On Saturday,
Johnson Aziga was found guilty on two counts of first-degree murder for infecting two women, now dead, with HIV. Rosie Dimanno's
summarizes the judgement neatly in the
Toronto Star.
On Saturday, after deliberating for three days, a Hamilton jury found Aziga guilty on two counts of first-degree murder, 10 counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of attempted aggravated sexual assault.
It was a historic verdict: The first time in Canada – or anywhere in the world, as far as the prosecution is aware – that a criminal case involving the reckless transmission of HIV has resulted in a murder conviction.
Deliberate, without prophylactic protection, done in full awareness that infection of others might result, withholding his HIV-positive status and repeatedly denying his condition to sexual partners who inquired.
Two of those women subsequently died from AIDS-related lymphoma, their videotaped testimony--given shortly before they passed away--played for the jury.
Five other women have tested positive for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Four more women have tested negative. But it's still aggravated sexual assault because, as the Crown successfully argued, valid consent cannot be given when information about a partner's diagnosed HIV-positive status has been withheld.
There is an obligation, legally and morally, to disclose.
Aziga did not tell and, further, denied it when directly quizzed by girlfriends who were persuaded to cease using condoms.
The two women who died, further, did so in part because their HIV status went undetected long enough for them to develop fatal AIDS-related cancers.
The evidence entered into court suggests that Aziga was quite aware of his HIV status, not only (as Dimanno points out) having been repeatedly counselled on safer sex and warned not to engage in unprotected intercourse, but actively convincing some of his sexual partners to forego using condoms on the grounds that he was HIV-negative.
Aziga was diagnosed with HIV in 1996. He received counselling from medical staff on both safe sex practices and his legal obligation to disclose positive status to sexual partners. Fully educated about the virus, Aziga nevertheless continued his reckless behaviour before and after separating from his wife. Twice he was issued with orders under the Health Protection and Promotion Act to abstain from sex involving penile penetration unless he disclosed his HIV and wore a latex condom "from onset of erection."
I think, mostly, that Aziga's conviction is a step foward, just as I felt
back in 2005, that someone who knowingly infects another person with an incurable and potentially lethal virus without the other party's knowing should be brought up on criminal charges. This applies to only a very small minority of HIV-positive people: Up to half of all HIV transmissions
occur immediately after the first person was infected, before antibodies to HIV even show up, and the HIV-positive people I do know are quite responsible in relation to other people. Individuals like Aziga who evidence depraved indifference to human life would be the only people brought up on charges. There's still the possibility that these wouldn't be the only people, though, and the point of the
Canadian AIDS Society that it could discourage people from receiving treatment or letting their partners know about their infection.
What do you think?