Class Notes (838,347)
Canada (510,861)
Sociology (3,262)
SOC309Y1 (60)

SOC309 n23309 NOV 23.docx

9 Pages
Unlock Document

Robb Travers

SOC309 NOV, 23, 2012 Tested heavily upon 1. Prescene of the law Is good, but of this law is complex and stigmatizing Senior policy analysis, instrumental in advocating in developing of good laws of hiv disclosure Crimilization of hiv non disclosure in Canada Over 20 years now in Canada, could go in dangerous direction About - Based in Toronto The issue - In the media if not read the criminal law can be used against people in Canada if not tell about having hiv - Sig risk of hiv transmission - Sig risk is key phrase - Not if hiv is transmitted - Can go to jail if not ranismitting hiv Contd - 1988 was the first crime - And 1998 made to supreme court and led to current law - And aggravtaive assulat - Sept 5 released a descion and sig risk test and new dim disclosure is needed if realistic possibility in trans Canada workd leasder - Use criminal law broadly - High number of chargers - First country in world to pros vertical trans mother to infant - And murder conviction first one in world Gloably - Not only country - Spread to eruop and africs - Some draft spec laws and other use Canada existing adapt to circumstances - 2005 increase in criminal law to exposure - Even though can treat it better - Why acc in criminalization The role of crim law - What law should - Theory is that it is a deterent - Does it deter risky behavior - Is ti retribution to blameworthy conduct - Can alw respond to complexity of people lives - Creep – idea once law lashed to issue they push envelope of what is criminalizrd broader and broader - Last one supreme court recent descinon The quote - Law formed what judges say and their descions - Courier descinon in 1998 - Needed measure of preotection - And reflections societies abhorrence - Would punish people and deter More recent one - Diff approach then 1998 - Not everyone one be criminlized - Switch approach but app to use criminal law E Cameron - Judge of south Africa - And gaqy and hiv positive only one in south Africa - Norms should not be tried - In bc - Man charged not disclose hiv status to partner but still acquitted him not gets heavy hand - And looked at level of risk not justify putting someone in jail for agrevated assault Criminal law - To be crime in Canada law - A criminal act and guilty mind - Need to prove both elements - Basic pronicple ingnorance not a defecne in Canada Contd - Law of aggevated sexual assault - Is consent is key component - In 1998 - Not disclose hiv status then don’t have true consent - Not tell sig relative factors of having factors then not have consent Assult - To assult is touch someone without consent - Consent – invalidate is fraud, vitiates consent – invalidates consent - Aggratced assailt - if indangers life - Max if 14 years - Agg sex assault if in sexual manner - Life imprison and registration sex offender registry - With sig risk not disclose con aggere sex assault and registererd as sex offender Contd - Sig risk of bodily harm - Not tell anyone not all sex partners only sig risk - Sig risk is vague - Courts interpreting sig risk differently - What is persons viral load type of sex Next - Looked at it again with knew evidence of science - When treatment was new mr courier not on treatement - And not effect treatement on viral load - Aids was inefeitable if become hiv positive, hiv is fatal illness has change can live longf productive life - Still think sig risk standard is appropriate - Can rec sig risk is uncertain so clarify - Not is if realistic possibility and then wen ton to say low viral laod and condom used no reelasistc - If high viral load and condom still realistic - And low no condom - If condom low viral load undeetcable and vagina heterosexual sex then is safe - It is 1 in 1000 – above that is realistic - Unanimous and all 9 judges sat - Poorly written descinion 2 cases - In feb made way through coutrt system and important enough issue - Held together th - Feb 8 - Dc - Not name ass with case - Single mom met man at sons soccer game had sex once not mention when more serious she disclosuerd and lived for 4 years hiv positive not infective - He became violent to her and broke sons hand - And he was charged and convicted - Once convicted he said not siclosure - Charged sex assault and agrratvce assault - Found guilty - Sentenced and appealed - She had undeteable viral load not high to see sig risk no legal - Court of appeal overturned - Crown wasn’t happy and appealed to supreme court Mabior - Partier lots of women lots of drug and alc - Not disclosing to mult - To 6 counts and other counts not realted - Went to jail and appealed - Overtuned 4 of 6 convivtions - Anytime of condom used low risk not need to dislose - And time undeteable viral load lower risk - Either condoms or undectbale viral loads - None were infected for mabior and sentencet to 15 originally and then 52 months - Finsished serving sentenced and deported - Social factors on getting viral load test reg in rural may not have ready access to testing - Now have viral load evidence as well Attorney Manitoba - Gov of Manitoba and gov of quebec - Any risk of hiv tran would be sig - Any act any risk of hiv transt then discloser statues - Even if risk is minisule then have to disclose it - Quebec just on viral laod Manitoba both - Intervene not one of the parties or crown but other - So request reputrable and genuine interest and bring info parties wont bring and use it - Intervene of manitboba 8 did - All argued last resort not broadly in all cases hiv exposure - Sig risk is meaningful standard not all risk is sig - Oral sex is theroitcla risk and no conviction - Similar arguments Oct 5 - Supreme court all provinces - Maintain rule hiv disclosure sig risk of bodily harm – realsitical possibilyt - No risk of hiv at all have to disclose Next - Both hetreosexial vaginal sex - Anal sex may be treated same way and not know oral sex - Use condom and low viral load not convicted not both then convicted - Some evidence high load in semen then in blood - Low viral load 89 percent - What will happen defence crown bring in studies - Law of sexual and consent not consent if not in sexual circumsatnaces - Convixction on mother to child not consent issue - First had tratemnt second not took treatment and not disclosed to medical team and failure to provide necessities of life - People convicted of spiiting not way to trans hiv, police and prison guards if prisoner bites or spits even though risk is nill - In south 35 texas years guy spit on police officer spit as a deadly weapon - Recent viral load test not know - Early on 3 months before med - And med and low viral load for years then 1 to 2 times a yeat - Rural comm less time - And always been a medical choice made with doctor Other criminal offenses - Charge app to circumstances st - 1 – trans hiv not revealing hiv staus
More Less

Related notes for SOC309Y1

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.