Today the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man for criminal transmission of HIV. (And if you want to see the video of the oral arguments before the Iowa Supreme Court, the link is here. The four opinions in the separate cases are here.) The convict in this case knew he had HIV but still went on to have unprotected sexual intercourse with several other partners and did not tell them that he was infected.
My first question is, why did they need to come up with a new law that was specific to transmission of HIV. What is to stop the state from prosecuting it as an assault with intent to kill?
Now, while I am in favor the ruling, does this mean when one of the women he had sex and contracted the virus, dies of an HIV related illness, will he be re-tried for murder. And if so, is that the right thing to do?
Creepy Antisemitic Freaks of the Day
2 hours ago