Pedophile rapist refuses HIV test, cannot be compelled

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2007-10-28 06:15am

A boy whose rapist refuses HIV tests must undergo harmful treatments

Miriam, whose 10-year-old son was raped repeatedly by a family acquaintance, feels helpless in preventing her son from enduring further suffering.

The authorities suspect the man who raped the 10-year-old boy is HIV positive, but the perpetrator refuses to be tested.

Because the law views administering the HIV test against the convict's will as an abuse of his rights, the boy must undergo a month of damaging and painful medical treatment, in case he was infected.

In Ha'aretz, with video

Mr. Coffee · Post by **Mr. Coffee** » 2007-10-28 11:19am

Easy enough... When one of the other inmates sticks a shank in his pedo ass, test what squirts all over the cell.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2007-10-28 11:57am

Mr. Coffee wrote:Easy enough... When one of the other inmates sticks a shank in his pedo ass, test what squirts all over the cell.

Agreed. "Accidentally" steer his fuckin' nose into a set of bars.

[R_H] · Post by **[R_H]** » 2007-10-28 01:16pm

Why wouldn't inmates undergo blood screening when they arrive in a prison? Would be helpful, seeing as it could improve the safety of the staff (and potentially the inmates as well).

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-10-28 02:01pm

[R_H] wrote:Why wouldn't inmates undergo blood screening when they arrive in a prison? Would be helpful, seeing as it could improve the safety of the staff (and potentially the inmates as well).

Because screening costs money and correctional facilities don't like spending it?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2007-10-28 02:07pm

I'm surprised as well. In many American prisons that sort of screening is mandatory, because knowing who has what is necessary for protecting inmates from each-other.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2007-10-28 02:24pm

But but but 4th amendment! Clearly the founding fathers meant for people to be secure in their person!!! Including their bodily fluids!!! *waves the constitution around frantically*

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2007-10-28 02:27pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:But but but 4th amendment! Clearly the founding fathers meant for people to be secure in their person!!! Including their bodily fluids!!! *waves the constitution around frantically*

I'm no legal schollar, and I really don't know how you'd argue it, but wouldn't making sure an HIV positive prisoner can't infect other prisoners go along with 'promoting the general welfare'?

As an alternative, they could stick the guy in solitary.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-10-28 03:04pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:But but but 4th amendment! Clearly the founding fathers meant for people to be secure in their person!!! Including their bodily fluids!!! *waves the constitution around frantically*

I'm not entirely sure what your point is, but in most US states a rapist will be tested for HIV with or without consent.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2007-10-28 03:52pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:But but but 4th amendment! Clearly the founding fathers meant for people to be secure in their person!!! Including their bodily fluids!!! *waves the constitution around frantically*
I'm not entirely sure what your point is, but in most US states a rapist will be tested for HIV with or without consent.

My opinion is that a a rapist establishes probable cause to test for HIV by the act of rape. I would rule it falls outside the scope of the 4th Amendment upon conviction of the rapist.

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2007-10-28 03:56pm

I'd just add that it's very ironic that the -Israelis- have stronger laws to "protect the rights" of those in their prisons, considering their reputation for arrests and detention.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-10-28 05:07pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:But but but 4th amendment! Clearly the founding fathers meant for people to be secure in their person!!! Including their bodily fluids!!! *waves the constitution around frantically*
I'm not entirely sure what your point is, but in most US states a rapist will be tested for HIV with or without consent.
My opinion is that a a rapist establishes probable cause to test for HIV by the act of rape. I would rule it falls outside the scope of the 4th Amendment upon conviction of the rapist.

That's my point. In most US states it does fall outside that scope.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2007-10-28 05:09pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:But but but 4th amendment! Clearly the founding fathers meant for people to be secure in their person!!! Including their bodily fluids!!! *waves the constitution around frantically*

This took place in the U.S.? I thought it was an Isreali news service.

[R_H] · Post by **[R_H]** » 2007-10-28 05:12pm

So did I. But I doubt an Israeli news service would be reporting an event like this in the US.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2007-10-28 05:16pm

Oh, I see. In that case, its just Keevan overcompensating for his lack of sophisticated education, thought, or socio-political analysis by resorting to broad-brushed smears; what a surprise. My bad.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2007-10-28 05:21pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Oh, I see. In that case, its just Keevan overcompensating for his lack of sophisticated education, thought, or socio-political analysis by resorting to broad-brushed smears; what a surprise. My bad.

Gee, sarcasm and satire just fly right on past you don't they...

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2007-10-28 05:29pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:Oh, I see. In that case, its just Keevan overcompensating for his lack of sophisticated education, thought, or socio-political analysis by resorting to broad-brushed smears; what a surprise. My bad.
Gee, sarcasm and satire just fly right on past you don't they...

No one made an argument implying the U.S. Constitution applied to a foreign case of inmate rights, to say nothing of the jurisprudence of originalism you were mocking. In fact, just about no one - especially U.S. originalists - would argue that U.S. originalist constitutionalism applies to foreign states prcisely because they oppose supranational ideas of constitutionalism or fundamental legal rights that supersede those of the sovereign state. In fact, they regard the U.S. Constitution being a contract binding the participants at the time of ratification, and therefore constitutional jurisprudence must observe the meaning, intent, and/or understanding of the document at the time it was published and ratified. This is exactly why they strongly oppose the citation of foreign legal precedent, so they certainly wouldn't argue the converse in most cases like this.

In short, your "satire" lacked context, insight, or humor. It was, as one becomes accustomed to from a lot of members here, a "look at me" post aiming to exhibit conformity and enthusiasm for the perceived common opinions in lieu of clever, novel analysis or rhetoric. The intelligent members of the board you're aping like Mike provide the latter; yours is the former.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2007-10-28 05:37pm

Not that I condone this in any way shape of form, but speaking as a former correctional officer, I can tell you that this type of information does have a way of leaking out. Most prisoners don't look too kindly on guys who mess around with kids.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2007-10-29 05:27pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:But but but 4th amendment! Clearly the founding fathers meant for people to be secure in their person!!! Including their bodily fluids!!! *waves the constitution around frantically*

watch out for floride...

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2007-10-29 05:30pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:But but but 4th amendment! Clearly the founding fathers meant for people to be secure in their person!!! Including their bodily fluids!!! *waves the constitution around frantically*
watch out for floride...

At least someone gets it

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-10-29 05:37pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:But but but 4th amendment! Clearly the founding fathers meant for people to be secure in their person!!! Including their bodily fluids!!! *waves the constitution around frantically*

What the fuck does that have to do with this story, considering the fact that it took place in Israel?

The_Last_Rebel · Post by **The_Last_Rebel** » 2007-10-29 11:29pm

Eh, drug his food. While he's sleeping go in and draw some blood.

Problem solved.

Eris · Post by **Eris** » 2007-10-30 12:34am

The_Last_Rebel wrote:Eh, drug his food. While he's sleeping go in and draw some blood.

Problem solved.

This avoids the legal issues how? It's quite clear that they could do it if they really wanted to. He's incarcerated after all.

My question is why not test the kid for it, and if he turns up positive submit that to a judge as reason to believe it was from the rapist, and request a warrant to take blood based on probably cause? Same kind of thing they use a breathalyser for, as a precursor to a blood test.

Or am I missing something?

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2007-10-30 12:50am

My question is why not test the kid for it, and if he turns up positive submit that to a judge as reason to believe it was from the rapist, and request a warrant to take blood based on probably cause? Same kind of thing they use a breathalyser for, as a precursor to a blood test.

Or am I missing something?

The antibodies which allow us to test for HIV take a while to show up. Before they do, you'll get a false negative - the official windown is up to six months, though 99% of people have them by 3 months.

Treatment, on the other hand, is presumably easier the closer it occurs to infection. So if the guy doesn't get tested, the family don't want to wait for months before beginning treatment