German Pop Star Arrested For Possibly Giving Sex Partner HIV
German pop singer Nadja Benaissa was arrested Tuesday in Frankfurt, Germany, for allegedly having unprotected sex with three men without telling them she is HIV positive. One of the men has tested positive for the virus. In Germany, the law says that anyone convicted of knowingly infecting a person with HIV faces a prison sentence of between six months and 10 years for “grievous bodily harm.” If the victim dies, the sentence can be even greater—up to life imprisonment for manslaughter.
Some AIDS organizations in Germany are up in arms over Benaissa’s arrest, saying that it’s just a witch-hunt that’s made for the tabloids; however, the case does bring attention to how important it is to talk about STDs with sex partners. One of the men involved said he knew nothing of her illness when they slept together back in 2004. We can’t read German, so we can’t figure out whether Benaissa is a Magic Johnson-type figure over there, or whether she kept her infection under wraps from the general public. Even if it was publicly known that she is HIV positive, she shouldn’t have assumed that the men knew.
Right now, Benaissa’s lawyers are saying there is no evidence that she acted in a criminal way, but it will be interesting to see how this plays out if and when it goes to court. Do you think having widespread legal repercussions in the U.S. for giving someone an STD would help stop their spread? [Guardian, BBC, Reuters]


















TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
hemi
wrote on April 15 2009 @ 01:14 pm: [report]
I think that this really shows the importance of safe sex…
lovelygirl
wrote on April 16 2009 @ 02:09 am: [report]
wow….Amazing!! But I saw her profile on std dating site called ** Positivefishes.com ** Unbelievable!!
retro chic
wrote on April 16 2009 @ 07:40 am: [report]
Catherine… I think the German law is a good one—maybe it should be viewed like our boxing or martial arts laws here—your body IS the lethal weapon.
. . .
But, I don’t think that even prospect of prison, personal/public and financial ruin would deter… don’t think it’d pass here. It would be a stretch even with a slam-dunk precedent-setting case… and not as long as there’s the money/celeb factor and gender-biased sex-related laws.
If the costs to process back-logged rape kits aren’t being justified, I don’t see how the costlier genetic/virus mutation ID-ing of the culprit will happen, either. I think our lawmakers and courts mainly pose the question, “Who has the most to gain/lose?”—financially, not morally/ethically, that is.