|
There are two points IMO in this case. The fact that he lied to both ladies shows that he had some knowledge of havign HIV and there was certain motive behind not telling them whatever it may be.
The sentence definately fits the crime. He knew the risks of havign HIV and he still continued to have unprotected sex. As said above " "The Supreme Court says if you have unprotected sex, there is an obligation to disclose. If you have protected sex, there is no obligation to disclose and this is the position we're taking," Giroux said. " True on all accounts.
The penalty fits the crime.
|