Viet-Justice

This is a truly sad story. For years ago Paulette Anglin married Denver Stepp. They had known each other since middle school, but were hooked up by a mutual friend after a failed marriages. It sounds almost like a fairy tale at first, but then the truth comes out. Stepp’s first wife died of AIDS and he neglected to tell Anglin that he is HIV+. Fortunately the bastard is in prison now.

Looking back, Anglin sees her “I do” as a death sentence. She despises Stepp, who has been sent to prison for giving her the virus that causes AIDS. She’s also angry because she thinks the government hasn’t done enough to punish those who knowingly spread HIV — or to protect citizens from the epidemic.

Anglin hopes her story might influence the Georgia Legislature to reconsider mandatory premarital blood tests — the state never mandated premarital blood tests for HIV — and to stiffen the penalty for spreading the AIDS virus.

While I do feel empathy for Anglin, why is it the government’s place to get involved with premarital blood tests? Had Anglin been more cautious she would not be in this situation today. Just because the government doesn’t require something does not mean you should avoid a good idea. According to the article they wanted to have more children. A good idea would be to have the usual blood screenings for STDs but also for any history of hereditary disorders. The government doesn’t require testing for them, but if you are getting into a relationship to have children it is irresponsible to take that step without determining if you will be bringing a child into the world who may have a difficult time surviving. Anglin made the choice to have unprotected sex and attempt to conceive children because she was in love. Love is a wonderful thing, but it can cause us to lose judgement as well. I hope her case will open the eyes of people across the world and guide them to do the right thing regardless of whether or not the government actually requires you to do it.

I am also against toughening the law on people who deliberately spread HIV. 10 years in prison is a reasonable sentence for a person who knowingly infects others. Some may say that they should get life in prison, but in reality changing the law would allow politicians to posture and claim they’ve done something good for society without creating any good for the people. In fact most people wouldn’t make it past 10 years with HIV. I do support some minor changes to the law which would increase its effectiveness. The first thing that should be done is that prisoners who knowingly spread HIV shall not receive any medication to treat HIV while they are incarcerated. This will have the advantage of making the 10 year prison sentence an effective duration. I would guess that without treatment one’s lifespan would only be 2-3 years which would have numerous advantages. By not paying for HIV treatment the state would save thousands of dollars. Saving money is good. The convicted would die a slow painful death. People who knowingly spread HIV dieing in an unpleasant manner is good. Finally the victims and their families would get closure by watching the convicted die painfully and hopefully before the victims succumb to the disease as well. Closure is good.