A man who deliberately infected others with HIV just got a life sentence

[ejaculaTe]

On 10/27/2020 at 10:04 PM, Ocelot2000 said:

No comments about him going to Prison, I think he should, but not for life! That's daft.

From the Evening Standard of November 1, 2018:

     It was argued during the hearing [before the Court of Appeal] that Rowe's sentence was "manifestly excessive" and "wrong in principle".

     But Lady Justice Hallett announced: "A life sentence is a sentence of last resort, reserved for cases of extreme gravity, but in this case we are satisfied that the  judge was right to conclude that the applicant is dangerous."

     She added: "The nature and seriousness of the offences was such that only a life sentence was justified, despite the applicant's age and his previous background."

     Rowe was convicted in November [2017] and when sentenced by Judge Christine Henson QC in April [2018] she told him that statements from victims described "living with a life sentence as a result of your cruel and senseless acts".

--------

Rowe was convicted of 5 counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and 5 counts of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm. GBH is equivalent to first degree assault in the state where I practiced law; the maximum sentence for first degree assault (and for attempted first degree assault) is 25 years (no parole, but the prison term can be reduced by good time credit). A judge could reasonably conclude, as the trial judge did, that a life sentence was warranted. And to say that the harm to the victims is insignificant because of the availability of antiviral drugs, thus warranting a lesser sentence, seems a weak reed to support the contention. If Rowe had cut off an arm or leg of 5 of his victims, he could hardly expect a lesser sentence just because the amputee victims would each have the benefit of a prosthetic limb.

[Ocelot2000]

19 hours ago, ejaculaTe said:

"And to say that the harm to the victims is insignificant because of the availability of antiviral drugs, thus warranting a lesser sentence, seems a weak reed to support the contention"

When did I say it was insignificant? 

[Ocelot2000]

On 10/29/2020 at 5:40 PM, BootmanLA said:

Not everyone goes out on weekends drinking. Not everyone who does spends a fortune on drinks when they do. You are speaking from a narrow window of experience.

You mentioned that you used to spend half a year in the US and half in the UK at the time. That alone puts you in an economic stratum well above an awful lot of people for whom a transatlantic trip is more of a lifetime-savings event and not something undertaken seasonally. I have a couple of younger gay friends who have entry-level jobs and for them, two nights out a month at the bars and a limit of $25 each time for their drinks is doable but pushing it. Your blithe assumption that "oh well, they can afford $70 a month" may apply to you and your income level but not to everyone else's. And as I said, YOU knew where to find a doctor that would provide a non-approved drug for you. Not everyone does.

What I find mind-boggling is the assumption in everything you write on this topic that your personal experience is the do-all, be-all, end-all of what the rest of the world encounters and therefore anyone who points out a flaw in your arguments insofar as they apply to others is just wrong. The difference between me standing by what I'm saying, and you standing by what you're saying, is that I take into account that some people's experiences may be different from mine or yours. You do not.

You might be right there, but living in West Hollywood I have tons of friends who hardly make any money yet they go out every weekend partying and drinking. And the drinks in a big city are not cheap. Somehow they find money for drugs and alcohol but forgo say food. Choices..... There is accountability to be had but we seem to live in a society right now with a mindset to just vilify anyone. In this case I again, agree, this guy is a menace, but I still do not agree that it should have been a life sentence, and was everyone on his list dirt poor and with no knowledge of anything? Lord.... You guys make me laugh!

[BootmanLA]

On 10/30/2020 at 7:56 PM, Ocelot2000 said:

You might be right there, but living in West Hollywood I have tons of friends who hardly make any money yet they go out every weekend partying and drinking. And the drinks in a big city are not cheap. Somehow they find money for drugs and alcohol but forgo say food. Choices..... There is accountability to be had but we seem to live in a society right now with a mindset to just vilify anyone. In this case I again, agree, this guy is a menace, but I still do not agree that it should have been a life sentence, and was everyone on his list dirt poor and with no knowledge of anything? Lord.... You guys make me laugh!

You make *me* laugh because in this comment, you proved *every* point that I was making - that your limited experience in a particular community and economic stratum makes you think the entire world is like that. It's like you look at your navel and think you're seeing the horizon.

You don't KNOW what the situation of the victims was, and yet YOU were willing to saddle them with responsibility to get a drug that wasn't approved for regular use yet, or to have your preternatural gifts for miraculously being able to determine a condom was broken or cut. You may have an asshole filled with tiny little fingers that can detect the difference between latex and skin, but not everyone does - I daresay I know far more guys who can't than who, like you, immediately know the difference. You're going all-in trying to defend this guy not getting a life sentence for deliberately fucking up the lives - the ENTIRE lives - of at least five individuals. They're the ones who came forward. How many others might there be that we don't know about, who didn't want to bring charges?

Do you think he's somehow going to be "rehabilitated" with a sentence of, say, 10 years per count? That getting out of prison in his 70's he'll suddenly have become a good, law-abiding citizen with respect for his fellow human beings? Are you saying LESS than ten years per victim, when he's sentenced them to a lifetime of being on medications to hold off a fatal disease, is appropriate? All you're willing to say is you think it's overkill for this guy to pay for the rest of HIS life, for what HE did to at least 5 guys for the rest of THEIR lives. Frankly, five consecutive life sentences would have made more sense.

[cowboycumshot]

I have a buddy that spent 2 years in prison for being wrongly accused of infecting some guy.  He did fuck the guy in the time frame that would have mattered.  The guy was diagnosed as being + and quickly dumped by his BF before their encounter.  He was seeing revenge against somebody and didn't know where to point the finger.

There were people in the hiv clinic who knew the accuser had been diagnosed + before my friend had gone out with him.  Guys in the community thought it was terribly unfair.  Later the guys previous BF turned up +.  He had been hiding his diagnosis from his BF.  So it became clear my friend took the blame.  Through some people contacting the courts, the accuser reversed his accusation and cleared up the matter.  So my friend got to get out of prison.  We became very close after that.