with someone who had no idea he had herpes until he infected his girlfriend (and he was not hiding it, he was terribly indiscreet and once he knew he told the world and his wife)

Leverkuson, Youre right both can be transferred ie cold sore to genitally or genitally to mouth. But they both remain the same strand HSV1 and HSV2. So HSV2 is covered by Law, is probably the better explaination. Does that make more sense?

In my experience people plead guilty

a) because they are and actually feel regret.

b) because they do not have a choice, they will be found guilty regardless, so they want to appear to feel regret, so to get lighter consequences.

I should imagine anyone who pleads guilty to infecting someone, doesnt do so through conscience, if they had a conscience they wouldnt have deliberately infected someone in the first place.

The precendant has to be set somewhere, Courts are not allowed to just make it up.

The case was called R v Dica, and it took place in 2004.

"Mr Dica was told in December 1995 that he was HIV positive. He met the first complainant in 1997, and met the second complainant in 2000. Dica had unprotected sex with both of them. According to the first complainant, Dica actually insisted that they should not use protection, telling her that she could not become pregnant because he had had a vasectomy. During intercourse, he would also say ?Forgive me in the name of God?.

Dica was convicted at London Crown Court in 2003 of two offences of causing grievous bodily harm. The judge at the trial decided that the rule in the Clarence case was no longer valid in England and Wales, and Dica was sentenced to a total sentence of 8 years imprisonment. It had taken over a hundred years, but the English courts had finally come full circle.

When Dica?s conviction was upheld on appeal, the aptly named Lord Justice Judge made the following comment which is of particular interest to those with genital herpes and other ?less serious? STDs:

?In the present case we are directly concerned with HIV. However we understand that there have been significant recent increases in the recorded rates of syphilis and gonorrhoea, and that a significant proportion of sexually active young women, and many young men, are infected with chlamydia. Accordingly, although we agreed to accept submissions from the Terence Higgins Trust, the George House Trust and the National AIDS Trust in relation to HIV, and some of the problems faced by those with this condition, for which we are grateful, the issues which arise in this appeal are not confined to that devastating disease.?

In England and Wales, then, it seems as though transmitting any STD ? if you haven?t warned your partner ? can be considered a criminal offence"

precedent rather!

It would be very difficult, but i guess a deciding factor might be whether the other person also sought treatment or not. If someone tells you they have given you an STD, i should imagine most people would seek treatment for it also?

Sorry I may be being thick but I dont really understand what you mean. Not everyone would seek treatment, especially if they already knew what it was. They may not want it on their records. And the body cures itself so unless they wanted antiviral tablets to speed this up, there would be no point. Even if they did, how does that help prove whether their partner told them before or after they got it?

If I passed it on next week to my current partner who has known since we met eight years ago, if we later have a bitter break up, what's to stop him claiming that that I didn't tell him before he got it?

More than anything I really would be interested to know if those who think a custodial sentance was right - would they hand on heart have said the same if it was a facial coldsore which is just as 'incurable' and inconvenient? If so, I may not agree with you but I cant really argue with your opinion. If not then you really need to consider that you have brought into the stigma sounding genital herpes.

Eurostar - you talk a lot of sense, I wish people would read and actually take notice of what you have said.

I don't understand how he could have 'knowingly' passed it on if it passed it on when he wasn't having a flare up. I thought it was okay to sleep with someone when you weren't having a flare up. The gf says there was no flare up at the time. So ? Doesn't make sense.

I do know how vile herpes is. Ds1 had a type of herpes infection that can be fatal and quite possibly has left him permanently damaged (that we may never know - we know he was damaged around the time of the herpes infection and a couple of paeds think it's related). He caught him from a close family member who had an active cold sore. That's life, it happens anas he would have come across herpes sooner or later.

But I don't get how, if as it says the transmission occurred at a time
With no flare up he can be liable. I know he pleaded guilty but that seems
bizarre.

Claw3

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

As someone has pointed out - that's not entirely true, as the rise of casual oral sex has spread type 1 to the genitals and type 2 to the face, so having 'herpes' can mean type one or two. I have type one transferred from H's face to my genitals.

Are you sure that the courts will only consider transfer of type 2 as GBH/a criminal act? How do you know this?

Saintly technically you can pass it on at any time. The risk when you aren't having an outbreak is tiny but real - it's called viral shedding. So someone with herpes should explain that to a partner, not assume they are ok. the only way to prevent transmission is by taking aciclovir daily which suppresses the virus and stops shedding/outbreaks.

saintlyjimjams check out this link, it may answer a few of the questions you raise. herpes-coldsores.com/viral_shedding.htm

EricNMOP so me and you have something in common . HSV1 can indeed be passed from face to genitals. And HSV2 can be passed from genitals to face.

I'd also be interested to hear from Claw3 with regards to the question you asked

Damn, got beaten with my knowledge of viral shedding. I type too slow

I already answered that question "Youre right both can be transferred ie cold sore to genitally or genitally to mouth. But they both remain the same strand HSV1 and HSV2. So HSV2 is covered by Law, is probably the better explaination. Does that make more sense?"

Eric, HSV1 unless i am mistaken isnt considered an STD.

Myob as i said 'i guess' and 'might' and a deciding factor, not the deciding factor and put a question mark at the end of my statement. I wasnt stating it as fact.

I am guessing that if someone had no idea that their partner had GH, they would seek medical advice when they started to show symptoms as they wouldnt know what it was. As you say if they already knew what it was, they would be no point in seeking medical advice.

If you passed it on to your current partner im guessing again, that if you hadnt passed it on to your partner in 8 years, it wouldnt be seen as deliberate.

But that is beside the point, the case the OP is talking about was very clear cut, he admitted to it. Not every case would be clear cut and it would be extremely difficult to prove and most probably wouldnt even make it to Court.

I wouldnt have said a facial coldsore deserved a custodial sentence, because it is not against the Law, deliberately passing on STD's is.

What if somebody caught a type HSV2 from having oral sex with somebody who had genital herpes and then passed a facial coldsore onto another person? Could they be prosecuted?

What is someone had got genital herpes but type 1, from oral sex with someone with a coldsore. Is this outside the law as it is not covered by law?

I know you haven't made this law by the way! I'm just curious as to whether you think it is fair and sensible? To me, if I have understood what you are saying correctly, it is farcical.

I also think it paves the way for a lot of bitter exes to try and get revenge.
While I agree that most cases wouldn't be clear cut and probably wouldn't make it to court, it could cause an incredible amount of stress and embarrassment to the person who was investigated, even though they may have been honest from day one.

Just to be clear, I am asking about the law in general, not relating to the specific case in the OP.

Er, why the fuck shouldn't she be 'bitter and vengeful' when someone deliberately gave her an incurable disease? Do you think victims of theft/other assault are 'bitter and vegeful' when they take people to court for that, or is it just women who arehurt during sex because obvs they deserve whatever they get or however you raging misogynists put it?

claw3 i have HSV1 genitally. I know this. Are you saying that if i go round having sex with people and not telling them and spreading it I am exempt from prosecution?