I found this comment in a Volokh Conspiracy discussion of sexually transmitted diseases (the author posts as Houston Lawyer):
I would like to know why spreading VD is not a crime or at least a tort in this country. One of the reasons that VD is so rampant is that the perpetrator is never punished. Is there some societal value in allowing those with incurable and often deadly diseases having the unfettered right to have sex with uninformed partners?
The discussion of sex in America frequently centers around birth control, but could many of our "problems" (teen pregnancy rate, incurable STDs, high abortion rates) be solved through jurisprudence?
I think it's more taboo than anything else. The question "Who did you get this from?" is embarassing, so probably isn't dealt with properly. In some cases, where it is *ah-hem* unclear, the investigation would also be embarassing.
ReplyDeleteThere are, of course, some barriers one would put up in this case. I'm no lawyer, but it would seem like the accused would have to have knowingly endangered the health of the victim and not taken resonable preventive measure to avoid spreading the disease.
Key words: knowingly, reasonable. For STDs, this might work out, but for other vectors of infection it has the potential for problems. There are probably precedents of intentional infection crimes.
P Lacz, you're right. There would have to be standards set for knowledge of the risk, but isn't it both partners responsibility to protect themselves?
ReplyDeleteSTDs are a good starting point for "infection as assault" charges because of their long term effects, thereby putting them in a different class from (for example) a flu virus (which comes and goes).
The only question I would have would be: Can you then link STD punishment to genetic diseases (because parents usually know what they are passing to their children)?
I probably should have written about the responsibily to know if you are a carrier. It could be construed as negligence, I'm sure.
ReplyDeleteThe link to genetic endangerment is interesting, but I don't think I have anything worthwhile to add. The act/crime has some amusing philisophical circles to run in: had the 'crime' not been committed, the victim would not only not be a victim, she would not exist.