B791 - Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill 2015Watch
It's also ridiculous, under your proposals, that you can get only a maximum of 12 months for giving someone a life-changing disease like HIV.
Also 12 years / £3500 seems rather excessive for merely givng someone something like chylamidia, which is easily treatable.
Overall, I think it's a good idea, but seems mainly appropriate for HIV cases.
Apart from that, I really like the bill.
2(1)(ii) - This has the potential for the victim to pretend to be unaware and the criminal to maintain he had had informed her of his status. It will be another one word against another word which currently clogs up our legal system.
3(2) - I would like to see this changed to 16 to match the age of consent for sexual intercourse. I believe a person mentally mature of having sex is capable of taking control of their own actions. It is unfair to allow a promiscuous 17 year old to spread their diseases around but destroy the life of a promiscuous 18 year old, fresher at university by putting them on the sex offenders register. The promiscuous 18 year old who made silly decisions when drunk will be prevented from working with children, go on holiday to certain countries, having guardianship of their own children, and being legally bound to inform police of bank accounts and geographic location.
5(3) & 5(4) - Neither of these should be seen a mitigating factor as an STD itself disproves both of these points. Willingly spreading a disease you know you know you have is equal to biological assault on a victim. The victim may be allergic to the medicines used to treat these non-fatal diseases or the non-fatal diseases may affect the victim more than most people. Even if the diseases was non-fatal the act of willingly passing it on should be enough to convict someone. If an STD was not viewed as serious the advice would be to leave it be like a common cold, but as STDs require treatment it is clear they are serious. Passing on a disease that you know does harm to a person is always done through intent to cause harm. It is impossible to pass a harm-causing disease to someone without aiming to cause harm. I believe the use of physical contraception is more a mitigating factor than both of these as it demonstrates the person with the disease not wanting to spread it, and their desire to not cause harm. This may seem contradictory but as physical contraception is the only possible thing to do to prove you meant no harm, then physical contraception itself should be the mitigating factor.
Proving someone is aware of their status is not difficult as the prosecution needs to produce proof of a visit to a medical center where they were informed of the disease, or proof of a telephone call being made to the person to inform them of their status. The more difficult part is proving if the victim was or was not aware of a person's status when they decided to partake in sex.
- Political Ambassador
- Political Ambassador