A crime is a crime, hatred or no…
Fascinating piece from Rod Liddle in the Spectator today, in which examines the strange case of Sarah Porter, a woman who “set about passing on the [HIV] virus to as many men as she could, by ‘encouraging’ them to have unprotected sex with her”. Most of the men were black, as was the guy who passed the disease onto her. Although as Liddle points out, that did not emerge in the course of her trial. Otherwise he argues, it might have been classified as ‘hate crime’ and the penality a multiple of her current jail term of two years and eight months.
Just in order to get another opinion on my thinking on this issue I asked my daughter, a young woman, and her friends to read the comments on this thread and to give me theirs in return.
On the car driver analogy my daughter commented:
“If he don’t know the difference between driving a car and having sex I wouldn’t want to get into one of his cabs”.
Her friend, Nicci, said:
“Wot about that bloke then? The one that was done for the same fing? Nobody was crying about them gels. They was all treated as slags. Served ‘em right and all that. Wot about that then?”
There was ideed a recent case where a man had knowingly and recklessly infected a number of (identified) women who, realising the source of their infection, had come forward. And I recall public and press reaction being much as Nicci inferred.
Nicci’s response deserves consideration.
Rory, if you are suggesting sex-discriminatory treatment of this woman it might be best to start with the respective sentences handed down. Do you know the sentence the man you refer to got?
As regards the other comments about her partners’ culpability in having unprotected sex – isn’t this really a red-herring? Of course there’s a risk of contracting HIV from unprotected sex – but this woman was found guilty of KNOWINGLY passing the virus on. It was a premeditated act and a wicked one at that. That her partners took risks should not be a mitigating factor.
As for the possibility that her victims may not die – that too seems irrelevant. There is no cure for this disease and the mutations of the virus suggest that it could be a very long time before one is found. Hence, she passed on a deadly disease for which there is treatment but no cure.
The sentence she received was not commensurate with her crime – nor is it reflective of the very real risk she posses to society on her release.
Perhaps she is in need of psychiatric care – but that care should be in a custodial environment and be used to advise any probation board asked to review her sentence – had she been given an appropriate sentence.
As it stands the legal system failed to deal with this case appropriately.
I don’t disagree with much of what you’ve said, in so far as the criminal case is concerned — my only beef there is she is getting off far too lightly.
Much of the recent posting has had more to do with the societal / moral ramifications of all this. Here, things get a little fuzzier and the actions of other parties do become germane to the conversation.
DC – I certainly accept that the actions of other parties have been commented on here – but some of those comments have come perilously close to blaming the victims of a crime; a crime done to them that will lead to their premature death.
From the reports I have read there is very little information about Ms. Porter’s victims; we know they had been encouraged by her to have unprotected sex, that one of her victims had been her partner for 2 years and that they were black (though I fail to see the relevance of the last detail unless the media is trying to indicate that she deliberately targeted black men).
One of the reasons there is so little information is due to Ms. Porter refusing to assist in partner notification. This refusal aggravates her crime since the most likely outcome is that her victims will unintentionally pass on the virus to still more victims. Are these victims to be blamed too?
While having unprotected sex is risky – it is not a crime. Having unprotected sex with a partner known to you for 2 years shows the depths of deception practised by Ms. Porter. I wonder how many of the posters here on Slugger who cast blame on Porter’s victims have themselves practised unsafe sex after knowing their partner for 2 years?
The only positive outcome from Porter’s absurdly lenient sentence is that it has attracted additional publicity to her case. Hopefully that publicity will alert her former partners.
As for Ms. Porter herself, her behaviour is one of an unrepentant psychopath from whom the legal system has offered society little protection.
Betty Boo
I just could not resist the Black Widow description, some deep inner desire to be a SUN journalist surfacing. Something simple for a headline.
In my far and distant youth I had a fried who was an unmitigated bounder. Women adored him, why I have never been able to fathom as he made no pretence to have any morality whatsoever. A challenge perhaps? However one girl accused him of being the father of her child. This is a girl with whom he had had no relationship whatsoever, and I believe him as you tended to know ever lurid conquest plus some probably, (like having a charadter from Tom Jones relate their adventures) and apart from that in many ways he was basically honest. He would have taken responsibility. You have no idea the effect this accusation had on him. Family of girl believed the girl and so on, eventually he simply got up and left.
The girl was obviously not quite normal as she pursued her objective ruthlessly. Her aim was to marry ‘Jack the Lad.’ An illogical obsession perhaps, but pursued clinically and ruthlessly. You come across males and females who are infatuated and some are a menace if you are on the receiving end.
Since then I have always had a slightly dark view of what people are capable of and just how vulnerable any of us are.
In addition I was ill with TB for a lengthy period and the thoughts of passing on any serious infection are unimaginable. If you have such a disease and are ill the last thing any normal person is going to do is give someone else it. Those who knowingly spread such a disease are dangerous people, they show absolutely no regard for the well being of others. My objectives first and foremost and to hell with others. This is psychopathic behaviour.
HIV Transmission and the Criminal Law
How did we get here and where to now
So they’re prosecuting under an 1861 law and the Home Office is, er, reviewing the topic. Speedy progress can be expected – not.
Rory quotes his daughter’s friends:
“Wot about that bloke then? The one that was done for the same fing? Nobody was crying about them gels. They was all treated as slags. Served ‘em right and all that. Wot about that then?”
There was ideed a recent case where a man had knowingly and recklessly infected a number of (identified) women who, realising the source of their infection, had come forward. And I recall public and press reaction being much as Nicci inferred.
Nicci’s response deserves consideration.
I don’t need to consider it much, Rory. It’s a straw man argument – unless you can find some evidence of me being hypocritical over this, stick to the issue.
My simultaneous belief in tough sentences for attempted murder and also my support for encouraging safer sex are perfectly compatible. You seem to persist in believing that they are not compatible, and even worse, that I am lying when I say I believe they are compatible.
Well, Crataegus, at least we have something in common. For I too am a recovered sufferer from tuberculosis which was the AIDS of its time back in my day. Indeed it was worse as, being both contagious and infectuous it did not require exposure to blood products for transmission. But at least the long months in Crawfordsburn sanitarium at Helen’s Bay gave me lots of time to read and think so helping to produce this waspish old git that we all know and so love today.
(Yes, the same Crawfordsburn that had been the former home of UVF icon, Colonel Crawford, who ran the guns into Larne and kicked off the whole bloody shebang).
I do not have the sentencing information to hand in the case of the man but memory tells me that it was certainly much more punitive than that given to this woman. But I would argue that this difference in sentence indicates the judge’s view of the more serious deliberation of intent of the man and that the lower sentence given to the woman indicates the judge’s view of the woman’s lesser culpability.
In any case it was the difference in public reaction to these two cases that I addressed earlier and it seems to me that, whereas in the first case, little sympathy was given to the women that he had infected on the “Should have known better – only themselves to blame” principle, the opposite now appears to be so in the case of Sarah Porter and this seems to me to be symptomatic of the double standards that are applied and that so discriminate against women in our society who are often more sinned against than sinning.
Summary: This woman knew she had HIV and purposefully infected people. She then withheld their details from police. She got a short sentence- in my view it should have been longer, or at least she should have been admitted indefinitely to a mental health facility until she was fit to return to society.
Anyone who tries to lessen the gravity of her actions, for instance by claiming HIV isn’t too bad or that the men took the risk and were therefore significantly to blame for contracting HIV from her, need their heads seen to.
Occasional Commentator,
Firstly may I say that I most certainly did not make any imputation that you may have been lying. Nor indeed did such imputation ever cross my mind and I am at odds as to how you can draw this conclusion from my remarks. However acid my remarks might be on the subject matter of any thread I have never, nor would I, attack the integrity of another contributor. Nor is there much need since if his integrity is indeed suspect his own words will invariably betray it. I am happy to say that your words gave no such indication and that your integrity, accordingly, remains inviolable.
There was no charge of “attempted murder” brought in this or any case involving HIV transmission. The charge is one of reckless endangerment of putting another at risk of infection. An important distinction.
Rory,
I (and presumably you) don’t know the details of each of the men in this case. Imagine one of the men was certain that he himself was free of STDs (perhaps because of testing or because he was always very careful). Then he starts going out with a woman who is adamant she too is healthy. If they have unprotected sex and he picks up HIV and it turns out she knew about it, how can you turn around and lay into him by tarring all men with the same brush? (“It is, in the main, the refusal of men to limit their own pleasure by wearing condoms …”)
Some of the men involved may have been entirely careful and innocent victims, some may have been reckless with their own health (knew they were safe but didn’t give to much thought to her), some may have been reckless with others’ health. But they are all victims in this case, whether or not they are victims who also need to be criticized.
I know she wasn’t actually charged by the police with attempted murder, but deliberately infecting somebody with a usually fatal disease sounds like attempted murder to me. But I’ll avoid the term in case people actually assume that this was the crime of which she was convicted.
I meant to also add that I admit I went a bit over the top with Rory earlier – sorry about that.
“You come across males and females who are infatuated and some are a menace if you are on the receiving end.” And she is, Crataegus. I do remember the case Rory mentioned. And this is the aspect which annoys me. It is bad alright but it is worse when committed by a woman. I’m not taking away the seriousness of either case, just noticing a bit of discrimination going on there.
El Matador,
You are right, I need to go to the hairdresser.
No apology necessary, OC. This is a very emotive issue and passion does burn hot. But you are gracious, thank you.
I take the argument presented in your first paragraph and agree that no blame should accrue to a man in that case nor indeed could he be held to have been careless. If he was involved in what he believed to be a monogamous relationship and contracted an infection via his partner’s undisclosed unfaithfulness of course he is an aggrieved party.
I am also convinced that anyone, man or woman who practises unsafe, unprotected sex with multiple partners in the face of HIV prevalence are certainly guilty of social irresponsibility at the very least and bear a criminal liability if they knowingly and maliciously pass on an infection to another person to whom they have not made known their HIV+ serostatus.
It is on this issue of different public perception of guilty men and guilty women that I take issue with. What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander.
Fortunately, so far at least, the judiciary in England and Wales do not seem to share the public taste for harsher treatment for women.
I sometimes do not know whether to weep or cheer when I find that the state appointed judiciary take a more progressive stance than the public on this and many other issues. Those who dream of right-wing coups and such must surely cheer.
Ah, that old chestnut: ‘right-wing’. What does it mean this week!? I’m not getting at you Rory for using it, it’s just that it doesn’t seem to mean anything in particular. I want to legalise cannabis (one doesn’t have to partake of it to call for it’s legalisation) and privatise the health service. Does that make me left- or right- wing? More police and tougher sentences, and also a high burden of proof. Left or right? I want the UK to have a genuinely independent nuclear deterent (not bought off the shelf from the US) and also I believe that Guantanamo Bay is a disgrace. Is that left or right? I think all my opinions form a consistent whole, and the fact that I can’t classify myself just convinces me that they are terms referring to constantly changing coalitions of groups that don’t really have that much in common.
Anyway, back to the subject. You said: ‘Those who dream of right-wing coups and such must surely cheer.’ Do you mean that some right-wingers are glad that the judiciary have a different opinion from the masses as that this will increase the chances of the masses overthrowing the status quo?
@El Matador on Jun 23, 2006 @ 10:57 AM
Spot on there EM!!
They should also be ashamed of themselves.
Your views on health privatisation and “strong” defence and law ‘n’ order policies and, funnily enough, the legalisation of cannabis would, OC, place you pretty firmly in the old 19th century liberal economist camp which is much were Margaret Thatcher (and now, Tony Blair) is. To be a fully paid up liberal economist though, it would help if you also called for privatisation of defence and law ‘n’ order. Your views on Guatanamo Bay would indicate a humane streak which indicates a sufficient lack of ruthlessness to qualify you as a leading light in that cause.
The legalisation of cannabis is a clear liberal, not socialist, policy since it calls for a further decrease in the power of the state to interfere in “private” matters and was a mainstay of the platform of the right-wing Adam Smith Institute, a Thatcherite think-tank in the hey-day of She-who-must-be-obeyed.
You may be understandably reluctant to be categorised as right-wing because of the pejoratively negative connotations of that term today. But if I held your position honestly I would simply embrace the term.
I do not share your position and my views often lead me to be branded as a “Red”, to which I simply reply, “Too bloody right I am!”
p.s. I’ll just be off now to roll meself a big fat one.
Betty Boo
And this is the aspect which annoys me. It is bad alright but it is worse when committed by a woman.
For myself, and I believe all those commenting, there is no difference be it man or woman, and nor should there be. Any male or female behaving in this manner should be taken right out of circulation. They are a greater threat than Blair’s terrorists or Bush’s weapons of mass destruction. This week they infect 2 people they each infect 2 more and on it goes. For us to stop the spread of this disease we need to change behaviour and we need to ensure that people like this don’t infect others. We must set a fairly rigorous standard..
Rory
Sorry to hear you had the same misfortune, as you say a good opportunity to read and read and read. It also gives you a bit of time to take stock.
Rubicon: “I certainly accept that the actions of other parties have been commented on here – but some of those comments have come perilously close to blaming the victims of a crime; a crime done to them that will lead to their premature death. ”
I think the proper verb in that sentence should be “may,” seeing as there are a number of promisng therapies, including some that reduce the virus below a detectable threshold. But, eschewing semantics for the moment, on the victim’s side, I have to say that they should have had some inkling at this late date that riding bareback was to be taking their lives in their own hands. Now, while I do have sympathy on the basis that they were maliciously infected, its not untainted by that notion that their behavior — casual unprotected sex — was a risk factor. Play with fire long enough and you will get burned — the odds would have eventually caught up with them, were they to play long enough.
Rubicon: “One of the reasons there is so little information is due to Ms. Porter refusing to assist in partner notification. This refusal aggravates her crime since the most likely outcome is that her victims will unintentionally pass on the virus to still more victims. Are these victims to be blamed too”
No arguement from me re: Ms. Potter — my only problem is that her sentence isn;t long enough. Personally, I think she ought to be held in contempt of court until such time as she divulges and then she would be allowed to start her time in prison with *NO* credit for time served as a part of the contempt.
As for the others, the sex, as I understand, was casual, consensual and unprotected. As such, the gentlement in question were assuming the standard risk that would accompany such behavior. Likewise, any folks who have sex with them on the same basis would (or at least should) be assuming the same risks. Does this make them victims? I would say no — there is no malice, ergo, no crime occurred. This is not an absolute — any circumstance that negated consent would make the infected party a “victim,” to my mind. In the presence of consent, all you have is a fool.
Rubicon: “While having unprotected sex is risky – it is not a crime.”
Neither is investing your life-savings in junk bonds. However, there are substantial risks involved.
Rubicon: “I wonder how many of the posters here on Slugger who cast blame on Porter’s victims have themselves practised unsafe sex after knowing their partner for 2 years? ”
Given the latency of the disease is (or at least was — the virus mutates rapidly) 10 years on the outside. Likewise, I haven’t (and I think most haven’t) held Ms. Potter’s partner as being quite the same as her other targets.
Just because her victims (with the exception of her long-time partner (and there are still circumstances I can think of that would diminish his status as “victim”)), while I have some sympathy for their circumstances, they were damned fools. This doesn’t make them bad people, but its does mean that they bear some measure of responsibility for the situation they find themselves living in.
Rory: Margaret Thatcher never missed an abortion vote; she believed in “a woman’s right to choose”. Economically “conservative” and socially “prgressive” is common neough and is one of the mainstays of the GOP. Just look at the Progressive Democrats, the GOP/Sinn Fein or anyone else who take their lead from Maggie.
People who dip the wick run risks. They can’t say theyhaven’t been warned. From Lazarus in Hell to these “victims”, people don’t want to know. They will still think with the little head. HIV must be harder for women as they don’t have the gay fraternity to fall back on.
Dread Cthulhu
The weakness of your argument is her intent!
Let us remove this from sex and consider that this lady employed someone to fix her gutter and supplied a dodgy ladder, if an accident occurs she bares blame. Now the bloke may have been foolish to accept the use of an untested piece of kit and may have been induced by the thoughts of a quick job but the blame is not his.
Imagine however she did this not once, but over and over again one would start to ask what has she got against people who fix gutters? It ceases to become a matter of negligence, but becomes a matter of criminal intent. A ladder may not be a gun but it is a weapon.
Crataegus: “Let us remove this from sex and consider that this lady employed someone to fix her gutter and supplied a dodgy ladder, if an accident occurs she bares blame. Now the bloke may have been foolish to accept the use of an untested piece of kit and may have been induced by the thoughts of a quick job but the blame is not his. ”
A valiaa\nt effort, Crataegus, but this “change of venue” from the realm of personal responsibility to something approach civil iability is flawed. First, it takes two to tango. Secondly, there is a fair to middlin’ chance that the workingman, depending on facts an circumstances, could be deemed an “expert” by the court, which would limit / nullify the woman’s culpability, on the grounds he would be one to know better than her. Its a far cry from the act in question. Besides, I have not been talking civil liability.
Crataegus: “Imagine however she did this not once, but over and over again one would start to ask what has she got against people who fix gutters? It ceases to become a matter of negligence, but becomes a matter of criminal intent. A ladder may not be a gun but it is a weapon. ”
Once more for the cheap seats, Crat — I hold that, if anything, her punishment is too light, not inappropriate. Her criminal intent has never been in question.
Go re-read my posts, this time looking at what I wrote, with an eye for what I said, rather than what you hoped I said. The fact taht she is criminally liable and the fact that her victims, with one notable exception, were damned fools, are not mutually exclusive. Her intent is not material to the notion that these fellows did something that they, at this late date in the progresion of the HIV virus, they should have known better to do.
The discussion’s focus on Ms. Porter’s victims is interesting since it attempts to extend responsibility for their infection from Porter to themselves. In the case of casual sex I can see the logic – but wonder if the same ‘logic’ would be acceptable in other types of cases; eg, a woman walking home alone late at night and then raped?
Walking dark streets alone is “risky”.
Is she a “fool”?
Rubicon: “The discussion’s focus on Ms. Porter’s victims is interesting since it attempts to extend responsibility for their infection from Porter to themselves. In the case of casual sex I can see the logic – but wonder if the same ‘logic’ would be acceptable in other types of cases; eg, a woman walking home alone late at night and then raped?
Walking dark streets alone is “risky”.
Is she a “fool”?”
That comes down to facts and circumstances. In most normal ones, no she wouldn’t. In some, its debatable and and in a spare few others, the suggestion could be made that she was foolhardy.
Then again, in N.I. you can’t a teenage male down a dark street without the “riskiness” of the locale coming into play occasionally.
Your empty rhetorical questions aside, there are behaviors that are inherintly risky. To partake is to accept the risks. One of the unavoidable risks of casual unprotected sex is the HIV virus. I’m sorry if this notion offends you, but it comes with the territory, just as parachute not opening comes with the territory of sky-diving. What is so radical about the notion that when some actions carry risks?
DC – “Your empty rhetorical questions aside …”
The question was a genuine one – it raises the notion of a victim’s own culpability in the crime done to them. I note that you acknowledge that only in a few spare cases could the raped woman be thought foolhardy. (I differ with you – for me, the answer is none. Raping a woman is a crime – no excuses and speculating that she was foolish I’d consider unwarranted).
It isn’t quite your emphasis in the case of Ms. Porter’s victims though is it? You absolve only one of Ms. Porter’s victims of foolishness – despite not knowing who they are, how many there are and in what circumstances they had sex with Ms. Porter.
“The fact taht she is criminally liable and the fact that her victims, with one notable exception, were damned fools, are not mutually exclusive.”
In today’s paper I read that the person who reported Ms. Porter had practised safe sex and used a condom – it broke. On later hearing that Porter could be HIV positive he then reported her.
Does this mean that Ms. Porter’s intended victims not being foolish could now number 2? Could it be more?
Your rhetoric that they took risks so they had it coming is the issue on which myself and others differ with you. In the same way as there being no circumstances in which a woman should be implicated in causing her own rape there are no grounds here for diminishing Porter’s victims.
Dread Cthulhu
Our views on Ms Porter are similar.
An interesting discussion and point of view, which throws up all sorts of implications, like those just posted by Rubicon.
Compliable negligence is a very difficult area in this sort of case. Acting like a fool may well make you an easy target for a predator. If we all took more care there would be less burglaries and if we were generally less naive and trusting there would be less cons and fewer muggings. But we are Human and often we don’t think of the consequences, if we did we wouldn’t race motor bikes or ski.
Be they stupid or irresponsible a victim is still a victim, but there is something about this case that doesn’t sit well with me. If I get on a motor bike I know the risks, but this case is as though someone had deliberately sabotaged the bike to ensure I crash, yes biking is risky but the risk is different than getting on a bike that is highly likely to crash. If I knew I simply would not mount even if I had the appropriate head gear.
I think first and foremost they are victims, now they may have been naïve and stupid, but still they were targeted by someone who intended them no good. Something evil their way came.
Good discussion and enjoyed it, beats the tedium of progress at the Assembly.
Crat
Have you lived on planet earth for long? How do you think so many Africans have HIV? Have you any idea of syphilis rates in South Asia? How aobut of chlamidya among young folk? Wake up and smell the coffee. These guys thought with the smal hea,d not the big head. Next time you drive your “bike”, wear a goddam helmet.
Rubicon: “The question was a genuine one – it raises the notion of a victim’s own culpability in the crime done to them. I note that you acknowledge that only in a few spare cases could the raped woman be thought foolhardy. (I differ with you – for me, the answer is none. Raping a woman is a crime – no excuses and speculating that she was foolish I’d consider unwarranted). ”
Never, ever underestimate human stupidity.
Rubicon: “You absolve only one of Ms. Porter’s victims of foolishness – despite not knowing who they are, how many there are and in what circumstances they had sex with Ms. Porter. ”
There is a difference between having sex with a long-time partner and indulging in casual sex with near strangers, is there not?
Rubicon: “Your rhetoric that they took risks so they had it coming is the issue on which myself and others differ with you. In the same way as there being no circumstances in which a woman should be implicated in causing her own rape there are no grounds here for diminishing Porter’s victims. ”
Not quite. My position is that they indulged in activities where a reasonable person would acknowledge there are risks. If one indulges in these activities, the risks have to be assumed. Now, just as if one BASE jumps, there is a chance one turns into street pizza, if one has consensual unprotected sex with acquintances, there is a greater than zero chance of contracting HIV. Unless one has been living under a rock, this is common knowledge. That they picked up / were picked up by someone who was HIV positive, someone with malicious intent, doesn’t factor into the baseline equation — they’re choices put them at risk — the condom only reduces risk and then only imperfectly, as demonstrated above. If you playthe game , you take your chances.
I’m not directing this at anyone in particular, but just making a general observation on the types of fallacious arguments that sometimes appear on this type of thread.
Of course I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m sure I’m not the only one who has no difficulty assigning 100% of the blame for a crime on the criminal while also point out that crime can be prevented by different behaviour from potential victims and also that some people are reckless with their health and the health of others.
Blame is not a zero-sum game. If anyone here wants to continue to argue that once somebody becomes a victim of a crime it retrospectively means every aspect of their behaviour was perfect, then please make a proper argument. Any claims that I am not taking the main crime seriously (rape or whatever) is a straw man argument.
If you don’t believe it’s logical to blame the criminal 100% and also comment on the victim’s behaviour, then starting explaining why you believe so and don’t try to twist others’ arguments to suit your logic (for example with nonsense like ‘anyone who points out that drunk women are more likely to be raped must surely be diminishing the crime of the rapist’). Either argue about the opinion I hold or don’t argue with me at all.
Let’s get a few things right here:
1. Sarah Porter was convicted of the reckless, not deliberate transmission of HIV.
2. No motive was ever entered in court – any talk of revenge is pure speculation on the part of one particular police officer.
3. HIV is now a treatable infection – morbidity and mortality due to HIV in this country have fallen dramatically since effective anti-HIV therapy became available in the late 1990s. Indeed, the main reason why people with HIV become ill or die today is because their infection is diagnosed too late – I doubt very much is the flurry of ill informed prejudice and hate this case provoked will do much to encourage HIV testing. Provided the individual infected by Porter takes his treatment properly he will anot die because of HIV.
4. Didn’t he and Porter’s other sexual partners have some responsibility for looking after their own sexual health?
5. It beggars belief (and shows Liddle’s ignorance and preducies) that Liddle tried to equate reckless behaviour which will not lead to death with a deliberate decision to beat to death a man simply because he was gay. let’s remember, be was so badly beaten he couldn’t even be recognised by his own family.
6. Any a final thought for you all – the least infectious individuals with HIV are those who know they have it and are receiving treatment – approximately 33% of HIV in this country is undiagnosed – perhaps you should remember that and take some responsibility for yourself.