I could make this a poll, but there'd be too many choices...

[lovingboth]

The law in (edit!) England & Wales used to be absolutely clear: STI infection during consensual sex was not assault, even when the infection was deliberately concealed from the partner.

But in the past couple of years, there have been three successful prosecutions of men for sexual transmission of HIV. They're going through various retrials and appeals, but the basic question remains:

Should sexual transmission of HIV be a criminal offence?

What about when someone lies about their HIV status in order to get their partner to consent to unprotected sex?

Comments

[zotz]

The law in the UK used to be absolutely clear

It did?

This paper certainly talks about the law and "its current confused state" (this as of 1998).

[lovingboth]

They mention 'Clarence', but don't - IMV - make enough of it:

Husband doesn't tell his wife he's got the clap, she consents to sex, she gets it, she says she'd never have consented if she knew, and he's done for assault. Not guilty, on appeal.

To me, and the Law Commission, it was absolutely clear.

[zotz]

Issues of presumed consent due to marriage were viewed rather differently in 1888. Are you entirely sure that a test case today would be regarded as open and shut? After all, you were allowed certain other things within marriage then that you're not now.

[lovingboth]

There's been a whole series of cases that confirm the basic principle.

To pick one example from the 1990s which refered to Clarence: woman consents to sex after having been promised a) she'll be paid afterwards and b) he'll wear a condom. Neither happen and man admits he never intended either. Verdict, on appeal, not guilty.

[zotz]

And yet the paper cites arguments that it was originally wrong, and the basic thrust about marital consent has been totally undermined by recent developments. It doesn't sound like a clear legal situation to me. It sounds more like a precedent just waiting to be overturned.