About AIDS

In the recent Hollingsworth case, an Austin man pleaded guilty to sexual assault with a deadly weapon (his HIV, not his penis) for having unprotected intercourse with a female co-worker. One significant issue this case raises is the notion of criminal charges stemming from exposure to a disease. (This is where I would have found a reckless endangerment charge more logical than sexual assault.) Why would society select to prosecute over this disease but not others? At least four reasons come to mind:

• The conscious nature of the personal behavior. If someone knows he/she is infected and still engages by choice in an intimate act required for potential transmission, then it demonstrates callous disregard for the well-being of another. This is not analogous to exposing grandma to your flu, an airborne contagious disease, even if you knew you were sick and it kills her.

• The likelihood of death. HIV/AIDS has no cure, only limited treatment which ultimately may not work. Treatment aside, HIV disease is probably fatal. Even TB or syphilis, either of which can kill, can be cured if treated.

• The general stigmatization. America is so judgmental about this disease that we fairly salivate at the chance to create "AIDS monsters." Such a case offers the perfect opportunity.

• That sex was involved. Throw sex (or drugs) into any legal picture, and our society no longer acts based on rationality.

Only the first two reasons actually serve justice; but the other two are nonetheless powerful motivators for American culture to make the matter a criminal, rather than civil, case. Next week, we'll examine why someone would engage in unsafe behavior.