Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

"I have HIV. Lol" texts partner after unprotected sex Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    A man has been prosecuted for deliberately infecting other men with HIV, either through unprotected sex or by tampering with the condoms by putting holes in them. Apparently he infected ten people.

    He later sent them mocking text messages telling them he was HIV-positive and that they could be at risk, Lewes Crown Court heard.

    His first alleged victim received a text saying: “Maybe you have the fever. I came inside you and I have HIV LOL. Oops!”

    The court was told yesterday how Rowe allegedly told one victim 'I ripped the condom. Burn. I got you.' The alleged victim claims he was horrified as he had had insisted Rowe wear a condom.

    Weeks later he began to suffer from a sore throat, swollen glands and fatigue and later tested positive for HIV.
    You can tell this mofo is a psychopath, look at those eyes! Life without parole, throw away the key, etc etc.

    This shows particular pre-meditation because these days with a drug called PrEP people with HIV can reduce the likelihood of transmitting it even with unprotected sex to almost zero.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-men-HIV.html
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    from the way I read this both the perpetrator and the victim are guys?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by itsfantanoooo)
    HIV amongst gays are growing in number and this is just the tip of the iceberg
    Actually, HIV infections have gone down by a third among gay people

    https://www.newscientist.com/article...rd-in-england/

    The only area where HIV is completely rampant is among heterosexuals in Africa and India, where their backward religious beliefs cause them to spurn condoms
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HucktheForde)
    from the way I read this both the perpetrator and the victim are guys?
    That is also my understanding...
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    This is horrible
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Some crazy dude.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    A man has been prosecuted for deliberately infecting other men with HIV, either through unprotected sex or by tampering with the condoms by putting holes in them. Apparently he infected ten people.



    You can tell this mofo is a psychopath, look at those eyes! Life without parole, throw away the key, etc etc.

    This shows particular pre-meditation because these days with a drug called PrEP people with HIV can reduce the likelihood of transmitting it even with unprotected sex to almost zero.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-men-HIV.html
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't deliberately trying to infect someone with HIV classed as GBH here? So a few charges of that, plus possibly some of rape for penetrating someone unprotected without their consent (given the consent was for protected)?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    If you think his eyes look psychopathic, you should see mine.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't deliberately trying to infect someone with HIV classed as GBH here? So a few charges of that, plus possibly some of rape for penetrating someone unprotected without their consent (given the consent was for protected)?
    Yup, according to the article this guy is facing four counts of GBH and six of attempted GBH, if he is convicted then he could face a life sentence.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HucktheForde)
    from the way I read this both the perpetrator and the victim are guys?
    And your point is?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Sickening
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Hopefully he remains positive.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't deliberately trying to infect someone with HIV classed as GBH here?
    Yes, I believe that's what he's been charged with that although I couldn't find out whether it was a section 18 or a section 20 GBH. The former carries a maximum life term, the latter only a maximum five year term (iirc from my law degree).

    So a few charges of that, plus possibly some of rape for penetrating someone unprotected without their consent (given the consent was for protected)?
    I'm circumspect about the idea of rape based on "conditional consent". Should you be able to charge someone with rape if you had sex with them thinking they were a billionaire but in fact were a vagrant (and you would only have slept with them in the former situation)?

    A case I remember from when I did criminal law was that a man slept with a prostitute and then failed to pay her. She went to the police and claimed she'd been raped on the basis that her consent was conditional. But there is no question she consented to sex in that moment. He might be guilty of fraud or breach of contract, but not rape.

    Of course, one of the bases on which otherwise consensual sex will be ajudged as rape is where the victim has been deceived as to the "nature or purpose" of the act. For example, some gullible women have been raped by witch doctors who claimed that the sex act was part of healing magic. Is tampering with the condom being deceived as to the "nature or purpose" of the act?

    I don't know the answer to this, it's not an easy question to answer
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I'm circumspect about the idea of rape based on "conditional consent". Should you be able to charge someone with rape if you had sex with them thinking they were a billionaire but in fact were a vagrant (and you would only have slept with them in the former situation)?

    A case I remember from when I did criminal law was that a man slept with a prostitute and then failed to pay her. She went to the police and claimed she'd been raped on the basis that her consent was conditional. But there is no question she consented to sex in that moment. He might be guilty of fraud or breach of contract, but not rape.
    I'm assuming this was in the UK, because oddly enough an Australian court actually found the opposite in the same situation.

    I suspect this may be a result of the different laws around sex work here relative to Australia. Here, while selling sex is perfectly legal, the laws around advertising and brothels is such that it's often much safer and easier for sex workers to use the cover of saying they're selling time, company and or use of a room. The Eastern Australian jurisdictions (including the ACT, where the above case happened) have full decriminalisation, so there are fewer problems with sex workers making it explicit that their customers are paying for sex.

    Of course, one of the bases on which otherwise consensual sex will be ajudged as rape is where the victim has been deceived as to the "nature or purpose" of the act. For example, some gullible women have been raped by witch doctors who claimed that the sex act was part of healing magic. Is tampering with the condom being deceived as to the "nature or purpose" of the act?

    I don't know the answer to this, it's not an easy question to answer
    I wouldn't go with the "nature or purpose" line so much as I'd say that protected and unprotected sex constitute different sex acts, and that consent to the former cannot be considered consent to the latter, in the same way that consent to vaginal sex cannot be considered consent to anal sex.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I'm assuming this was in the UK, because oddly enough an Australian court actually found the opposite in the same situation.
    Fascinating. I am glad that ********* got his come-uppance. But I am still skeptical of this idea of vitiating consent where it is obtained by fraud. Where do you draw the line?

    My own feeling is that, as sex work is legal in the ACT, the sex worker's remedy should either be to press for fraud charges, or there should be a special charge of obtaining a sex worker's consent to sex by fraud, to take into account the particularly intrusive nature of that fraud.

    But if deceit vitiates consent, is it rape if I tell a woman I'm a billionaire when really I'm a black cab driver?

    I suspect this may be a result of the different laws around sex work here relative to Australia. Here, while selling sex is perfectly legal, the laws around advertising and brothels is such that it's often much safer and easier for sex workers to use the cover of saying they're selling time, company and or use of a room. The Eastern Australian jurisdictions (including the ACT, where the above case happened) have full decriminalisation, so there are fewer problems with sex workers making it explicit that their customers are paying for sex.
    I am fairly certain (as a New South Welshman, originally anyway) that the prostitution laws in New South Wales are that brothels and streetwalking are illegal, and that a sex worker may not ply their trade within X meters of a school, church or hospital. I think that's fairly similar to England.

    I wouldn't be surprised, though, if the laws are more liberal in the ACT. Given most of the population of ACT / Canberra are federal public servants, they tend to be quite progressive / well-educated.

    I wouldn't go with the "nature or purpose" line so much as I'd say that protected and unprotected sex constitute different sex acts, and that consent to the former cannot be considered consent to the latter, in the same way that consent to vaginal sex cannot be considered consent to anal sex.
    Very interesting. Yes, I think that works. They are very different acts, with very different consequences and risk-levels. Someone should be entitled to consent to one and not the other.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Fascinating. I am glad that ********* got his come-uppance. But I am still skeptical of this idea of vitiating consent where it is obtained by fraud. Where do you draw the line?

    My own feeling is that, as sex work is legal in the ACT, the sex worker's remedy should either be to press for fraud charges, or there should be a special charge of obtaining a sex worker's consent to sex by fraud, to take into account the particularly intrusive nature of that fraud.

    But if deceit vitiates consent, is it rape if I tell a woman I'm a billionaire when really I'm a black cab driver?
    I'd say the difference between the two situations is that in the sex worker case is much more contractual and the consent is based on a specific demand for something concrete. If you were a hardcore US-style libertarian, you might frame it as being an implied term to the exchange (i.e. money was directly exchanged for consent, therefore if the money was not actually given, neither was consent).

    I would say there's something of a consent issue with regard to identity if you are impersonating a specific different person that the person would consent to sex with, most obviously a spouse. Other than that though, I wouldn't class lying about irrelevant personal details as rape. But that's just my opinion, not the law.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student-95)
    Hopefully he remains positive.
    hehe

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    This guy needs his Jhonny executed......literally.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I'd say the difference between the two situations is that in the sex worker case is much more contractual and the consent is based on a specific demand for something concrete. If you were a hardcore US-style libertarian, you might frame it as being an implied term to the exchange (i.e. money was directly exchanged for consent, therefore if the money was not actually given, neither was consent).
    The problem here is that the sex worker is still fundamentally complaining about the non-payment of the money, rather than the sex act itself, which was consented to at the time.

    It is unhelpful to try to apply contractual principles in this context. What we have to do is work out what wrong is captured by the label of rape. And surely that wrong is the performance of the act without consent then and there, rather than the non-fulfilment of some extraneous condition or representation.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I'm assuming this was in the UK, because oddly enough an Australian court actually found the opposite in the same situation.

    I suspect this may be a result of the different laws around sex work here relative to Australia. Here, while selling sex is perfectly legal, the laws around advertising and brothels is such that it's often much safer and easier for sex workers to use the cover of saying they're selling time, company and or use of a room. The Eastern Australian jurisdictions (including the ACT, where the above case happened) have full decriminalisation, so there are fewer problems with sex workers making it explicit that their customers are paying for sex.



    I wouldn't go with the "nature or purpose" line so much as I'd say that protected and unprotected sex constitute different sex acts, and that consent to the former cannot be considered consent to the latter, in the same way that consent to vaginal sex cannot be considered consent to anal sex.


    It's a stupid law imo

    So what happens if a man wants sex one night and his gf/wife tells him that he must agree to mow the lawn tomorrow or he shalt be getting any sex, ..so he agree's and they have sex

    but tomorrow he is feeling lazy and can't be bothered to do it despite the nagging

    what is to stop the woman going to the police and claiming that the sex was conditional and as he did not fulfil the condition [mow the lawn] it is rape?

    ridiculous,

    only positive thing is that at least this law isn't in the UK.....
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 25, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.