I am adamantly against punitive measures for most crimes. I believe in rehabilitation over punishment, education over propaganda. Unfortunately I’m a minority in this belief.

I appreciate you seeing my way with words.. I know I can be tricky in my arguments. I’ve been told that I’m unusual with the way that I define words. Semantics interests me. I see many parallels in the ways that we restrict ourselves with the use of language and the ways that we can’t seem to find more creative solutions away from archaic traditions such as the judicial system. Anyway, thanks to you as well for being a tactful engager.

Reading back over the last few entries that I didn’t respond to, specifically from Tina, Solo and Stephanie, in the context of SUSAN O.’s entry, I’m feeling obligated to take it on again.

Our argument about personal responsibility vs. laws regulating behaviors was incomplete, I feel. One overall point that I failed to make clearly is that we have not gotten to a point, socially or scientifically where we can, without a shadow of a doubt, prove that someone knowingly infected another person with a disease. Unless we’re talking about someone using needles to stab people or rape, I don’t see how anyone can justify a systemic process by which we criminalize people for exchanging bodily fluids or as Tina seems to be hinting toward, promiscuity.

I can’t give a lesson on oppression here and so won’t be able to make up for the ignorance of anyone reading this blog, but sexual promiscuity, while very likely being immoral in many peoples beliefs, is not a crime, nor should it be a crime in a “free” society. We supposedly live in that “free” society which means EVERYone (with the exception of some convicted criminals and, as I mentioned before, rape victims) has the opportunity to free will. This means that BOTH parties involved in ANY relationship or “intimate” exchange have the ability and “freedom” to choose whether or not they want to be there.

Now in the case of SUSAN O., I will envelope my opinion by saying that I do feel for you and I think it’s really shitty that you have to experience what you are experiencing. I think that based on the information you gave here, your husband is an ass and deserves what he gets… But, you did choose to marry him. You also chose to stay in the marriage. I may be making some grand, insensitive assumptions here and maybe I’m an ass by thinking there were probably some indications that your husband wasn’t trust worthy. Maybe on the surface he was a complete saint, an expert at deception. If that is the case, I think it is the exception to the rule and I think you should sue him and I hope you get an shit-load of money. But I don’t think that makes him a criminal, just a lying piece of shit that should lose his reputation, his money and his worth. But the system isn’t in place for that. The community may be. Which is why we have free will. We have the opportunity to live in a community that honors this sort of moral obligation. And if we don’t honor that sense of morality, we live somewhere else. Unfortunately, I’m making this seem all so simple and clean when the reality is, it’s not. We all deal with tragedy and strife in some way, at some point in our lives. Some, more than others. But the bottom line is, it’s part of life. If we didn’t have it, what would we contrast with the good? Can it all be good, all the time?

I agree that the women involved should take responsibility for their actions; after all, it takes two to tango. However, Mr. Richardson is very smooth and highly persuasive, not to mention extremely intelligent. He knew what he was doing and he did it deliberately. People like that should be punished.

This may seem irrevelent given the topic at hand, But really, how is it much different, an entity wants something (profit vs pleasure)
that entity has something to hide (the explosions vs AIDS)
and someone dies as a result