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.
When I read about this the other day, I was amazed at how lenient her sentence was. Surely what she did was tantamount to delayed murder, or at least manslaughter.
Just because it may take ten or twenty years to reach its ruthless and logical conclusion (i.e. death), not to mention the suffering and hardship that will likely be endured by the innocent recipient in-between, surely that should not detract from the magnitude of her actions.
This was a cynical and destructive crime and the sentence should have reflected that, both to punish her and to deter others from attempting to do the same.
El Matador,
I agree that her actions are those of “delayed murder, or at least manslaughter”. But “innocent recipient in-between”?
Mick,
Your report shows up another weakness in the system. The fact that the men concerned were all black, and thus apparently targetted on the basis of their race, need not have been the only reason why this could have been considered as a hate crime.
Because the men were also targetted specifically as men. The woman was thus attacking a group (men) as well as a sub-group (black men). Her hate was apparently against black men, but both parts of that expression are groups, and hatred against either part (‘black’ or ‘men’) should have been dealt with in the same way.
Here’s another interpretation.
BB-
Sorry, just to clarify- I was referring to suffering which is likely to be endured by the innocent recipient of the virus (i.e. the man mentioned) during the intervening period from contracting the disease until his death.
The point is, when handing down a sentence, this should be taken into consideration in addition to the fact that it will eventually kill the recipient.
El Mat – both myself and my girlfriend reacted the same way as yourself when we saw this on the news, ie along the lines of – basically she’s getting just over 2 years for multiple murder (or attempted murder anyway since it’s hypothetically possible that they may die of other causes before the death sentence she has given them is allowed to take its course).
It’s an appallingly lenient sentence.
Beano,
you don’t know all what’s to it. You judge very easily with very little information on your hand.
Wasn’t she a victim too, and couldn’t she be considered the victim of a hate crime against women?
It is a light sentence, but a few years is taking a huge chunk out of what she has left.
All of them did choose to engage in unprotected sex. None of them innocent victims, considering they are adults afterall.
How long did the man get who infected her?
I tend to find myself more in tune with Hannah Pool’s commentary (link above,courtesy of Nevin) than Ron Liddle’s and in any case, whatever admiration I might have for his bare-faced cheek, the idea of a Spectator journalist pontificating on matters of sexual promiscuity I find risible in the extreme.
I also happen to be a man and a man of my times to boot and could not hold my own past behaviour up as an exemplar of ” a bold, gentille, parfait knight”. While I may have been fortunate not to contract and pass on STD to any female partners, that was perhaps as much down to luck as to responsible behaviour and I am sure that I was the cause of much emotional damage.
So I would be loathe to rush to condemn a woman in this position not least because the record of men recklessly, and in full knowledge of their own HIV status,passing on infection to unwitting women who then often to go on to unwittingly transmit it to their unborn child. It is not only the women of Africa and Russia who can attest to this assertion.
It would be a vindictive prosecutor indeed who attempted to increase the seriousness of the crime by tacking on a racism label as well. If Ms. Porter’s original source of infection had been a white man and her subsequent lovers also white then no such interpretation would be proferred.
Still I suppose it all helps to detract from the well trumpeted sexual peccadilloes of Mr. Liddle and others among his colleagues on the Speccie. Addison and Steele should be alive at this hour.
Hannah Pool of the Guardian (thanks to Nevin above):
“The fact is that had any of the men Porter is reported to have had unprotected sex with insisted on taking safe-sex precautions, they would have much less to worry about. They, too, had the sex, remember.”
That’s like saying that road users deserve everything they get if they are killed by a drink driver. i.e. ‘They, too, were on the road, remember’
Hannah is casting baseless accusations that the media can’t admit to themselves that they are just targetting a white woman for sleeping with a black man. The reality is that Hannah is targetting all these people simply for having sex.
Brenda: “Wasn’t she a victim too, and couldn’t she be considered the victim of a hate crime against women?”
If the partner who infected her was A) aware of his infection and B) maliciously infecting women in an effort to gain some measure of revenge for his infection, then perhaps, yes.
If, however, he was ignorant of his medical condition and simply sleeping around, then perhaps not.
This is where the whole concept of “hate crime” leaves me a little itchy… the same behavior gets punished differently, based on what other think the perpetrators thoughts / reasoning / motives were.
Maybe there was no hate crime angle. Perhaps she prefered black men.
What ever floats your boat.
Just saw the sentence now – our whole sentencing system needs serious review and overhaul. Recent sentences for terrible crimes have been far too lenient.
OC
I don’t think your way of logic works well, since I firmly believe sex and driving a car are two very different things of engagement.
OC do you see Hannah as some sort of mary whitehouse. Even if she is, sleeping around and having unprotected sex is like playing russian roullette nowadays. Sooner or later a person that does that will catch something.
Brenda/ Harry-
Firstly, yes she is a victim. But it is unclear whether she is a victim of misfortune (the person who passed it on to her was unaware he was a carrier) or a victim of crime (the person who gave her the disease did so maliciously).
Either way, it doesn’t matter- it was no excuse for her to spread the misery of her disease further to other innocent people. Someone who has been stabbed doesn’t go out and start stabbing other innocent people in retaliation.
Brenda-
“It is a light sentence, but a few years is taking a huge chunk out of what she has left.”
Then she shouldn’t have willingfully spread HIV to innocent people. She’s ruined their lives too now.
“All of them did choose to engage in unprotected sex. None of them innocent victims, considering they are adults afterall.”
At least one of them was in a long-term relationship with her. Any contributory negligence on their part is miniscule, and it doesn’t detract from the fact that she willfully infected them.
As regards the issue of race hatred, I wouldn’t pay much heed to that theory unless it can be proven that race played a role in who she targetted. What she did was despicable enough in itself without having to take into account any other factors.
Someone who has been stabbed doesn’t go out and stab others in retalliation.’
some don’t need a reason to stab you, one case comes to mind was the young pregnant mother on a street in london not so long a go. A mentally ill man did it. No logic to it no reasoning, not even retalliation.
The fact that she did do it in retalliation points to her mental state.
I’m in no way excusing what she did, the first case of this came from an English woman on holiday and was given HIV by a Greek man. That was the first prosecution for this sort of crime.
But surely it is not hard to see that the experience of being infected by a black man and her subsequent infecting of black men is a result of her mental state. It’s not sound reasoning. Hence the lighter sentence. It in no way condones her actions but recognises the fact of her mental state.
However, what restrictions will be placed on her at relaese? Will she be free to do so again. Most likely yes. Like child molesters. Supposedly being watched but cannot be watched 24/7.
As a society we need to find a better system for sex crime and how it is dealt with. Not just sentencing but what happens after release.
I find OC’s comparison with road victims simply ridiculous. I have worked in the field of sexual health promotion and with a leading HIV/AIDS charity and the message that is drummed into everyone one is to : BE SAFE! TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN PROTECTION! This advice most particularly applies to casual or promiscuous sexual activity. It is, in the main, the refusal of men to limit their own pleasure by wearing condoms and engaging in the bravado of “barebacking” (remember all the chuckling references to “Bareback Mountain” recently?) that is largely responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS.
I find the notion that having unprotected sex means one is no longer innocent to be a very disturbing line of reasoning.
Some people can’t seem to shake this underlying notion that people ought to be punished for having a good time, or if some ill befalls them whilst having a good time, then they deserved it.
Yes, we all do reckless things, but that doesn’t mean we are ‘guilty’ and deserving of punishment, it means that we may incur some negative consequences.
Ferfuxsake are we still in the Dark Ages or what?
As for this woman, she may have been a victim, but that doesn’t negate her responsibilities under the law.If she knowingly inflicted harm upon others, then she ought to be held accountable.
Taf she has been held accountable.
Brenda-
“As a society we need to find a better system for sex crime and how it is dealt with. Not just sentencing but what happens after release.”
I agree, but locking the perpetrator up for a length of time befitting of the crime would be a start. Even if just to send out the message to others who would consider similar activity.
Let’s not forget that this crime was aggrevated by her non-cooperation with the police with regard to disclosing who else she may have infected.
If her mental state is such that she has lost control of her conduct to the extent that she thinks it is fine to infect people thus, then surely she should be admitted to some sort of facility for treatment until she can be deemed fit to return to society.
A light sentence and letting her back out in her current state of mind poses a threat to society.
“Taf she has been held accountable”
A few months in the slammer? Hardly.
TAFKABO: “Some people can’t seem to shake this underlying notion that people ought to be punished for having a good time, or if some ill befalls them whilst having a good time, then they deserved it. ”
Its a matter of assumed risk, TAFKABO. The disease and the manner in which it spreads is a reality, good time or no. If your idea of having a “good time” involves risks, then you either have to assume those risks or abstain from the behavior. You want to ride bareback with strangers, hey, fine, but that chance of being infected come with that pleasure, just as eating fugu (puffer fish sashimi) comes with the risk that the chef had a bad day and you’ll drop dead in the next couple seconds of a pin-point’s worth of neurotoxin. Its a matter of choices and what trips your trigger.
TAFKABO: “Yes, we all do reckless things, but that doesn’t mean we are ‘guilty’ and deserving of punishment, it means that we may incur some negative consequences.”
Its not a matter of deserving, TAFKABO. No one “deserves” this sort of thing. However, those more prudent souls who don’t engage in that behavior are entitled to shake their head and say “that was a stupid risk” when the risk catches up with the risk taker, be it sex, sky-diving or sashimi.
When someone employs terminology such as “they were/are not innocent” it implies guilt deserving of punishment.
I think everyone who contracts disease is an innocent victim in that I don’t think anyone deserves to suffer.
Haven’t we drawn up laws and institutions to mete out punishment in a humane and civilised way?
Isn’t this because we rae supposed to believe it is wrong to inflict suffering upon other humans as a form of punishment?
Were a person to be beaten up by state forces there would be an outcry, but I humbly suggest the mental torture of living with HIV, not to mention the very real physical suffering if one contracts full blown AIDS are much much worse, yet I see shades of people arguing here that this is basically what some men and women deserve for leading promiscuous lives.
TAFKABO: “Haven’t we drawn up laws and institutions to mete out punishment in a humane and civilised way? ”
That’s the theory… the practice, however, appears to need a little work. The woman’s sentence, to my admittedly cynical eye, is far too short.
TAFKABO: “Were a person to be beaten up by state forces there would be an outcry, but I humbly suggest the mental torture of living with HIV, not to mention the very real physical suffering if one contracts full blown AIDS are much much worse, yet I see shades of people arguing here that this is basically what some men and women deserve for leading promiscuous lives.”
I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said regarding the pain and suffering in this situation. That said, I think you might be reading too much into some statements, although I, in turn, may be reading too little.
I do stand by what I said previously — when one engages in risky behavior, one assumes certain risks. When and if the probabilities catch up with the one, there will be those who say “Gee, that was a stupid risk.” Human nature and it covers a world of sins, from sex to street racing. Now, are there always going to gloating bluenoses, the “Sister Bertha Betterenyou” class who will laugh up their sleeves at the pain of others? Yup. Price of multi-culti life — everyone is entitled to their beliefs… and just as they are entitled to their self-perceived moral superiority, you’re are just as entitled to think them a collection of congenital idiots.
I’m afraid, short of re-education camps for one side or the other, its the best we can do on short notice. Ignore the bluenoses — you’ll be happier for it.
Illegitimus non caborundum est.
The Lady knew she had aids, she with held that information from others, she was the only one in the relationships fully aware of the salient facts. Her mental state may mitigate but you have to ask how many people has she killed, her partners, their partners. This is a serious crime.
Imagine I had severely limited sight and decided to get into a car and drive and in the process mowed people down how would one views that particular crime. Imagine in the process I also offered someone a lift should they have asked to see my license?
Having a car isn’t a crime, being blind isn’t a crime but put the two together!
This Lady has issued a sentence of death on innocent victims and has help spread a serious disease.
The comparisons on this thread stink. We are talking about people having causal sex with multiple partner and do so unprotected. What do you think you are getting under such circumstances? A medal for scoring? Consenting sex amongst adults without protection means both agreed. If men or women are so stupid and go for it then both have to take responsibility. I hardly can blame the man alone for getting pregnant.
Betty-
That’s ridiculous. You speak as though the HIV was transmitted as if by magic. Yes, the risk of pregnancy is one which one takes if one engages in this type of activity. Yes, catching an STD is another risk one takes. But this is a whole different ball park- in this situation there was additional info available, i.e. she knew she had HIV, but she withheld it from her partners. That is a disgusting and sick thing to do- by trying to make out that all risks were even and both were to blame, you are excusing her behaviour, which is shameful.
It’s one thing takinga risk- it’s another thing when someone doesn’t tell you they have HIV.
Cratageus: “The Lady knew she had aids, she with held that information from others, she was the only one in the relationships fully aware of the salient facts. Her mental state may mitigate but you have to ask how many people has she killed, her partners, their partners. This is a serious crime. ”
To play devil’s advocate for the moment, there are treatments — palliatives, to be sure, but very effective palliatives nonetheless. Given the glorious socialized medical program, these folks have years of productive life ahead of them, don’t they? HIV is no longer an automatic death sentence. Assuming careful treatment and meticulously following their pharmaceutical schedules, they should be functional members of society. Now, she has breached criminal law, but she hasn’t “killed” anyone… leastwise, not yet.
Cratageus: “Imagine I had severely limited sight and decided to get into a car and drive and in the process mowed people down how would one views that particular crime. ”
At least one key difference is that while there are drugs to limit the impact of HIV, there are not yet treatments for being dead. She has impacted and perhaps imperiled live, she has not ended them, as in the scenario you present above.
Cratageus: “This Lady has issued a sentence of death on innocent victims and has help spread a serious disease. ”
Hyperbole will not make this debate any more reasonable.
Betty: “We are talking about people having causal sex with multiple partner and do so unprotected. What do you think you are getting under such circumstances?”
Its an assumed risk, Betty. The fact that one of the parties was a 100% certainty didn’t guarantee transmission and anyone riding bareback should have the thought in the back of their head’s that this is not safe behavior. They chose, poorly as it turned out, but that was their choice.
Dread Cthulhu,
Yes.
El Matador
“You speak as though the HIV was transmitted as if by magic.”
No. Sex, unprotected.
Betty-
So are you saying the man in this situation was as to blame for getting HIV as the woman?
BTW, the man was in a long-term relationship with her. It wasn’t ‘casual’.
“At least one key difference is that while there are drugs to limit the impact of HIV, there are not yet treatments for being dead. She has impacted and perhaps imperiled live, she has not ended them, as in the scenario you present above.”
That is the most ridiculous ‘argument’ I have ever heard. So basically you are saying that this woman’s action were somehow lessened in their repulsiveness because the victims may die, rather than they will die.
That is insane.
That’s like saying that it is ok for me to walk around rubbing a plutonium rod on people- they will contract cancer and they may die, but it’s ok because it isn’t certain that they will die!
Do you really think that this woman sat down and thought “I give these people HIV, but it’s ok because they’ll take drugs and that’ll stop them from dying.” And even if she did think that, does that somehow lessen what she did?
El Matador: “So are you saying the man in this situation was as to blame for getting HIV as the woman? ”
Which one — there were several…
El Matador: “BTW, the man was in a long-term relationship with her. It wasn’t ‘casual’. ”
This get’s trickier. Was he aware of her recent promiscuity? If “yes,” then I would say it falls under the heading of “assumed risk.” If he were blissfully ignorant of it, then, perhaps, he is the only unblemished victim in the whole scenario.
El Matador,
the man you referred to should have been told in particular as should anyone else. It makes me wonder though what sort of relationship they had. Don’t get me wrong, I do not defend her in any shape or form for having unprotected sex, knowing she had the disease. But what or who else she was having outside her kind of relationship should have used protection for this very reason.
Dread Cthulhu
At least one key difference is that while there are drugs to limit the impact of HIV, there are not yet treatments for being dead.
I stand corrected; This Lady has issued a sentence of slow death on innocent victims.
Betty Boo
I hardly can blame the man alone for getting pregnant.
Let’s imagine you told the man you were on the pill and were not? Who then has greater responsibility?
We don’t know how many partners her lovers had, some may have had lots some few, some may have taken care normally, we just don’t know, but we do know that this lady deliberate choose to put others at perilous risk.
Any man or woman who knows they have aids have a burden of responsibility. She knew what she was doing, her partners were taking a risk but that doesn’t in any way mitigate her of her responsibility. If I worked in a canteen and had food poisoning should I go work? If I dine in a canteen I know there is always a risk but big difference.
Her behaviour was wreckless, it showed no regard for the well being of others.
I am not wantonly attacking a Lady but her attitude is completely wreckless and unacceptable. It was a terrible and callous thing to do.
Cratageus: “I stand corrected; This Lady has issued a sentence of slow death on innocent victims. ”
Isn’t that we get from the start, barring unforseen circumstances?
Cratageus: “Her behaviour was wreckless, it showed no regard for the well being of others. ”
No, her behavior was wreckless because you were the one with the car, she was the one with the disease…
Crataegus,
“Let’s imagine you told the man you were on the pill and were not?” – unimaginable.
Having unprotected sex is “completely wreckless and unacceptable. And “a terrible and callous thing to do.”
How many ways are there to hammer it home? And it is the bottom line.
She obviously has a very sickening sense of justice and as said before I don’t argue in support of her. I doubt the judgement of those men she slept with and who willingly agreed to do so without the little rubber. They most likely didn’t asked and she didn’t tell. What makes her more guilty then them. But she is not solely responsible.
This idea that someone is always to blame for your own mistakes is frustrating…at some point she may have had sex with another man before she was aware of her situation. If he contracted AIDS then it would have been misadventure….surely sex with strangers (and sometimes those not so strange) has to be considered risky…working on the premise that unless you’re called Casanova and cat charm the birds from the trees, then the chances are that you are joining a long line or previous conquests.
This analogy is not gender specific.
The responsibility for protecting yourself against STI’s is not a certificate that someone is clean, it is wearing a dom and staying healthy.
Prosecutions like this are pointless and will further undermine the confidence of others with STI to alert previous partners.
This was absolutly disgraceful. She intended to infect these men with a disease for which there is no cure. She deserves to suffer, she should spend the rest of her life in jail.
Poz parties: Do Sarah’s detractors support th egay lobby meeting for Poz parties? This is HIV+ men meeting for sex, often unprotected. Are these people responsible? What about the fist fucking fraternity?
These guys slept around, fucked anyone they could and paid the price. Let them take their retro drugs and deal with it. Maybe apear on Oprah.
There was a HIV+ guy, wrote The Moon at my back, lived in Ballymun, topped himself in Whitehall church, the ladies used to queue up to fuck him as he was cute.
Safe sex. What a joke. These guys think with the little head, not the big head. Now they have something to really think about. Let them be a warning to others. What goes around comes around. No such thing as a free
lunchbonk.I have to agree with betty and taigs. The guys were adults, they know the score, if there was a guy in a long term relationship with her and she was sick, there must have been signs of the HIV,ie pills etc and she was off out doing it with others, what sort of relationship was that.
Maybe he wasn’t the full shilling. Or lived off her immoral earnings which is more likely.
Rory: I find OC’s comparison with road victims simply ridiculous. I have worked in the field of sexual health promotion and …
Nothing ridiculous about my comparison. You are the one taking the ridiculous position by believing that if something is predictable, then it automatically becomes justifiable.
If somebody forgets to wear their seatbelt do they deserve to die if a drunkard crashes into them? Obviously, they may have survived if they wore the belt and we should remind people to wear their belt, but your position seems to be that death by drink driving is less wrong (or even perfectly acceptable) if the victim wasn’t wearing their belt – it would be a strange world if that could be used as a defence.
I admit the driving analogy might seem a bit wierd, but there is no contradication whatsoever in strongly supporting safe sex and simultaneously calling a spade a spade when it comes to attempted murder.
Rory: I find OC’s comparison with road victims simply ridiculous. I have worked in the field of sexual health promotion and …
Nothing ridiculous about my comparison. You are the one taking the ridiculous position by believing that if something is predictable, then it automatically becomes justifiable.
I admit the driving analogy might seem a bit wierd, but there is no contradication whatsoever in strongly supporting safe sex education and simultaneously calling a spade a spade when it comes to attempted murder.
She’s gotta be a prod. One of themmuns..you know
This thread has certainly been a revelation.
“BTW, the man was in a long-term relationship with her. It wasn’t ‘casual’.”
If she really went out of her way to maliciously
infect her “long term boy friend” you really have to question her mental state….. she needs counselling not custodial.
Dread Cthulhu
“I stand corrected; This Lady has issued a sentence of slow death on innocent victims. “
Isn’t that we get from the start, barring unforeseen circumstances?
Always the optimist.
Betty Boo
If I had an STI, and knew I had, I would make dam sure I didn’t pass it on to someone else. I find this behaviour hard to comprehend. Unless we were actually there we have no idea what her victims were like, some may have been real devils other just unfortunate to have met her. Also we don’t know what was said between them. In this day and age it is also hard to believe that anyone would have unprotected sex with someone they recently met. Naïve, stupid, who knows but still think there is a big difference between them and the black widow!
Taigs & Brenda
Safe sex. What a joke. These guys think with the little head, not the big head. Now they have something to really think about. Let them be a warning to others.
The sword of judgement is upon you. Am I detecting a good Catholic upbringing here; you know original sin and all that. This could well be the thread where we see Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism in unison.
Brenda
if there was a guy in a long term relationship with her and she was sick, there must have been signs of the HIV,ie pills etc and she was off out doing it with others, what sort of relationship was that
We just don’t know, what exactly the relationship was and he may simply have trusted her. I am off to the AA meeting tonight love. Just spending the weekend with my mum! If you are in a relationship do you go around rummaging through belongings and track every movement. If you do the relationship won’t last.
Crataegus,
you seem to be very selective in what you read in a post and what not.(on this occasion)
“Black widow” Maybe Goodwin’s Law needs an extension.
Crataegus: ““I stand corrected; This Lady has issued a sentence of slow death on innocent victims. “
Dread Cthulhu: “Isn’t that we get from the start, barring unforeseen circumstances? ”
Crataegus: “Always the optimist. ”
Cynicism is easier on the soul — you’re so rarely disappointed by outcomes.