Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search


Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

jr_12809_9780195367195_bnr.JPG

ad-logo5.jpg

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • alex on Lori Drew Tentatively Acquitted

    • Dan Culley on Perils of a “Lightly Regulated” Insurance Market

    • Frank Pasquale on Financial Innovation?

    • Robyn A on Lori Drew Tentatively Acquitted

    • Bruce Boyden on Lori Drew Tentatively Acquitted

    • Larry Rosenthal on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

    • Howard Wasserman on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

    • Adam on Financial Innovation?

    • Amy on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

    • cjmajor on Lori Drew Tentatively Acquitted

    • cj on Lori Drew Tentatively Acquitted

    • Howard Wasserman on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

    • Colin Miller on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

    • concerned mom on The Lori Drew Trial: Verdict

    • A Commenter on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

  •  

    Site Meter

More Law in the Bedroom

posted by Scott Burris

In a recent post, I described a Swiss case of “negligent HIV transmission” in which the victim’s failure to insist upon protected sex was deemed irrelevant to the defendant’s guilt. Justice Edwin Cameron of South Africa wrote me: “I know this is a very ‘African’ point that … I have been harping on, but I would have added a short observation to the first part of your discussion of the Swiss case that, it is signal that unlike in Africa, no one has suggested that the woman in the sexual encounter was less empowered than the man to take a full part in equal sexual decision-making.”

Point taken. In the Swiss case, there seems to be no question that the complainant was perfectly free to insist upon condom use, and was not (as we sometimes see in these cases) convinced to forego protection by a false assurance from the partner that he was negative. There is, indeed, evidence that she normally insisted upon protection and no evidence that it was even considered by either partner in this relationship. Both clearly knew the risks of HIV and both, being conservative, could not rule out that one of them was infected. But the court just decides that doesn’t matter: the defendant was legally responsible since he knew more about his past exposures than she did. Quite a fine legal balance there, which would seem to require the law (and sex partners) to draw some complicated, fact-senstive legal lines in addressing their potential “sexual liability.” Advice: always bring a lawyer to bed.


 July 23, 2008 at 5:32 am   Posted in: Criminal Law, Health Law, Privacy (Law Enforcement)   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (4)

  1. Shane Hartman - July 23, 2008 at 5:21 pm

    I agree that the power differential is an important consideration in assessing civil or criminal liability for infecting another with HIV. I would add that on some level this power differential is a function of the biological mechanics of sex (or at least our cultural interpretation of those biological mechanics). The would apply in both the context of heterosexual and male homosexual sex. One way of addressing this problem might be to impose a standard of consent similar to the standard used to evaluate if sex is consensual. One of the salient questions here is, how many times must the receptive partner demand that the “active” partner wear a condom before the active partner has acted in a way that will make him presumptively negligent if he communicates HIV to the receptive partner. For the sake of drawing a clear line, I would argue that a “No means no” standard be applied and that if the active partner would reasonably know that the receptive partner was demanding that he wear a condom, even once, that he is negligent for not doing so. I couldn’t help but notice that in the Swiss case the victim was charged with “failure to insist upon protected sex.” Is insistence necessary? If we conclude that insistence is not necessary and we apply a consent-like standard, how can we create a manageable rule without getting muddled up in endless ambiguity? It seems that a bright line rule is appropriate, even if it means forcing the active sexual partner to bear more of the onus for the decision about using the prophylactic. However, even the approach I am suggesting is not nearly as harsh as the approach applied by the court in this Swiss case. One other thought: how does the existence and availability (at least in the U.S.) of the “female condom” influence this question about negligence for HIV transmission?

  2. Kaimi - July 23, 2008 at 5:43 pm

    “Advice: always bring a lawyer to bed.”

    You mean, like this?

    http://www.glumbert.com/media/consent

  3. Shane Hartman - July 23, 2008 at 5:47 pm

    Ha…great video. I guess there is hope in this dismal job market for recent law grads like myself after all.

  4. Julian - July 25, 2008 at 8:22 am

    I agree with the court on this one. Just as it is the individual’s responsibility not to shoot people, it is the individual’s responsibility to know their own infection status and not put others at risk, regardless of whether said other asked or not. To engage in sexual activity with people without using protection when one is HIV positive (or a carrier of any STD for that matter) is, at least, reckless endangerment. This is less a matter of a government sticking its nose into the bedroom, and more one of a government demanding a modicum of personal responsibility from its citizens.

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Michael O'Shea

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page

Solangel Maldonado

Website
SSRN Page

Gerard Magliocca

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Robert Hillman
Kevin Johnson
Sarah Lawsky
Robert Percival
Jenia Turner






Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Howard Wasserman
Frank Wu
Corey Yung
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress