Hector Scott – HIV sex worker jailed

PBO 16 September 2008 21

The ABC has a report on Hector Scott’s sentencing.

It is bad enough that you cannot get charged with murder in the ACT, but this fiend gets only 2 1/2 months for possibly infecting innocent friends with HIV. I would consider that assault with a deadly weapon because he was aware of his infection and continued on his merry way. When will we get a magistrate with a bit of balls who is not afraid to sentence appropriatly?

Maybe i am a bit right wing on this one but in a situation like this he needs to be locked up and the key thrown away.

UPDATE: The Scarlet Alliance has a novel view on this according to the ABC:

    “I don’t believe anybody was put at risk by Hector Scott in this case – in fact it’s a very poor message for the courts to be sending, that having sex with a HIV positive person is in any way risky.”


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
21 Responses to Hector Scott – HIV sex worker jailed
Filter
Order
lydia lydia 11:12 pm 26 Sep 08

What a strange trail of comments.

The guy was charged for being a sex worker while he had HIV not for knowingly infecting anyone and not for having unprotected sex.

So now HIV positive people should be jailed to make it safe for the rest of us to have unprotected sex without taking any responsibility for our own health.

Sounds a little to me like the ‘send them all off to an island’ hysteria we experienced in the 80’s – maybe some people haven’t moved on from there.

Lydia

jakez jakez 10:00 am 17 Sep 08

Danman said :

Easy to note – if you dont want to get pregnant or an STI/STD – us an orange, not before, not after, but instead of*

*As told by mother of Danman when he was an adolescent.

…A less appealing thing I have never heard.

Danman Danman 8:41 am 17 Sep 08

Simbo – you can still get STD’s using condoms… Crabs, Thrust etc.
Heck – you can still get pregnant using condoms (Assuming its not homosexual sex)

Using condoms minimises risk quite considerably for conception, but there is still inherent risks of catching a STI/STD – because they can be transferred by skin on skin, not just penetration…

Easy to note – if you dont want to get pregnant or an STI/STD – us an orange, not before, not after, but instead of*

*As told by mother of Danman when he was an adolescent.

simbo simbo 8:03 am 17 Sep 08

On my order of priorities, protecting clients of prostitutes who choose to have unsafe sex with them is pretty low.

If you know ANYTHING about HIV, you know that you can’t be certain whether the person you are with is infected or not, barring 6 months of celibacy beforehand and a HIV test (due to the latency involved). Given that Hector was working as a prostitute, assuming 6 months of celibacy is a courageous choice at best.

It is always, always, always your own responsibility to protect yourself from STDs if you’re getting involved with someone. If you don’t want to pick up an STD… wear a condom.

he_whore he_whore 10:32 pm 16 Sep 08

This case has highlighted the need for the current legislation to be reviewed. The difference between knowingly infecting someone and working while being infected are huge, and i presume this is a point that Scarlet Alliance was trying to convey. And there has never been a documented case ever, of a sex worker infecting a client with HIV, yet people still presume every person this man had sex with is at risk of HIV. With all the attention given to this man across Australia and New Zealand, and not one person being infected, we could assume he was using condoms while working.

jakez jakez 9:57 am 16 Sep 08

I-filed said :

The ‘Scarlet Alliance’ sex workers union were scary on radio this morning – they stated that the sentence was too harsh! Note to the johns out there – don’t think the alliance is going to look after its clients or require standards.

Where they talking about the ‘knowingly infected’ charge or the ‘failing to register’ charge?

If the former, oh dear.

Aurelius Aurelius 9:12 am 16 Sep 08

At least if he is in the big house, Bubba wont want him.

mdme workalot mdme workalot 8:37 am 16 Sep 08

I initially thought when comparing this with the six months minimum that young ADFA cadet got for dangerous driving occasioning death, this is a little on the lenient side. However, he has not been charged with knowingly infecting anyone (as Boomacat rightly pointed out) so maybe any prison time at all is a bit harsh?

Thumper Thumper 8:25 am 16 Sep 08

This really is a bit of worry. In essence he has knowingly killed these people.

I-filed I-filed 7:09 am 16 Sep 08

The ‘Scarlet Alliance’ sex workers union were scary on radio this morning – they stated that the sentence was too harsh! Note to the johns out there – don’t think the alliance is going to look after its clients or require standards.

jakez jakez 10:37 pm 15 Sep 08

That’s a very good point circusmind. I forgot about that statutory change.

boomacat boomacat 10:27 pm 15 Sep 08

Was there ever any allegation that he had unprotected sex with his clients?

Perhaps its was only ever that he worked as a sex worker without being registered and whilst HIV positive? Being a sex worker + being HIV positive does not necessarily = going around deliberately trying to infect people with HIV.

And as a footnote – YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR SEXUAL HEALTH. We cannot expect others to take care of this for us. I would personally consider having unprotected sex with a sex worker not a good idea from a sexual health perspective. Always practice safe sex, then it doesn’t matter whether your partner has an STI, you’ll be taken care of.

Blah blah blah, I’ll finish sounding like a Nancy Reagan-esq public service announcement now.

circusmind circusmind 10:16 pm 15 Sep 08

Note, though, that the 3mth sentence is for an offence under s25 of the Prostitution Act.

I’m not sure about the law in the ACT, but some Australian jurisdictions have introduced legislation addressing causing ‘grievous bodily disease’ specifically, and HIV/AIDS can sometimes constitute ‘grievous bodily harm’ and hence be prosecuted under existing criminal law. Aggravated assaults like these can attract years in gaol.

The issue here, though, is that these more serious offences require an intention to cause harm, or recklessness as to causing harm. From the sounds of it, they didn’t have the evidence to substantiate that sort of charge.

The Prostitution Act offence only requires that he knows he has AIDS, and nevertheless has sex with clients. If they can’t establish that he had unprotected sex, then they made a good charging decision to prosecute under the lighter offence.

Granny Granny 8:44 pm 15 Sep 08

Yes, I agree.

RuffnReady RuffnReady 8:39 pm 15 Sep 08

jakez said :

The knowingly infecting charge carries a maximum of six months jail and a $5k fine

That is absolutely ABSURD. Knowingly infecting someone with a potentially fatal disease should be as serious as manslaughter/murder.

Deadmandrinking Deadmandrinking 5:04 pm 15 Sep 08

caf said :

The linked ABC article notes that they couldn’t prove that he had unprotected sex with his clients, which explains a bit. They can only punish what they can prove.

I assume it would have been difficult getting testimonies from the victims.

caf caf 5:01 pm 15 Sep 08

The linked ABC article notes that they couldn’t prove that he had unprotected sex with his clients, which explains a bit. They can only punish what they can prove.

Deadmandrinking Deadmandrinking 4:49 pm 15 Sep 08

Could his own health have been a factor?

jakez jakez 4:27 pm 15 Sep 08

I am going to disagree with you PBO. I don’t think he necessarily should be locked up to do nothing. I think he should be put in the position where he can be of as much economic use as possible (with his liberty deprived) so that those infected can gain some form of restitution.

jakez jakez 4:23 pm 15 Sep 08

In the other Hector thread I expressed confusion as to how someone who causes harm on others can get such a light sentence, while people who don’t harm anyone, can get much worse sentences.

On a similar vein, I just read an old RiotACT thread and a story link. The knowingly infecting charge carries a maximum of six months jail and a $5k fine, while the failing to register charge carries a maximum of 12 months jail and a $10k fine.

So apparently failing to follow Government red tape is a far worse crime than inflicting harm on another. How is that meant to make sense?

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site