20 January 2008

Gigolo spreads the man love and more

| Kramer
Join the conversation

The ABC reports local male prostitute, Hector Scott of Kingston (hello Google), has appeared in court on charges of knowingly infecting someone with a STD. Allegedly, even though he knew (or should have known) that he had a STD he continued his “service”, and he was also operating without being registered.

According to this CT story the respective maximum penalties are 6 months jail and a $5000 fine, and 12 months jail and a $10,000 fine. I can understand that a gigolo has to earn a living, but considering he could be effectively ending someone’s life, shouldn’t the penalties be higher? Perhaps the same penalty as manslaughter, and maybe also castration?

Join the conversation

All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments

My mate was pushed off a bridge to his death by a mate in a drunken argument that went way too far. In reference to your query of whether or not sentences should resemble those of manslaughter? The mate that did the pushing was convicted with an 18 month gaol sentence, with merely nine mandatory.

The issue is not with a lack of strict punishment in any one area of the law. The entire justice system is weak, flawed and easily bent at the will of members of the court and jury. However, this then raises the question as to how far you will go to ensure security. you heighten the sentence for one thing, and the rest must follow. Who would ensure that human liberty is still adhered to?

What this man did is inexcusable and sick. To act without any consideration for human life is, in fact, one aspect of the definition of manslaughter. But as we can see, that doesn’t help us anyway.

The health departments attention seeking actions with the Hector Scott issue, and the baseless, sensational headlines and stories in the media have succeeded in the victimisation of this guy and perpetuated the beliefs and stereotypes people have of HIV and sex workers.

The health department considered this incident to be a public health issue, which excused the department from following the communicable diseases procedure. The knowingly infecting charge was misleading and eventually (should be)dismissed when there was no evidence or victims to support the at risk behaviours Hector was accused of engaging in.

The previous postings on this case discussing knowingly infecting, castration and lynch mobs should have people questioning their values and beliefs. Considering the latest data and studies, 10% of people with HIV are undiagnosed, and responsible for 40% of new notification every year. People need to start taking responsability for their own sexual health and choices. The number of clients seeking “natural french services”, oral without a condom is out of control and should be addressed appropriately in legislation.

I’m sure there’s about 250 people who’d be quite happy to form up a posse and go a lynch’n.

It looks like he’s been charged with knowingly infecting someone with an STD

Correct, And the fact he is not registered as a sex worker.

(looks at charge)
It looks like he’s been charged with knowingly infecting someone with an STD.
The fact that he has HIV in the first place is not in question. Why hide the illness if what’s in dispute is the fact he’s spread it around?

Not really odd, thats how courts work. Usually they have governance over allegations/facts until the case has been completed and there is not a shadow of a doubt that the allegations are fact.

Mate of mine in the local media says they knew about it on the 18th when this guy was first up in court, but were told not to report about it because of ‘privacy regulations’.
That’s a bit odd…

neanderthalsis4:55 pm 30 Jan 08

Knowingly spreading HIV should, in my opinion carry a charge of attempted murder. If he has spread it, then those affected are facing a death sentence.

What I don’t understand is how are they going to gauge if the person they are phoning is a previous client from a business or even a wrong number?

I don’t see how they’d bring up the subject?

So much for practicing safe sex!

My mistake, so he does have HIV…

I’m sure I read in the CT when the story first ran that it wasn’t HIV and they are unsure if he was servicing male clients. They also had a photo of him, I can’t believe people actually paid him money.

Re: initial comment on this article:
From http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/30/2150033.htm
Charged sex worker has HIV: ACT Health

Article body:
ACT Health has confirmed Canberra sex worker Hector Scott has HIV…

A hotline – 1800 678 805 – has been set up for anyone who may have had contact with the man who advertised under the names Adam and Josh.

Apparently up to 250 people may have been affected. 😐

If you can’t get a 41 year old man for free, you’re really not trying…

I thought that was the idea of paying for sex though – you can’t get what you’re after for free : )

LOL he’s 41 and people pay him for sex – his clients must be desperate!!!

… or is he still being held?

So, has he been “discharged” by the Court?

A slap on the wrist? That’s a bit limp.

Perhaps a slap on the wrist with a carton of viagra.

Stiff penalty – he had it coming to him, and he should take it like a man!

He should get a stiff penalty.

Holden Caulfield9:40 am 21 Jan 08

Publish whatever STD this guy has got, and then comment.

Not that it will matter, he’ll get a slap on the wrist. Afterall, in this town you can steal a car, kill someone, and walk away.

A slap on the wrist?

That’s a bit limp.

I am wondering how many faces went pale across the breakfast table on Saturday morning…

Simbo – I’m not trying to start a lynch posse, I’m just suggesting that the laws & penalties need to be reviewed – or at least discussed.

BTW who ever suggested anyone on RiotACT had any “journalistic responsibility”? 🙂

Anyone deliberately spreading STIs is a lowlife – but this has nothing to do with being a sex worker.

Sex workers statistically have lower rates of infection than the general population – I mean, think about it, their bits are their livelihoods.

People need to take responsibility for their own s-xual health. Of course none of us are perfect and we all take stupid risks from time to time, but if a person has unprotected s-x with a s-x worker then the chance of contracting an STD is pretty obvious.

Pandy – I disagree that this is g@y bashing, a s-x worker allegedly knowingly transmitting an STD would be make news irrespective of his/her gender/s-xuality. Does the news article actually say it was a homos-xual worker?

And with regards to the offence a person convicted of such conduct would be liable for, in NSW there is a “causing a previous bodily disease” offence tailored to those kinds of circumstances, there might even be a similar provision in an ACT health Act, or it might be that it would fall within the ordinary “GBH” offence, I read something about it once but I couldn’t be bothered doing the research to provide a proper answer on that. Blah blah blah, sorry brain is like swiss cheese today.

That court order is only the ACT? Maybe someone from Qbn can fill us on the details before this guy gets the ACT tar and feathers applied.

idea_authority7:19 pm 20 Jan 08

Even if only the major STDs like AIDS and Hep can lead to fatality or chronic illness, many of them can have long tern effects on health. Some can cause lasting effects to ones reproductive system, even leading to miscarriage which one could consider to be ending the life of an unborn child.

But manslughter is an odd thing to charge this person with as it would normally apply to actually ending someones life, not just infecting them with an illness. If its AIDS or one of the big ones, then I think depending on the victims condition and prognoses, perhaps manslaughter is appropriate. If it is a mor minor one that could cause long term health effects, the Actual grevous bodily harm would be more in order. I do think the law should be changed to actually specify such a thing as a crime and provide solutions for the courts that better suit the range of results of someone deliberately or negligently infecting someone with an STD.

Ingeegoodbee7:07 pm 20 Jan 08

I read over the weekend that the actual disease couldn’t be reported because of a court imposed gag, so it seems that there’s some judicial reason for keeping people in the dark.

This is a case of gay bashing.

Would not be reported if it was a woman.

I don’t think the penalty should be the same as manslaughter, since STDs rarely end someone’s life.

The announcement did come with his trading names (he’s advertised under the names of “Adam” and “Josh”), and there’s a hotline (1800 678 805) for anybody who’s dealt with him and is concerned about what the possibilities may be.

Perhaps, Kramer, informing the affected public about a dramatic issue might be considered a more important journalistic responsibility than trying to start a lynching posse?

So what’s this guy got? This ‘serious sexually transmitted disease’ could be AIDS. Or Chlamydia. What is it??? I can’t find the information anywhere

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.