Murderer via HIV infecting declared dangerous offender

[tenni]

A man believed to be the first person in Canada convicted of murder through HIV transmission has been declared a dangerous offender.

The designation means Johnson Aziga could be jailed indefinitely.
The Ugandan immigrant and father of three was convicted in 2009 of two counts of first-degree murder, 10 counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of attempted aggravated sexual assault.

His convictions are related to 11 women with whom he had unprotected sex without telling them he had HIV. Seven of the women became infected, with two dying of AIDS-related cancers.

The Crown argued Aziga should be labelled a dangerous offender because his abnormally high libido could lead him to reoffend.

Aziga's lawyer said his client has learned a lot about HIV and AIDS after eight years in jail, has changed his ways and is no longer a threat to the public.

Aziga has admitted he had unprotected sex with 11 women without disclosing his illness, but maintains he can't know for sure that he was the one who infected them.

...............................................
Some sexual offenders use violence.

Johnson Aziga used love.

He did not abduct anyone. Or hold a knife to anyone.

Many of the women who were intimate with Aziga loved him; trusted him; thought they shared a special relationship with him.

He used that emotional connection to get what he wanted. Namely, unprotected sex — despite the fact Aziga already knew he was HIV positive and knew HIV can be transmitted through intercourse and that HIV can be fatal.

The court has already decided Aziga is a murderer. And a sex offender.

The question now is: does that make him a dangerous offender?

Two women are dead of AIDS-related cancer, five others are living with HIV and four more escaped infection, but have psychological injuries from the near miss. Aziga has been convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, 10 counts of aggravated sexual assault and attempted sexual assault.

Aziga is appealing his murder convictions. A dangerous offender designation, which may be tied solely to Aziga’s sexual assault convictions, could mean an indeterminate prison term.

Submissions wrapped up Wednesday in the dangerous offender hearing for Aziga, believed to be the first person in the world convicted of murder for failing to disclose his HIV status. Justice Thomas Lofchik will hand down his precedent-setting decision Aug. 2.

If given his freedom, defence lawyer Munyonzwe Hamalengwa said in his closing arguments, 54-year-old Aziga promises to disclose his HIV status, use a condom and take his medication.

“That is layer, upon layer, upon layer of protection,” Hamalengwa told the court. “He has learned his lesson.”

Even when he was exposing women to HIV and infecting them, the lawyer continued, Aziga was not a “sexual psychopath.”

“The repetitive behaviour was not violent,” he said.

Perhaps not, but two women wound up dead all the same.
Hamalengwa even went so far as to say that it is not as though Aziga raped anyone.

To which the judge countered, “Isn’t aggravated sexual assault the same as rape? Sex without consent?”

The defence lawyer made much out of the fact that since Aziga has been taking anti-retroviral medication, his viral load is undetectable.

“Are we beginning to punish the disease itself, rather than the risk?” Hamalengwa pondered.

Aziga’s viral load may be undetectable, but science says, as court has heard, that he would still be exposing a partner to possible HIV infection if he had unprotected sex.

And though science has advanced, a sexual partner would still have to know they’d been exposed, so they could get the proper medical care that would reduce their risk of becoming HIV positive.

And though HIV is the most deadly possible result of unprotected sex with Aziga, it is not the only possible injury. Even the women who dodged Aziga’s bullet testified about the turmoil he caused in their lives from their fear of contracting AIDS, and his betrayal of their trust.

In her closing submissions earlier in the week, assistant Crown attorney Karen Shea said Aziga’s overactive libido would be a concern if he was released. At various times Aziga has pegged his number of sexual partners between 50 and 100 or between 20 and 30. Either way, it puts him ahead of the average Canadian man, court has heard.

What is known for sure is that Aziga provided public health officials with a list of 17 women with whom he had unprotected sex after learning he was HIV positive. He also testified that his previous sex partners included his wife, two girlfriends in his native Uganda and a number of female students he taught in Nairobi.

Regardless of the number of sex partners he’s had, argues Shea, it is the fact Aziga did not tell his partners he is HIV positive that makes him worthy of being declared a dangerous offender.

“No sex is not the rule,” Shea says. “If you are HIV positive, disclosure is the rule.”

[tenni]

I definitely agree with the murder application to this man who intentionally had sex all while knowing that he was HIV for years and years. It is aggravated sexual assault in my country and yes anyone who acts this way deserves to be charged with sexual assault. In this case where two victims died, then murder may be appropriate. There must have been an awful lot of evidence to go so far as to declare him a dangerous offender which means that he may be kept in jail for the rest of his life. He seems to see nothing wrong with having sex without disclosing his condition.

I know that some argue that the victim should protect themself and in casual sex scenarios that may be true. Still a person who intentionally wants to infect others should be stopped by any legal approach.
.................................................. ...............................

In Canada
The Criminal Code of Canada definition of Assault:
A person commits an assault when:

without the consent of another person, a person applies force intentionally to another person, directly or indirectly;

a person attempts or threatens, by act or gesture, to apply force to another person, if a person has present ability to effect their purpose; or causes that other person to believe, upon reasonable grounds, that they have present ability to effect their purpose;

while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, a person accosts or impedes another person or begs.

The definition of Assault is used to define Sexual Assault because they are exactly the same except for the sexual part.


SEXUAL ASSAULT (Basic Summaries)
Section 271 – Sexual Assault:
Somebody touches you in a sexual way on purpose, directly or indirectly, without your consent.

Section 273 – Aggravated Sexual Assault
Somebody sexually assaults you and they cause serious injuries to you.

CONSENT seems to be the critical issue. A person needs to be aware of the danger (HIV) in order to give consent. The victims were not informed of the HIV status by the man.

[drugstore cowboy]

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

I do not think that these women deserved to get infected with HIV but it is not all the HIV+ man's fault as these women made the choice to not use condoms or have safer sex at all. It's not as though they were raped by this man.

I know A LOT of bisexual and gay men who became infected with HIV through men they were dating and even their partners yet nobody went to court and claimed that it was sexual assault or murder. I also know people who abused IV drugs and shared needles who became infected this way but again no charges or court cases were brought against the people who were HIV+.

You don't see children who became HIV+ because of having an HIV+ mother suing their mother and claiming that because they became HIV+ because of their mother. Also you don't see people who became HIV+ in the early 80s through blood transfusions suing the red cross or anyone who is HIV+ and donated blood then before it was tested for HIV and before there was even a test for HIV then.

I'm not HIV+ but many of my bisexual and gay male friends are, or were and died of AIDS.

I found this article by an HIV+ woman who got infected from sex and she's the editor of Poz magazine and wrote a memoir about being HIV+.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/05/07/should-people-who-spread-hiv-go-to-jail.html

Should People Who Spread HIV Go to Jail?

A Canadian court has handed down the world’s first murder conviction for knowingly exposing and infecting someone with the AIDS virus. But as an HIV-positive woman, I know that the man who infected me only deserves half the blame.
May 7, 2009 3:07 AM EDT

As a woman who contracted HIV from a man who claimed to have been unaware he was HIV positive, I have never entirely blamed him. Prior to being with him, I asked him questions aimed at identifying his risk factors for having HIV. Based on my trust of him, and his answers, I took a calculated risk and had unprotected sex with him. I rolled the dice—and lost.

Should he go to jail? Some courts around the world, and some U.S. states, think so. HIV transmission is increasingly being criminalized. And a court in Canada has taken the criminalization of people with HIV to a new level of severity: Last month in Toronto, Johnson Aziga, who was diagnosed with HIV in 1996, was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder and 10 counts of aggravated assault for transmitting HIV to two female partners, both of whom eventually died from AIDS-related illness.

While I was certainly upset at the man who gave me HIV, I am more upset with myself for choosing to risk my own life when, arguably, I knew better.

Aziga’s case sets a precedent: he’s the first person in the world who was aware of his HIV status to be convicted of first-degree murder for exposing a sexual partner to HIV. But his conviction is part of an upward trend. While this may be the first time the word “murder” has been used in such a conviction, an increasing number of charges and prosecutions for HIV transmission—and even potential HIV exposure—are popping up around the planet. In some cases, HIV-positive people are being imprisoned even if HIV transmission couldn’t have possibly occurred. In Texas last year, an HIV-positive man was sentenced to 35 years for harassing a public servant with a “deadly weapon” when he spat on a police officer. This, despite the fact that there has never, in 28 years of the epidemic and more than 58 million documented cases of HIV to date, been a recorded case of HIV transmission via saliva.

When I made the decision to be with the man who gave me HIV, I knew that even if he was telling the truth about not having engaged in risky behaviors, he might still have the virus. I understood that there is risk involved for anyone, anytime they have intercourse without a condom. And so, while I was certainly upset at the man who gave me HIV, I am equally upset with myself for choosing to risk my own life when, arguably, I knew better.

Which is part of the reason I have a problem with the fact that, in most U.S. states, there is some sort of law making it a crime to either knowingly transmit, or expose someone to, the virus. The finger of justice seems to inevitably wag at the person living with HIV, but given that these cases in question involved consensual sex, it makes me wonder why we are not discussing the culpability of both parties. Why are we not asking the person who was exposed, and who perhaps contracted HIV, whether they felt any responsibility for the risk they took when having unprotected sex?

Criminalizing people with HIV isn’t just unfair to the HIV-positive person. It also helps deepen the stigma around the disease, which in turn, undermines prevention, testing and treatment efforts. When HIV-positive people are criminalized, people in general become less likely to educate themselves about the disease, to discuss HIV with their partners, and to get tested for the virus. According to U.S. law, if you don’t know you have HIV, you are less culpable should you pass it along to a partner. This provides a disincentive for people to know their HIV status. And, if people are unaware of their HIV status, they are not seeking care for the disease. When people are aware that they have HIV and seek treatment, their viral load can be reduced, rendering them less infectious. Therefore, criminalization of HIV actually leads to the spread of HIV.

If it were not possible to be criminally indicted for HIV, more people might be willing to talk about it—and more lives could be saved. Abolishing the criminalization of people who are positive would lead to more people knowing their status, seeking life-sustaining care that would reduce the chance that they could transmit the virus, regardless of their behavior, and it would encourage disclosure, which in turn is a form of prevention.

Many of the laws that criminalize HIV transmission were created during the darkest days of the AIDS epidemic, when little was known about the virus, fear was rampant, and the myth of the “AIDS predator” flourished. The fact is, very few people living with HIV would wish the disease on their worst enemy. In truth, many people who are newly diagnosed either refrain from sexual activity, especially initially, or take the necessary precautions to protect others from getting the disease. I frequently hear from people about their deep concern for not wanting to pass the virus along. Many HIV-positive people are themselves concerned about not contracting other strains of the virus or additional STDs. HIV-positive people typically become “safer-sex experts.” One thing we must protect ourselves against is human papilloma virus; ironically, another sexually transmitted virus that has several strains that can lead to deadly cancers. And yet, people who don’t know, or don’t disclose their HPV status, are never criminalized for transmitting that disease.

The former federal administration refused for eight years to teach comprehensive sex education; as a result, nearly half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. are among people under the age of 30. This is not due to a herd of AIDS predators wilding the American countryside, but rather, to widespread ignorance on the part of both people who do not believe that they have ever been at risk for contracting HIV, and those that erroneously think that HIV can’t happen to them, even if they have unprotected sex.

People should fear the HIV virus rather than those whose bodies harbor it. The barrier of stigma wedged between a person and others they deem “dirty” or “derelict” will not keep AIDS at bay. Only latex locks out HIV. And, if you ask me, the virus is the only thing that deserves to be barred in criminalization cases surrounding HIV.

Regan Hofmann is the editor-in-chief of POZ and poz.com.

[Hephaestion]

A dreadful tale of events. On the face of it, self indulgent recklessness with the health and well being of others.

Is Aziga the first person to be convicted of 1st degree murder for HIV offences? Maybe there should be more if this has occurred elsewhere.

[tenni]

"It's not as though they were raped by this man."

Actually, failing to disclose your HIV status to a potential partner is considered in the same category as being raped in Canadian law according to our Supreme Court. In fact, it is more serious and considered an aggravated sexual assault (intent to harm) in this case. Read the definitions and categories in Canadian law that I posted. They may not be the same in your country.

In Canada, the Supreme Court has determined that consent may not be given unless you are aware of the possibility of HIV (just as a person who is sleeping may not give consent to sex). Without giving consent any sexual act is a sexual assault. If the perpretator is unaware of their HIV status that is not a sexual assault. The murderer knew that he was HIV and refused to disclose that information even when asked directly by some of his victims.

This has nothing to do with anyone's friends or lovers getting HIV and dying. That can be accidental. In this man's case, he actually lied about being HIV for more than ten years even when asked by his female lovers about his status. He said that he didn't need to wear a condom even when the women suggested it. He has been found to be a dangerous offender due to the high liklihood that he will continue to infect women if released despite his stating otherwise. There had to be evidence to make the judge believe that the man's mental state was such that he would continue his behaviour. Being declared a dangerous offender is not made lightly or very often. It is the most serious declarations and I suspect that less than twenty people in Canada have been declared a dangerous offender. It is used for mass murderers like Paul Benardo, Clifton Olson etc. Canada doesn't have the death penalty but does declare some criminals as dangerous offenders. They will never get out of jail.

In Canada, the person with HIV has a legal responsibility to disclose their status if they know their status. Otherwise, they may be found guilty of a sexual assault. The responsibility falls on the shoulders of the perpretator.

This is a very different situation than the article that Drugstore posted. It isn't criminalizing everyone with HIV. It is making it a criminal sexual assault and possible aggravated sexual assault to intentionally transmit HIV without disclosing your status to a potential partner.

Hep
He was the first person in the world found guilty of murder and aggravated sexual assault due to his actions with his HIV status. Since then, a woman with HIV was intentionally having unprotected sex with male soldiers at one camp and not disclosing her status. She had more than ten victims. I believe that she was caught and also charged with aggravated sexual assault.

[Jobelorocks]

This is one good reason to always use condoms. There are so many fucked up people out there. Protect yourself, because you can't count on others to do so.

[mikey3000]

And sadly, the bath houses are full of these guys. That's why I'll always remail curious. I recently found out that this one guy who is constantly asking me to go with him is POZ and rarely uses condoms. When I asked him about this practice, he said that it's the responsibility of the other person to request a condom. He says that if they don't, they're most likely infected already. Scary.

[Jobelorocks]

And sadly, the bath houses are full of these guys. That's why I'll always remail curious. I recently found out that this one guy who is constantly asking me to go with him is POZ and rarely uses condoms. When I asked him about this practice, he said that it's the responsibility of the other person to request a condom. He says that if they don't, they're most likely infected already. Scary.

Scary indeed. People will justify all sorts of horrible things.

[sammie19]

And sadly, the bath houses are full of these guys. That's why I'll always remail curious. I recently found out that this one guy who is constantly asking me to go with him is POZ and rarely uses condoms. When I asked him about this practice, he said that it's the responsibility of the other person to request a condom. He says that if they don't, they're most likely infected already. Scary.

I have always carried condoms because guys can be such dopes about buying and carrying and even although it is their responsibility to supply their own, and so I have never minded on occasion being the condom machine. In this country there is a saying used by many men that having sex with a condom is like washing your feet with your socks on. You get the gist of what they are saying, and they are not afraid to say it to a girls face either.

At such times mister has been dropped like a brick and sent packing and the machine is broken.

The selfishness of this killer, for that is what he is knows no bounds. We all have a responsibility for our own safety I agree, but many of us exercise that safety very loosely and it is therefore the responsibility of the rest of us not to take advantage of that looseness and stupidity of others.

When selfishly we do take advantage of irresponsibility and stupidity, this makes us responsible for the consequences of our own actions, and therefore in this instance, this irresponsible and selfish guy should have been charged with being responsible for knowingly spreading a lethal virus and causing the deaths of any who died. Murder as a charge in this case seems perfectly reasonable to me. After all, if we invite a new aquaintance to tea and that person then stabs us to death with a carving knife is that any less murder?

[drawingboard3]

Regardless of whether or not he will do it again if/when he is free, he has already done more than enough damage to deserve life behind bars w/out the possibility of parole. He sounds like quite the sociopath and there is absolutely no excuse for all of the senseless misery and suffering that he has caused - all because of his own selfishness and complete lack of empathy for these women whom he said that he loved, but clearly did not.

[Hephaestion]

Regardless of whether or not he will do it again if/when he is free, he has already done more than enough damage to deserve life behind bars w/out the possibility of parole. He sounds like quite the sociopath and there is absolutely no excuse for all of the senseless misery and suffering that he has caused - all because of his own selfishness and complete lack of empathy for these women whom he said that he loved, but clearly did not.

Not the Nine O'clock News
Panel discussion involving 'Prof Duff' and Social Worker 'Sunny' on football hooliganism but perhaps apposite here.

".........In my opinion, Professor Duffs suggestion that we should cut off their goolies is the only solution......"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04clpd7h0b0

[open2both]

They oughta fry that bastard like a cheap egg!

[DuckiesDarling]

The thing is, the person in question is a dangerous offender. What he did was give many people what most people think is a death sentence. Will he do it again? Who knows. But the fact remains he is still armed and dangerous with a weapon that is easily protected against but all too often forgotten in the heat of the moment. Personally, I think the victims should have to deal with a bit of responsiblity themselves, they should have made sure of status AND used a condom, you can't pretend ignorance of HIV and how it is passed on in this day and age. But to knowingly have sex while positive and not inform your partner, that's basically pulling a trigger on a gun with the bullet in slow motion, it won't kill for awhile but it will definitely get them in the end.