Originally posted by no1marauderYes, attempt is a specific intent crime. Attempted recklessness is an oxymoron.
It seems possible to be convicted of murder for this, but not for attempted murder which requires actual intent (barring changes in State laws I'm not aware of). Here's a Utah case saying that there is no such crime as attempted depraved indifference murder. http://www.brownbradshaw.com/uploads/Vigil.pdf
But, if an HIV person knowingly has sexual relations with someone and knowing of the tendency to transmit the virus that the act entails, I would think that could satisfy the intent standard.
If, for example, it could be shown that an HIV positive person has sexual intercourse with someone for the express purpose to transmit the disease and eventually kill the person (maybe the defendant hated the victim, etc.), I would certainly think that this could qualify as attempted murder.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell, there used to be the "year and a day" rule, that some states/countries still follow.
So if a person dies after, say, 20 years, can you then arrest the perpretator? Seems a strange brand of justice.
But temporal limitations are quite apart from the issue of causation. If a person dies in 3 months from AIDS, would you have less of a problem with that prosecution?
Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_and_a_day_rule
Originally posted by sh76That seems like a pretty farfetched scenario (though it's probably been on Law and Order). In any event, that's not the cases we have been discussing.
Yes, attempt is a specific intent crime. Attempted recklessness is an oxymoron.
But, if an HIV person knowingly has sexual relations with someone and knowing of the tendency to transmit the virus that the act entails, I would think that could satisfy the intent standard.
If, for example, it could be shown that an HIV positive person has sexual intercourse ...[text shortened]... nt hated the victim, etc.), I would certainly think that this could qualify as attempted murder.
bbarr's Hawaiian case seems to the contrary; there was an attempted murder conviction based on extreme recklessness. The trial was last year; I'd be curious to see if the result was upheld on appeal.
EDIT: I re-read your post and do not agree with this statement:
But, if an HIV person knowingly has sexual relations with someone and knowing of the tendency to transmit the virus that the act entails, I would think that could satisfy the intent standard.
The intent must be to actually kill the person, so no I don't think the circumstances you spell out here would satisfy intent (unlike the scenario in the next paragraph). That still looks like depraved indifference to me.
Originally posted by bbarroh, wow .... gotta rec that one ...
What am I, your goddamn answer-genie? Look it up. I gave you a link to a case where parents were charged with attempted murder for feeding their kid too little, even though they had no intention of killing her. Does that suffice to answer your question, or were you asking for a case where parents fed their kids hamburgers and fries three times a day? If so ...[text shortened]... people for attempted murder when they cause their kids to develop heart disease and diabetes.
Originally posted by FMFthere's fifty states in the US, each with their own laws. you're bound to get some variance.
Even though those mothers were not attempting to murder their babies and no motive for doing so was established? It strikes me as very unsatisfactory.
That would be "manslaughter" in the U.K. Much better concept. Murder is murder.
Originally posted by sh76O.K., but here in Washington the law says this:
Yes, attempt is a specific intent crime. Attempted recklessness is an oxymoron.
RCW 9A.28.020
Criminal attempt.
(1) A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, with intent to commit a specific crime, he or she does any act which is a substantial step toward the commission of that crime.
...and this:
RCW 9A.32.030
Murder in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of murder in the first degree when:
(a) With a premeditated intent to cause the death of another person, he or she causes the death of such person or of a third person; or
(b) Under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life, he or she engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to any person, and thereby causes the death of a person;
So, what's the deal? Criminal attempt requires intent to commit whatever crime is at issue, but some crimes do not require agents to have any particular intent (e.g., murder in the first degree for being extremely indifferent to human life and causing death). If I shoot into a crowded building, not caring about the people inside but not intending to kill (I do it on a dare, for instance) and kill somebody I can be charged with first-degree murder in WA. But if I luckily miss everybody in the building, then why can't I be charged with attempted murder. I was not attempting to kill anybody, that is true. But I was knowingly and intentionally acting in a manner such that, had death resulted, I could be charged with murder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV
In many countries, the intentional or reckless infection of a person with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is considered to be a crime. People who do so can be charged with criminal transmission of HIV, murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, or assault. Some states have enacted laws expressly to criminalize HIV transmission, as in the United States, while others charge under the existing laws, as in the United Kingdom.
Contents
* 1 Modes of transmission
* 2 Blood donation
* 3 The legal, political and social problems
* 4 Legal events in connection with criminal-transmission events
o 4.1 Germany
o 4.2 Australia
o 4.3 Canada
o 4.4 New Zealand
o 4.5 Russia
o 4.6 United Kingdom
+ 4.6.1 Scotland
o 4.7 United States
United States
Only 34 states have prosecuted HIV positive individuals for not disclosing HIV status and exposing another person to the HIV virus. A person's intent to infect their partner while engaging in sexual intercourse and failed to disclose his or her status is committing a crime. A person donating HIV infected organs, tissues, and blood can be prosecuted for transmission of the virus. Spitting or transmitting HIV infected bodily fluids is considered a criminal offense in some states. Some states consider criminal transmission of HIV as a misdemeanor. These states have laws that prosecute individuals for criminal transmission of HIV: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia [10], Idaho, Illinois [11], Indiana[12][13], Iowa [14], Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan [15], Mississippi, Missouri [16], Montana[17], Nevada, New Jersey, New York [18], North Dakota, Ohio [19], Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. [20][21]
In July 2010 the White House announced a major change in its HIV/AIDS policy, a change informed by public health law research carried out by Scott Burris, professor of law at Temple University and the director of the Public Health Law Research program. The official National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States concluded that “the continued existence and enforcement of these types of laws [criminalizing HIV infection] run counter to scientific evidence about routes of HIV transmission and may undermine the public health goals of promoting HIV screening and treatment.”
The administration strategy credits "The case against criminalization of HIV transmission", a piece by Burris and Edwin Cameron, a South African judge, in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2008. They wrote “The use of criminal law to address HIV infection is inappropriate except in rare cases in which a person acts with conscious intent to transmit HIV and does so.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchasing
Bugchasing
Bugchasing (or bug chasing) is a slang term for a subculture of individuals who pursue sex with HIV infected individuals in order to contract HIV. Bugchasers may seek HIV status for a variety of reasons.
Bugchasers seek sexual partners who are HIV positive for the purpose of having unprotected sex and seroconversion; giftgivers (also gift givers) are HIV positive individuals who comply with the bugchaser's efforts to become infected with HIV.
(Contents ...)
Bugchasing
Bugchasers indicate various reasons for this activity. Some bugchasers engage in the activity for the excitement inherent in pursuing such a dangerous activity, but do not implicitly desire to contract HIV.[1][2] Some researchers suggest that the behavior may stem from a "resistance to dominant heterosexual norms and mores" due to a defensive response by gay men to repudiate stigmatization and rejection by society.[2] This may be the result of marginalization from heterosexual society, as well as from parts of mainstream gay society of which materialism, nightlife, and promiscuous sex are key themes.[citation needed]
Some men consider bugchasing "intensely erotic" and the act of being infected as the "ultimate taboo, the most extreme sex act left".[1] A number of men who are HIV negative and in a relationship with someone who is HIV positive seek infection as a way to remain in the relationship, particularly when the HIV positive partner may wish to break up to avoid infecting the HIV negative partner.[3]
Some workers in the HIV community report that a number of younger men seek infection as a way to receive benefits, a "free ride," because they would qualify to receive Section 8, Social Security and other benefits from getting infected with HIV.[3] Some contend that this behaviour stems from feelings of inevitability towards HIV among the gay community and the empowerment of choosing when to contract the virus.[4] Others have suggested that some men who feel lonely desire the nurturing community that supports persons with AIDS.[2]
By design, bug chasing involves bareback sex, but members of the bareback subculture are not necessarily bugchasers. The difference is intent:
“ In reviewing the scarce unpublished and published materials on bugchasing, as well as general healthcare speculations, a common theme appears- the lumping of bug chasers with barebackers...Although these two groups share some of the same practices, namely unprotected anal intercourse (UAI), there are distinctions that differentiate bug chasing...even though all bug chasers are indeed barebackers, not all barebackers are bugchasers.[5] ”
Bug parties
Bug parties (or "conversion parties" ) are gatherings at which gift givers and bug chasers meet to have sex, in order that the HIV negative women and men may catch the disease.[6].
...
Originally posted by bbarrThat WA statute seems quite typical of similar statutes around the country.
O.K., but here in Washington the law says this:
RCW 9A.28.020
Criminal attempt.
(1) A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, with intent to commit a specific crime, he or she does any act which is a substantial step toward the commission of that crime.
[b]...and this:
RCW 9A.32.030
Murder in the first degree.
(1) ...[text shortened]... entionally acting in a manner such that, had death resulted, I could be charged with murder.[/b]
You've slightly misread the statute on one point.
If you shoot into a crowded building, not caring about the people inside but not intending to kill (I do it on a dare, for instance) and kill somebody you can be charged with SECOND degree murder in WA, not first degree. First degree murder in WA, as most everywhere, is a specific intent crime.
Attempt is always a specific intent crime. One cannot attempt to manifest an extreme indifference to human life. You either have "intent to commit a specific crime" or you do not.
If I drive drunk and am arrested for DUI, my maximum sentence is probably something like a month or two in prison. If I kill 2 people because of my drunk operation of the car, I will likely sit in prison for several years (Google Bruce Kimball) for manslaughter. So, why am I not guilty of attempted manslaughter every time I drive drunk? The answer is because you cannot attempt to commit a negligent or reckless crime. Attempt requires intent to cause the criminal result.
Originally posted by sh76O.K., I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, I'm just curious about the law as written. The 'extreme indifference' killing counts as first-degree murder in WA. I cut that directly out of the Revised Code entry for first-degree murder. But it doesn't seem to be intent-based. Why is that?
That WA statute seems quite typical of similar statutes around the country.
You've slightly misread the statute on one point.
If you shoot into a crowded building, not caring about the people inside but not intending to kill (I do it on a dare, for instance) and kill somebody you can be charged with [b]SECOND degree murder in WA, not first degree. Fir ...[text shortened]... o commit a negligent or reckless crime. Attempt requires intent to cause the criminal result.[/b]
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8CFRC5G6&show_article=1
HIV-Positive Spitter Sentenced to 13 Years
Sep 7 10:54 PM US/Eastern
By SAMUEL MAULL
Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK (AP) - An HIV-positive ex-convict who said he tried to kill several police officers and a psychiatric hospital employee by biting them or spitting blood in their faces was sentenced Wednesday to 13 years in prison.
Robert Murray, 33, was not in court when state Supreme Court Justice William A. Wetzel imposed the sentence. He had sent a message saying the Hannibal Lecter-type restraints the judge ordered were "humiliating" and he refused to wear them to court.
The judge said that he ordered the restraints for Murray because of his prior behavior. Murray, a former mental patient, had threatened in past court appearances to attack people around him.
Murray pleaded guilty Aug. 8 to five counts of attempted murder in exchange for the 13-year sentence. He could have been sentenced to up to 25 years in prison on each count if he had been convicted after a trial.
Murray, arrested in April 2003 on a charge of promoting prostitution, was being processed at a police station when he spat saliva and blood into the faces of several officers.
One of the officers, Sgt. Margaret Timlim, said outside court that she was not infected by Murray's spew but had undergone a debilitating year of therapy with anti-AIDS drugs to make sure.
...
Originally posted by bbarrOh, wow. You're right. 😲
O.K., I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, I'm just curious about the law as written. The 'extreme indifference' killing counts as first-degree murder in WA. I cut that directly out of the Revised Code entry for first-degree murder. But it doesn't seem to be intent-based. Why is that?
I saw the language and made an assumption that the second clause was second degree. But you are correct. WA has a very broad first degree murder statute.
But you still need specific intent to commit an attempt.
Edit: Regarding first degree murder, I always learned first degree murder was always specific intent. Take, for example, the NY rule:
§ 125.27 Murder in the first degree.
A person is guilty of murder in the first degree when:
1. With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the
death of such person or of a third person; and
[etc.- aggravating factors are required]
I guess Washington doesn't abide by that principle.
Originally posted by bbarrThe philosophy behind these statutes is that acting with extreme indifference to human life and causing death is just as morally culpable as intentional murder. But to attempt something you have to actually mean to do it which is lacking in an extreme indifference case. Of course, there are other felonies which can be charged where someone acts with extreme indifference or recklessness to human life but doesn't cause death; reckless endangerment for example.
O.K., I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, I'm just curious about the law as written. The 'extreme indifference' killing counts as first-degree murder in WA. I cut that directly out of the Revised Code entry for first-degree murder. But it doesn't seem to be intent-based. Why is that?