(I would just like to say that this paper includes some of my thoughts, but is not.
And that in some parts I am simply playing Devil'sAdvocate.).
.
In Africa, some time in the 1950's the first person transmitted HIV to someone.
else. Thus starting a chain reaction, which quickly led to the infection of thousands. .
The disease is deadly. There is no cure, and it is easily given from one person to the.
next. Should people who have gotten the HIV virus be able to criminally sue the.
person from which they received it? .
Looking at it from a legal standpoint, you can base arguments on facts like if.
the person who transmitted it, knew they had HIV or AIDS. By legal definition if they.
knew that, it could be considered asforseeability?. If you know that you have HIV.
then you know that by sharing needles or having unprotected sex or exchanging fluids.
somehow, the person you are engaging in these activities with, has a very high chance.
of being infected. The criminalization of intentionally spreading AIDS remains a large.
issue in the United States. As of September 1991, legislation criminalizing AIDS.
transmission has been passed in 24 states. Among these states are California, Idaho,.
Ohio, Missouri, Michigan, and South Carolina. Under current law, it is a crime to.
knowingly transmit the virus through sex, sharing needles, donating infected blood,.
organs, or skin tissue, in these states. But where is the line drawn? There are factors.
within the transmission of the virus that have to be looked at. .
The first person to go to court under these laws in Michigan was Jeffrey.
Hanlon. Hanlon was a gay man who infected another man from Michigan while he.
was in New York. The American Civil Liberties Union, who agreed to take the case,.
argued that the AIDS disclosure law is unconstitutional. They argued that the privacy.
guaranteed to us in the Constitution applies to the AIDS virus as well. Opponents.
argued that "they're [those with AIDS] killing people.
