chris@uk-pornogirls.com
01-23-07, 03:29 PM
People who recklessly infect their partner with a sexually transmitted disease could soon be jailed for up to five years.
Those who do not warn their lover they have chlamydia, syphilis or herpes will be targeted under proposals from the Crown Prosecution Service.
The crack down, due to be unveiled by Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Ken Macdonald next month, will also focus on hepatitis, gonorrhea and other sexual infections, in addition to those who transmit the HIV/Aids virus.
Some doctors argue that criminalising transmission of sexual infections could deter people from seeking a test because they may think confirmation will put them at greater risk of prosecution.
As a result, they will not receive the treatment they need.
George Kinghorn, a consultant in genitourinary medicine at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital in Sheffield, warned: "Although this attempt to introduce standardised criteria for prosecutions is welcome, we have serious concerns about the public health impact of using the law to criminalise disease transmission."
But the CPS, in a consulation document published last year, said action was needed against people who fail to give a proper warning of their condition before having sex.
It will significantly increase the numbers charged with the offence of reclessly transmitting a sexual disease, as the CPS currently concentrates on bringing cases against those who pass on HIV/Aids.
Before a prosecution is mounted, the CPS will have to assess whether a person knew about their infection, their knowledge about its potential impact and whether they told their lover.
Cases where a person knows of their infection but fails to reveal it, leading to their partner contracting the disease, are likely to be classed as examples of "reckless" transmission that can be prosecuted.
The charge in these cases will be one of inflicting grievous bodily harm - an offence which carries a maximum penalty of five years in jail for each person infected.
In more serious cases, where there is clear evidence that transmission was intentional, a more severe charge carrying a maximum life sentence could be brought.
But the difficulty of legally proving deliberate transmission means that most offenders are likely to be prosecuted on the lesser charge.
It will not be a defence to argue that a victim who has unprotected sex should have been aware of the risk of infection.
Instead, the onus will be on the infected person to make clear the danger before sex occurs.
A person will not be exempt from prosecution if they wear a condom but do not inform their partner they have an infection - particularly if it was not used properly throughout the sexual encounter.
However, proper use of a condom will be a factor in deciding the seriousness of the offence and whether to bring a case.
Offenders will also be brought to trial even when their victim declines to testify, as long as it is judged to be in the public interest by preventing any future lovers being infected.
All that will be required in such cases will be medical evidence that the infection has been passed on, and proof that the accused person recklessly or deliberately failed to tell their partner about it.
As few as ten people have been convicted of the reckless transmission of HIV, including one gay man and one woman.
The first person to be jailed in England was Mohammed Dica, a Kenyan living in Mitcham, who received a four-and-a-half-year sentence after being convicted of causing grievous bodily harm in 2003.
The proposals were put out for consulation last October.
They are due to be confirmed next month.
(Taken from DailyMail)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=430644&in_page_id=1774
Those who do not warn their lover they have chlamydia, syphilis or herpes will be targeted under proposals from the Crown Prosecution Service.
The crack down, due to be unveiled by Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Ken Macdonald next month, will also focus on hepatitis, gonorrhea and other sexual infections, in addition to those who transmit the HIV/Aids virus.
Some doctors argue that criminalising transmission of sexual infections could deter people from seeking a test because they may think confirmation will put them at greater risk of prosecution.
As a result, they will not receive the treatment they need.
George Kinghorn, a consultant in genitourinary medicine at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital in Sheffield, warned: "Although this attempt to introduce standardised criteria for prosecutions is welcome, we have serious concerns about the public health impact of using the law to criminalise disease transmission."
But the CPS, in a consulation document published last year, said action was needed against people who fail to give a proper warning of their condition before having sex.
It will significantly increase the numbers charged with the offence of reclessly transmitting a sexual disease, as the CPS currently concentrates on bringing cases against those who pass on HIV/Aids.
Before a prosecution is mounted, the CPS will have to assess whether a person knew about their infection, their knowledge about its potential impact and whether they told their lover.
Cases where a person knows of their infection but fails to reveal it, leading to their partner contracting the disease, are likely to be classed as examples of "reckless" transmission that can be prosecuted.
The charge in these cases will be one of inflicting grievous bodily harm - an offence which carries a maximum penalty of five years in jail for each person infected.
In more serious cases, where there is clear evidence that transmission was intentional, a more severe charge carrying a maximum life sentence could be brought.
But the difficulty of legally proving deliberate transmission means that most offenders are likely to be prosecuted on the lesser charge.
It will not be a defence to argue that a victim who has unprotected sex should have been aware of the risk of infection.
Instead, the onus will be on the infected person to make clear the danger before sex occurs.
A person will not be exempt from prosecution if they wear a condom but do not inform their partner they have an infection - particularly if it was not used properly throughout the sexual encounter.
However, proper use of a condom will be a factor in deciding the seriousness of the offence and whether to bring a case.
Offenders will also be brought to trial even when their victim declines to testify, as long as it is judged to be in the public interest by preventing any future lovers being infected.
All that will be required in such cases will be medical evidence that the infection has been passed on, and proof that the accused person recklessly or deliberately failed to tell their partner about it.
As few as ten people have been convicted of the reckless transmission of HIV, including one gay man and one woman.
The first person to be jailed in England was Mohammed Dica, a Kenyan living in Mitcham, who received a four-and-a-half-year sentence after being convicted of causing grievous bodily harm in 2003.
The proposals were put out for consulation last October.
They are due to be confirmed next month.
(Taken from DailyMail)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=430644&in_page_id=1774