Hi everyone,
Now that we´ve been looking at crime recently I thought that an article I came across in today´s Guardian might work for the blog. A brief synopsis: A famous German singer became infected with the HIV Virus and knowingly had other partners afterwards. They too became infected and now, after a long court case, she has received a 2-year suspended sentence.
Of course there´s more than meets the eye, as with most stories that you read in the press, but click here to read that article and then get back to us with your views on the outcome of the trial.
Too harsh? Too soft?
Have a great week!
I think the sentence was a bit soft as Benaissa behaved in an irresponsable way and pretended to be naive when she said " doctor told me that it was highly unlikely I would spread the virus if I remainded healthy". This is absolutely unbelivable.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ana Paula. Nowadays, its known how you can get infected and the cautions you have to make to prevent that. So, it's no an excuse her argument. I think it would be better if they could resolve this issue without any lawyers or jury. She has to be responsible for her actions and pay its consequences.
ReplyDeleteAs regards the sentence, I have to say that it is really difficult to determine if it is soft or harsh. Because we don´t know the lawsuit, we don´t have access to the documents, facts and testimonies the court has received, we don´t know the precedents, and equally ignore the circumstances the court has to weigh up to reach its veredict. We don´t even know German law. All we have is what we have read in the newspaper, which is, generally speaking, the part of the reality the newspaper wants or is able to show.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if I had to give an opinion, naturally, from an unbiased point of view, I must say that we have to be very careful and check all circumstances and facts before jumping to any strict conclusion.
We have focus not just on the punishment but also on the best for society. The first thing to consider is the severity of the harm inflicted, if it was intentional or not, the degree of responsibility, if it was on purpose or not, and the possibility that the woman carried on with her improper behaviour (criminal or irresponsible, it almost doesn´t matter). No less important is the part the men have played in the pain they have suffered.
On the one hand, the woman claimed he lied to protect her little child as she was already well known at the time of the relationship, which could be indeed one of the main reasons, and it is said that she was very poor and used to live on the streets before or becaming famous overnight with her band “No angels” and used to consume drugs. Admittedly she claims she is sorry and wanted to cause no harm to anyone, and add that she used to be careless because of her personal circumstances in those days.
Quite understandable given the circumstances, on the other hand, her former lover, bitterly resentful, claims she “unleashed a lot of misery into the world”. Surprinsingly though, he didn´t consider the possibility of having any part in his drama when, in fact, he might have known the risks of having sex without properly taking precautions. Not only that, she should have known the conflictive past of her lover and the risk attached to it.
Evidently, it was the singer who infected him as a virologist has proved with almost a hundred percent of accuracy. So it is out of discusion. As to the certainty of the intention of causing harm, it has not been proved in this case.
All things considered, I would say that two years of suspended sentence is a fairly consistent decision if we are aware that a minor offence would lead her directly to prison. These facts plus 300 hours of community service, if possible working with an organisation that helps people with HIV ordered in the sentence, which target not only the responsibility of the infected people but also the responsibility of couples in having healthy habits at the time of facing a relationship. A useful lesson for the society which we live in.
Marcelo
I thinks both of them are guilty: she for not have warned him and let him be, and the guy for not going safe. SHARED GUILT
ReplyDelete