PDA

View Full Version : sentence too lenient?


keithd
19-06-06, 03:48 PM
LONDON (Reuters) - A woman was jailed for 36 months on Monday for deliberately infecting a man with HIV.

Sarah Jane Porter, 42, was sentenced at Inner London Crown Court after admitting grievous bodily harm.

One of her victims, a 36-year-old man, said she did not reveal she was HIV positive and encouraged him into having unprotected sex.

In May 2005 he contacted police who tracked down some of Porter's lovers.
One of them, a man aged 31, is HIV positive.

Forensic tests, carried out during a year-long investigation by police, proved that Porter, from Kennington, was the source.

Porter, who refused to help detectives track down her victims, deliberately led these men into a potentially lethal nightmare, said Detective Sergeant Brian McClusky of Brixton police.

"Once found, we were then introducing them (her victims) to a potential nightmare," McClusky said in a statement issued after the court hearing.

"It is hard to comprehend how or why Porter set about this deliberate chain of events. She gave us no help to identify potential victims throughout the investigation."

Porter will serve half of her sentence in jail and the rest on licence

her "victim" will die of the disease at some point. and she did it intentionally. an 18 month jail term is her punishment.....

Skip
19-06-06, 03:54 PM
Dispicable - the charge should be manslaughter.... :evil:

UlsterSV
19-06-06, 04:02 PM
Manslaughter? I'd say it was murder. 18 months is ridiculous.

Jabba
19-06-06, 04:02 PM
Dispicable - the charge should be manslaughter.... :evil:

Hmmmm......not all HIV infections develop into full-blown AIDS. There's no saying that anyone will die because of this.



However, to my mind, the sentence does seem lenient. Can't help thinking that there's nothing to stop her "offending" again once out on licence.

falc
19-06-06, 04:07 PM
Just saw this on the news KeithD and it seems nothing, theres no word on how many people she has infected and then how many people they infected and so on. She could be the cause of so many deaths and she gets a little over a year in jail.

Stuff like this is just sick, they may not develop full blown AIDS but they will be on drugs and so on forever and never be able to have children and many other consequences, its sick.

Peter Henry
19-06-06, 04:31 PM
Sounds just the kind of girl every mother wants her son to bring home!

Remove all future medication from her that is what I suggest. :evil:

cuffy
19-06-06, 04:35 PM
Falc...didn't you have to get tested after your accident with the lorry???


Was found to be HGV positive :roll: ....TAXI FOR CUFFY

Only kiddin fella :wink:

falc
19-06-06, 04:45 PM
Falc...didn't you have to get tested after your accident with the lorry???


Was found to be HGV positive :roll: ....TAXI FOR CUFFY

Only kiddin fella :wink:

:shock: very bad :lol:

Anonymous
19-06-06, 05:17 PM
well he should have said no to unprotected sex. he has a part to play in this too. not that i agree with what she did

Jabba
19-06-06, 05:33 PM
Falc...didn't you have to get tested after your accident with the lorry???


Was found to be HGV positive :roll: ....TAXI FOR CUFFY

Only kiddin fella :wink:

:shock: very bad :lol:

Yeah - that wasn't very articulate.




TAXI FOR JABBA :roll:

Speedy
19-06-06, 05:44 PM
In my humble opinion,She has potentially issued death sentence's for the people she had unprotected sex with.

I agree that the 'victims' had a choice to use contraceptives (condoms) and they chose not too.

BUT

I bet they wouldn't have 'slept' with her at all had they known she was HIV positive!

And that is the issue. She lured them into a trap,where they could suffer a long and nasty death,which ultimately she may suffer too.

As for the sentence,FAR too lenient,should be life I think.

Tara
19-06-06, 07:15 PM
Yeah unprotected sex is supposed to be a no no in this day and age (we had it drummed into us at school and on tv and in magazines when i was growing up)
but that Thing deliberately went out and infected guys - manslaughter is what she should've got

Jabba they might not develop aids but think about it you have to declare that on practically every form these days plus like others have said tablets for the rest of their lives - their lifestyles will change significantly and what about if they want kids all the screening they have to go through

Hang her

Speedy
19-06-06, 09:09 PM
Yeah unprotected sex is supposed to be a no no these days

Yeah but lots of people take stupid risks,I bet there aren't many that can honestly say they have ALWAYS been sensible,Men and Women.

Jabba they might not develop aids but think about it you have to declare that on practically every form these days plus like others have said tablets for the rest of their lives - their lifestyles will change significantly and what about if they want kids all the screening they have to go through

Hang her

Even if you get tested for HIV,I think,so don't quote me on this,you have to declare THAT too,which will affect Mortgages,EVERYTHING!

Hang her? Well I support the death penalty,so wont comment any further on that.

Ping
19-06-06, 09:21 PM
If you know you have the disease and can potentially infect others but do it anyway, you ARE guilty.

She has ruined lives and potentially the lives of others completely innocent of whatever she deemed her victims deserving of, so life it should be.

There is no excuse.

Jabba
19-06-06, 09:24 PM
Yeah Jabba they might not develop aids but think about it you have to declare that on practically every form these days plus like others have said tablets for the rest of their lives - their lifestyles will change significantly and what about if they want kids all the screening they have to go through


True, but my comment was made after manslaughter/murder remarks and I was just saying that no-ones actually died (yet) so those charges couldn't be brought.

Not seen/read the news but I suspect she/it's been charged with ABH or GBH?

Ed
19-06-06, 09:24 PM
I can't understand why. Why deliberately try to infect someone else with ANY disease? Is it because she feels so angry that she wants to make others suffer? Defeats me. She must be completely screwed up.

As for the sentence - no of course it isn't long enough :evil:

the_runt69
19-06-06, 10:10 PM
Yeah unprotected sex is supposed to be a no no in this day and age (we had it drummed into us at school and on tv and in magazines when i was growing up)[quote]
16 year old daughter was watching Jeremy Kyle this morning and there was a 16 year old on there who wanted here 48 year old boyfriend back. Seems he got to shag her for a few vodka's without protection. Then when he wasnt about she had a quickie with some of his mates again without protection for a few more vodka's. Whenshe was asked why she didnt use protection she said that the blokes she went with didnt like using them. another stupid bint who has a death wish sleeping with some selfish blokes.

H

the_runt69
19-06-06, 10:11 PM
B*gger got the qoute round the wrong way

H

Biker Biggles
20-06-06, 11:13 AM
It's a legal loophole.They did her for GBH as they could make that stick,but murder or manslaughter were never on as no one has died.The other charge I can think of is attempted murder,and I guess they did'nt feel confident of getting a guilty verdict.
To my mind someone who deliberately tries to kill others should be every bit as guilty as someone who tries and suceeds.Hence the result should be life.

northwind
20-06-06, 12:07 PM
If you know you have the disease and can potentially infect others but do it anyway, you ARE guilty.


Yeah, but guilty of what? Potential murder? It's fine to want her done for something, I totally agree, but there's got to be actual legal justification for it too. I wonder, if they die in a decade will it be murder then? Or do we need a new offence? "Causing death by dangerous ****ing"

Tara
20-06-06, 12:17 PM
Having just read about the case in the paper and in answer to the question

Yes the sentence is too lenient

Mogs
20-06-06, 12:43 PM
Following the logic - if a terrorist were to release anthrax into the tube system, and thankfully no fatalities, then the charge would also be GBH.

Far too lenient!

northwind
20-06-06, 05:22 PM
Following the logic - if a terrorist were to release anthrax into the tube system, and thankfully no fatalities, then the charge would also be GBH.


Well, no, there's other offences that they could be done under, various terrorism and conspiracy things. But in your example, would you say they shold be done for murder because someone might have died?

Peter Henry
20-06-06, 05:30 PM
Well I still think that she is a very naughty girl. Just how many fellas have seen her belly button now anyway? :? :shock: