I certainly think there should be a way to do this. But I have read a lot on these boards about concerns for privacy and government intrusion without a sufficient showing of "wrongdoing" by the person being "spied on." I have also read about how the government shouldn't be intruding into the doctor's office, and interfering in the doctor-patient relationship, in contexts such as abortion.
So what do you think? I personally think that there are circumstances where protecting the victim of an alleged rape would justify this, even in (some) circumstances where the person was not yet convicted of a crime. Just as there are circumstances where protecting against terrorism (Patriot Act) and protecting the unborn (abortion) may mean that some degree of intrusion is necessary.
Are you an absolutist on this? Do you oppose one, but favor another, type of "domestic surveillance?" Why? Or is it just a matter of safeguards in each case - that the devil's in the details? Seems similar.
2007-06-14 01:14:42 · 11 answers · asked by American citizen and taxpayer 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Interesting answers, guys. I understand your position.
I wonder what a woman would say? I hope we find out.
I guess they could say it's not a penalty - being tested - but just to protect others. But how would that be different from the other examples I brought
up? Again, maybe it's the degree of procedural safeguards in each case.
I would hate to have a rape victim go through the mental anguish of not knowing.
2007-06-14 01:21:54 · update #1
PS I misspelled "those" in the title. I need my coffee. :)
2007-06-14 01:22:27 · update #2
"The Patriot Act doesn't overrule the Constitution."
I agree 100%. It was not intended to.
2007-06-14 01:31:29 · update #3
I believe this is an actual issue in the NY area - I heard it on the radio.
What is the ACLU position?
2007-06-14 01:41:40 · update #4
Many interesting answers! Thanks.
2007-06-14 03:37:03 · update #5
Yes. The person that needs to be protected is the victim not the criminal. Too often the judicial system is worried about the rights of the accused and ignores the rights of the abused.
2007-06-14 02:00:56 · answer #1 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm not sure I support mandatory testing for an alleged rapist. There is that innocent until proven guilty issue to consider. If someone is convicted of rape, then I would be supportive of mandatory testing for communicable diseases, not just AIDS. There have been cases of attempted murder filed against people who knowingly have AIDS and continue to have unprotected sex. That is certainly something that should be considered if a rapist does so knowing that he has AIDS.
I believe that rape victims are given testing for several sexually transmitted diseases and are given immediate prophylactic treatment. It's a time of great turmoil for the victim anyway. Having to contend with the issues from the rape, then the possibility of pregnancy and/or a deadly disease, is more than some people can handle.
Having said all of that, I don't think the government should be allowed access to a person's private medical records. Nor do they have the right to intrude into my personal life. What you suggest would take a legal enactment that would have various opposition, so wouldn't be easily accomplished.
2007-06-14 08:24:31 · answer #2 · answered by Livie 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If convicted then information should be released not just charged as innocent till proven guilty is more important and a constitutional guarantee. There is always the risk of someone alleging rape, the person be innocent yet get ridiculed if HIV positive status comes out into public view and suffers as a result. That isn't right either.
2007-06-14 08:40:56 · answer #3 · answered by kyghostchaser2006 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think they should after conviction along with a front page spread of whom ever did this crime for the whole world to see because i bet its not the first time. If he has aids everyone he has touched needs to know.
2007-06-14 08:30:13 · answer #4 · answered by margie s 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If a man is accused of rape, and they can prove by dna that he did it--or other undeniable proof--, he should be tested for any kind of sexually transmitted disease.
At least the victim can try to find the right drugs to give her a longer life, or even counteract the virus by early treatment.
2007-06-14 08:21:27 · answer #5 · answered by henry d 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think that a person should only be tested if he/she has actually been convicted of the crime. After all, a suspect is innocent until proven guilty.
2007-06-14 09:32:57 · answer #6 · answered by tangerine 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It's a constitutional issue. You can't compel someone to give evidence against themselves.
BTW, the Patriot Act doesn't overrule the constitution.
2007-06-14 08:29:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
i agree that anyone convicted of a sex crime should be tested for any STD. i would also have to agree with the person being charged for at least attempted murder if they have HIV or AIDS.
2007-06-14 08:25:15 · answer #8 · answered by Angela F 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would say yes but only after a conviction. Not just an acusation.
2007-06-14 08:17:41 · answer #9 · answered by bildymooner 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Accused no.
Convicted, yes.
2007-06-14 08:18:01 · answer #10 · answered by Jeff S 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋