
Now, I don't disagree for a moment that this guy is a dick (apparently, a latex-free one). Maybe he was just reckless, maybe he was angry and really wanted to infect them, maybe he just really likes bareback sex. I don't know.
What I do know is that the prosecutor, Bill Burge, is totally talking out of his ass when he "argued that Smith knew the dangers of HIV and he knew that he had a responsibility to disclose his condition to his sexual partners.
'It was just a matter of luck' that neither was infected," Burge said.
Not exactly. Our friendly neighbourhood AIDS page on Wikipedia gives a very useful table of estimated rates of infection per 10,000 exposures. Rates of exposure for receptive penile-vaginal intercourse...survey says...10.
Ten per 10,000. That's an infection rate of 0.001%. [Correction: 0.1%] Not exactly a matter of "luck," then. More like a 99.9% chance that the woman wouldn't be infected. I would take those odds.
I don't deny that these women probably went through a few hellish months waiting for their test results. Sucks to be them. Insist on a condom next time. And yeah, our Trojan horse really should have disclosed his HIV status. (Like, as if he'd ever get laid again.) But imprisonment -- particularly for more than five years -- is ridiculously punitive.
What really frosts me is the perpetuation of an impression of HIV that is years out of date. Yeah, it was pretty scary back there in the 1986, when you didn't know if you could get it from drinking fountain, but I'd like to think we've moved on in the intervening two decades.
Five and a half years for a 0.1% chance he harmed them? How much would he have gotten if he'd driven them home after a movie? Those cars are deathtraps, I tell you. It would have been only a matter of luck if she'd gotten out alive.