What do you think about his sentence? Should he have been labelled a "dangerous offender" by the court?

鈥淎n Ontario man convicted of 15 counts of aggravated assault for knowingly exposing women to HIV has been sentenced to 18 years in prison.

The Crown and police had been arguing that Carl Leone, 31, of Windsor, Ont., should be labelled a dangerous or long-term offender, a designation that would have saddled him with tough conditions at the end of his sentence.

Leone had pleaded guilty to 15 counts of aggravated assault in April. He was facing 20 counts before a plea arrangement was made.

Five of Leone's 15 victims are HIV-positive. Some of the victims were drugged and assaulted while unconscious. Others who consented to sexual intercourse said Leone refused to wear a condom.

Under a 1998 Supreme Court ruling, a person who fails to disclose HIV-positive status before having unprotected sexual intercourse can be convicted of aggravated assault and face life in prison.鈥?br>
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/080404/ca...
'Man who spread HIV sentenced to 18 Years'

He was NOT given "dangerous offender" status by the court. However,

"Under a 1998 Supreme Court ruling, a person who fails to disclose HIV-positive status before having unprotected sexual intercourse can be convicted of aggravated assault and face life in prison."

Did the court do the right thing? Why or why not?

That's it? Only 18 years. He spreads an incurable, deadly disease not only to consensual partners, but raped others as well. He is getting off scotch free is my opinion. He shouldn't even have gotten a plea deal. He should be listed a sexual offender because that's exactly what he is!

"Some of the victims were drugged and assaulted while unconscious."

That alone is enough to put him in jail for life. We don't need anymore rapists running around.

cut it off so he can't spread it anymore or just move him to africa to be with his own kind

That's a really tricky question. However, if a person knows that someone is going to commit a crime, and doesn't alert the authorities or try to stop it, he is breaking the law. I think this might apply to oneself, in a way. He knew that his actions could cause great harm, manslaughter, even, and did nothing to mitigate this risk.

On the other hand, he has the right to have sex. And the women, in this case, have the right to choose not to. He didn't rape them. Forcing him to divulge medical info to dates is "iffy". I don't like where this logic takes us. You are not required to divulge your medical history to anyone - unless you are contagious. How "contagious" is HIV, that is what this hinges on.

In the end, though, he's a public health risk. If he had TB and went to a kindergarten and coughed all over the place, we'd be calling for the firing squad. HIV may be struggling with an image problem, but I think that these days, the public is ready to have it treated like other contagious diseases without discriminating against people. Hopefully.

EDIT: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize he had raped some of the women. Lock him up, in that case.

Of course! He's definitely a dangerous offender. I don't even see how it could be argued that he isn't.

Well let's see...he was convicted of raping unconscious people and knowingly infecting them with a fatal illness. Sounds like a dangerous offender to me!

Uh, YEAH!

He KNOWINGLY sentenced those people to death, (not to mention the rapes).

I think people who WILLFULLY spread any kind of contagion should face some sort of rectitude, like that guy with the anti-biotic resistant TB getting on a plane "because he had a wedding to go to."

They're sociopaths.

Also...DO people have a "right to sex?" Do people have a right to UNPROTECTED sex? I think this goes back to "your rights end where someone else's begins." He removed "choice" from the equation when he did not divulge his illness.

If YOUR "right to sex" (???) is going to interfere with someone's LIFE, I think you have the OBLIGATION to "divulge." And this should be a LEGAL obligation. WILLFULLY endangering the life and health of others is criminal negligence, along the same lines as driving drunk, or EVEN poisoning someone. In the law, intent is everything, and this guy's intent was to cause harm to others, plain and simple.

Yes, he should definitely be labeled a dangerous offender.

It's awful. The guy has some serious problems and I don't think women are safe with him out on the streets. At least for now everyone knows what he looks like, but when he gets out he could change his name and have a new look, and have a whole new crop of victims.

And for the love of god Guns Fan, can you never answer a question without adding no matter what women have gone through some man has it worse? I mean seriously, what is you're issue with women??? Did your mom refuse you boob milk or something?

Take away the instances of rape. and even take away the law of having unprotected sex.

Protected sex or not, you are carrying an infectous, fatal disease. How is it any different than injecting someone with an illness with a syringe.

I can not believe someone argued that the woman had the choicew or not to sleep with him. Do you think if he divulged the information that she still would have.

IMO every thing he did here was criminal.

Anyone exposed to HIV by this man and later dies will get him murder charges. No statute of limitations on murder. To bad Canada won't execute. Send him to TX., if the state won't kill him, the inmates will!

He should definitely get charged with aggravated assault for the rape. I don't know if that's the term I'd use for knowingly spreading HIV, but he should get punished for that, too. You'd think everyone with HIV would have enough sense to let future partners know, but this guy is obviously tetched in the head.

Sound fair to me, at least the guy actually served jail time; whereas a woman(Marry Winkler) who killed her husband only have to spend 210 days in prison.