Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Man Guilty Of Spreading HIV At Gay Sex Parties
07.31.2008 4:07pm EDT
(Melbourne, Australia) A 49-year-old Melbourne man was convicted Thursday of knowingly spreading HIV to other men
During the five week trial, the court was told that Michael John Neal bragged that he had made “75 people pos.”Neal was originally charged in 2006 with 35 counts, but after the case was made public, dozens of other men went to police.
Prosecutor Mark Rochford told the court that Neal, who was diagnosed in 2000, infected two men with HIV and attempted to infect 14 others.
Rochford said that Neal met the victims in parks and other areas where gays cruise for sex and on the internet.
He allegedly tried to get one victim to help him spread the disease and drugged another man – who is now HIV-positive – because he refused unprotected sex.
Neal had pleaded not guilty. His lawyer said that Neal believed he was not contagious because he immediately began retroviral treatment after being diagnosed. His viral load levels were “undetectable” nine months later. Viral load levels indicate how actively the virus is reproducing.
But Rochford said that Neal knew what he was doing and regularly held “conversion parties” to create more people with HIV so that he could have “bareback sex.”
The jury deliberated for three-and-a-half days, finding Neal guilty on 15 charges, including eight counts of attempting to infect another person with HIV and two counts of rape.
He was acquitted of the additional charges.
When one goes to a sex party, one should assume they will contract at least one virus, fungus or bacteria. There are also hundreds of bottoms out there who request to be seroconverted, for whatever reason, so it’s not entirely the fault of Mr Neal, even though he sounds a little bitter.
Unsafe-sex is a two-way street, unless the person who becomes infected is forced into unsafe sex, which is a criminal offense. People who knowingly enegage in unsafe sex know the risks involved. It is not Mr. Neal responsibility to make thier safe sex choices for them. However, drugging someone and forcing them to have unsafe sex with him is again, another matter entirely.
.. am I radical in thinking that those who engage in unsafe behavior and knowingly acquire STDs or HIV should not get publicly-funded treatment? I mean, should taxpayers pay for their own fuckups?
All You People Probably Did NOT Read The Articke Properly. It says that IF they refused Bareback (Un-Safe sex) Mr. Neal Would Drug Them I Presume With An Infected Needle So Read The Article Before You Stick up For Mr. Neal.
seems fair enough to me…
“…eight counts of attempting to infect another person with HIV and two counts of rape.”
Anyone defending this man needs to seriously examine their moral compass.
CM, since treatment can generally extend life, including working life, for well over a decade, yeah, it’s in our FINANCIAL interests to make sure that all people (our labor force) get treatment, even if it is subsidized.
This is such a disturbing story. Knowingly failing to disclose your positive HIV status with prospective sex partners should be against the law everywhere and I am please that Mr. Neal was successfully prosecuted. I hope that he faces very stiff penalties for the crimes he’s been convicted of. The bottom line remains that HIV is a preventable infection and making the right choices about behaviour makes a difference when it comes to your risks of contracting the virus.
David is right on. Why do such ass holes even take antiretroviral drugs? If they are so happy about being “pos” they should just enjoy their disease, die quickly, and stop trying to infect others for f**k sakes. This story absolutely disgusts me. He should get life in prison.
CM is right! People who take risks shouldn’t be medically treated!!
At least not that “the rest of us”, i.e the public who don’t take risks, have to pay for. Exactly who are “the rest of us” though?
Every time you drive a car you know that there is a certain known risk that you could be seriously, possibly critically injured. Every time someone smokes, there is a known risk of lung disease or cancer. Every time some drinks, there is a known risk for liver disease or a myriad of alcholol related problems.
Every time a police officer goes to work, an electrician fixed a circuit, a marine biologist dives, a soldier deploys, a siesmologist studies a volvcano, a truck driver drives, a crane operator operates heavy equipment.. there are known risks.
Who are “the rest of us”?? We all take risks, all of our behavior is risky either professionally or personally, it’s just a matter of degree.
Oh I almost forgot the doctors and nurses that work with infectious patients, if they get sick with something they should definately not be treated, since they knew it was risky to be around sick people.
The guy in the article, I don’t know. I’m not sure what he did or didn’t do. The article is pretty vauge, I didnt see or hear any forensic (HIV RNA) evidence to support the drugging/infection acusations, it may or may not be actrually true. I’m not defending him, I’m just saying if you werent there or on the jury, then you don’t have the facts.
If you go to a party, sex or otherwise, you have to accept the risks for YOUR behavior. That doesn’t excuse someone elses behavior for example if they assult you.
Unfortunately, these cases are usually decided by emotion. Very few people actually understand HIV and how and when it can be transmitted.
It sounds, from the article, like this guy was non-infectious (yes that is actual science). Which means he could NOT have transmitted HIV even if he wanted to.
Statistically it is actually safer to have unprotected sex with someone who is HIV positive and on ARV therapy because they are non-infectious, than to have unprotected sex with someone who claims to be HIV negative.
(think strep throat, you are infectious for 24 hours after starting treatment or for the duration if you arent treated)
The way the laws are written does not recognize this fact, or give any consideration to safe sex, and favor not being tested like 25% of the HIV positive people in the US.
If you don’t know, you can’t be prosecuted, and you can have unprotected sex with whoever you want and say that you are negative. Doesnt matter that you are HIGHLY infectious!! Scott free.
If you do the right thing, and get tested and turn up positive, then its basically illegal for you to have close social contact. Meet someone in a bar and kiss on the cheek, or touch their chest or face, yep, you can be prosecuted and found guilty of trying to infect someone with HIV.
Doesn’t matter if you use condoms 100% of the time. Doesn’t matter if you disclose or not. Doesn’t matter if you are infectious or not.
The laws were written in the 1980’s when everyone was paranoid and ignorant.
Maintaining those same attitudes is wrong. It’s morally objectionable, factually incorrect, and tantamount to hate and fear mongering.
I believe when engaging in sex with anyone (Male/Female-Straight/Bi/Gay) you should assume that they’re infected. “Protect Yourself” is my moto. Here in USA the number of people infected and being infected every day are staggering. “Sex Parties”, to my knowledge, are not governed by laws, rules of conduct or HIV disclosure policies. These adult theme parties happen all to often and just as people make a choice to attend these gatherings, they also make a choice to engage (protected/unprotected) in the sexual activities available at these parties. In addition, I think that the unlawful act of drugging anyone for any reason is cowardliness and reprehensible…and there are laws and punishments for that type of behavior. In closing, make a choice to “Protect Yourself”…don’t let someone else make that choice for you.
There is an interesting documentary on the phenomenon of “bug chasing”, which was noted in several comments. The documentary is called “The Gift: Does Anyone Die of AIDS Anymore?” from 2003 and directed by Louise Hogarth.
a person whose intent is to spread a disease that is essentially incurable and does so willingly infect other people should be considered a murderer the same way that Dr. Kevorkian is considered a murderer for helping people commit suicide. But Dr. Kevorkian was doing something much more constructive than Mr. Neal.
Oh my gods, this is simply sick, and heart wrenching! Why would another gay man do this to his own brothers?!
Wayne said, “Very few people actually understand HIV and how and when it can be transmitted.
“It sounds, from the article, like this guy was non-infectious (yes that is actual science). Which means he could NOT have transmitted HIV even if he wanted to.
Statistically it is actually safer to have unprotected sex with someone who is HIV positive and on ARV therapy because they are non-infectious, than to have unprotected sex with someone who claims to be HIV negative.”
These words are very dangerous and come from someone who obviously has no concept of the potential for transmission. He cites actual science, yet there is no reputable source for his insane claims that a person with an undetectable viral load cannot transmit HIV. That is FALSE. If a person with HIV has unprotected sex with someone who does not have HIV the person who was HIV negative could become HIV positive. That is actual science that is backed up by numerous (virtually all) reputable medical studies.
Viral load is determined by blood test, which does not necessarily correlate to viral loads that may be in semen or other bodily secretions. Tests that determine viral load may have differing thresholds, so undetectable does not mean nonexistent.
In short, Wayne’s words sound like the kind of crap someone would say if they were trying to convince an unwilling participant into having unprotected sex. Don’t fall for it.