Posted on Jan 30, 2016
Should being HIV-positive AND having unprotected sex, when ordered not to, be punishable under the UCMJ?
168K
392
75
15
15
0
REPORT: WASHINGTON
Gavin B. Atchak’s commanding officer...ordered him to avoid unprotected sex after Atchak tested positive for HIV in 2011. The officer also directed Atchak, an enlisted man....to inform future sex partners that he carried the virus that can cause AIDS. Atchak disobeyed and engaged in unprotected oral and anal sex with...http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/crime/article57147868.html
Gavin B. Atchak’s commanding officer...ordered him to avoid unprotected sex after Atchak tested positive for HIV in 2011. The officer also directed Atchak, an enlisted man....to inform future sex partners that he carried the virus that can cause AIDS. Atchak disobeyed and engaged in unprotected oral and anal sex with...http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/crime/article57147868.html
Sexual Assault
UCMJ
Law
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 50
23
23
0
16
16
0
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS Knowingly having unprotected sex without informing your partner if you have HIV is a crime. (Criminal transmission of HIV).
(16)
(0)
10
10
0
At issue is that this Airman was given an order that he did not follow. Legal gymnastics around aggravated assault aside, disobeying a lawful order is punishable under UCMJ. And there would have been a lot of counts.
Morally, this Airman's behavior is reprehensible. Not informing sexual partners that you have an infectious disease that if contracted will likely result in their death is not acceptable. He did it purposely so that he could continue to enjoy an active sex life without regard to the health and safety of his partners.
Morally, this Airman's behavior is reprehensible. Not informing sexual partners that you have an infectious disease that if contracted will likely result in their death is not acceptable. He did it purposely so that he could continue to enjoy an active sex life without regard to the health and safety of his partners.
(10)
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
1SG (Join to see) therein lies the conundrum--their 'private' condition and criminal conduct puts others in mortal danger. I support publishing such lists so that everyone is equally warned not to have unprotected sex with the infected person, which is what a trial has effectively done anyway.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS - The difference is that a trial discloses what an infected person has done criminally, while publishing a list of HIV-positive individuals stigmatizes what they MIGHT do.
There is a very big difference.
There is a very big difference.
(1)
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
I see it as protecting society from what others are known to and have already done--disregard the lives of others, as you articulated earlier. Does one's privacy trump the risk to the lives of many? I think not. Great discussion, BTW...thanks for sharing.
(1)
(0)
SPC Eric Cunningham
Yes, it does. Rights, from privacy to the right to bear arms to the right to free speech extend as far as the actions are not used for harm. You cannot strip that right simply because of the POSSIBILITY that they may use it to harm people. If that were the case, we can strip litterally any right from anybody for any reason. This is the United States of America - we do due process and have a system built around punishing those who choose to do harm and only those people.
(1)
(0)
8
8
0
7
7
0
yes, we have idiots in the military who don't care or who want to punish society that we also have in the civilian sector. Look at the lawsuits and prison terms in the west and I am sure there is imprisonment and fines for idiots like that.
(7)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
and if the military goes forward with including transgenders in the service, watch what happens when a male to female, who keeps his male genitals, continues to be gay and gets aids or HIV..If I were the commander, I would say he/she/it is unfit for duty and a hazard to itself and others...chapter him out for article 134 or what is appropriate...
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
isn't HIV making you nondeployable anyway and subject to getting medically boarded out? If the person has 18 years or more, keep him/her in and let them finish their 20 years.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
This scumbag has shown a willful disregard for the safety of his sex partners; his actions are immoral and criminal. He should be tried, convicted, and then taken out back and shot.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
3
3
0
3
3
0
I guess I've been out too long. Prior to my retirement in 2007, We were periodically tested for HIV, and if one tested positive, that started a process (verification, etc.) that had the service member separated. This was not a long process either.
Since the question was raised, I assume this has changed.
So my answer is yes, with a qualifier. I don't think the commander has the authority to deny sexual contact, but the commander could/should require the SM to notify their partner of their condition. This is based on the logic that it should be the same for any communicable disease (e.g., TB, herpes). I also believe it's the law. Civilians have been sent to jail for knowing they have HIV, TB, etc., but not telling their sexual partner.
Since the question was raised, I assume this has changed.
So my answer is yes, with a qualifier. I don't think the commander has the authority to deny sexual contact, but the commander could/should require the SM to notify their partner of their condition. This is based on the logic that it should be the same for any communicable disease (e.g., TB, herpes). I also believe it's the law. Civilians have been sent to jail for knowing they have HIV, TB, etc., but not telling their sexual partner.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google