Sex and the crime of transmission

By Emily Liebert

As United States citizens, our right to privacy is one of our most precious liberties. The fourth amendment to the Constitution guarantees this right, stating that "the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated." That's why the law passed by Congress last year mandating that everyone with HIV be reported to state health departments is unjust.

SHAWN CHENG/YH

This law was largely influenced by the recent case of Nushawn J. Williams, a 22-year-old HIV-positive man who knowingly infected at least 13 women and girls through unprotected sex. In October 1997, Williams admitted that during a two-year period he had sex with over a hundred women. On Mon., Apr. 5, 1999, Williams was sentenced to four to 12 years in prison after pleading guilty to one count of reckless endangerment for having unprotected sex with a woman whom he did not tell he had AIDS, as well as two counts of second-degree rape for having sex with a 13-year-old girl.

Since someone with HIV may have no obvious symptoms, it is easy for reckless, seemingly healthy carriers such as Williams to infect their unsuspecting partners. The effects of Williams' selfish and irresponsible acts are devastating to the victims and shocking to the public. However, his offenses do not justify an extreme law that carries morally insound implications.

Proponents of the new law argue that requiring that the names of HIV carriers be reported is within constitutional parameters because the law purports to protect public safety. However, HIV carriers are not inherently dangerous. The idea that the government can infringe on the privacy of citizens for the sake of preventative measures could be a grim presage of what might become increasingly aggressive government intrusion.

We must encourage people to take responsibility for themselves. This law conveys a lack of trust that people will behave responsibly. While such pessimism seems warranted in light of the actions of Williams and some of his partners, it is also undermined by a substantial amount of the population. When low standards are introduced, people sink to the challenge. If the government is taking responsibility for us, why bother taking responsibility for ourselves?

The government should punish anyone who knowingly endangers another's well-being, so it is fitting that Williams be punished for his act of disease transmission. Infecting one's sexual partner with a disease is like driving drunk, an act of negligence rather than harmful intention. The drunk driver doesn't get behind the wheel in order to harm others, just as Williams didn't infect his partners out of maliciousness. Inherent in driving drunk is the risk of accidents. Inherent in unprotected sex is the risk of infection—both brands of offenders should pay for their acts of knowing endangerment.

Williams is paying. He's already taken years off of at least 13 women's lives. Let's not allow his example to take away millions of citizens' fundamental rights. Let's not respond to his act with a knee-jerk law that ominously foreshadows constitutional subversion.

Emily Liebert is a sophomore in Saybrook.

Back to Opinion...