Life in prison for exposing woman to HIV

[cokaine]

Man sentenced to life in prison for exposing woman to HIV
http://www.kmov.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8PNNUF00.html


 Kansas City, Mo., man who spent five years in jail for exposing sexual partners to HIV was sentenced Tuesday to life in prison for knowingly exposing another woman to the virus.

Sean L. Sykes, 33, was found guilty of having unprotected sex with a St. Joseph woman without telling her he was HIV-positive. Testimony at his trial — which was closed to the public to protect witnesses — indicated that he had exposed at least eight women to HIV. At least three have tested positive.

[RapidRod]

Good place for him.

[dixieman]

Responsibility? I find no problem with his conviction and yet... What about this woman and women having sex and not practicing safe sex? Lets get real... it takes two to tango. Just a thought.

[DanielMark]

Kansas City, Mo., man who spent five years in jail for exposing sexual partners to HIV was sentenced Tuesday to life in prison for knowingly exposing another woman to the virus.

What a fine specimen of species. I can taste a little vomit in my throat now.

[aztecan]

OK, I am editing this because I finally went back and read the news story.

""It's not an immediate death sentence," said assistant prosecutor Kathleen Fisher, "but that's what he's done to these people, his victims."
"A 29-year-old woman who contracted HIV in the mid-1990s after having sex with Sykes testified at the sentencing hearing that her life had been destroyed by the virus.
"The mother of two children — neither of whom has (sic) tested positive for the disease — said doctors have given her about two years to live.
""My family has left me — they're scared of me," she said. "When I found out that Sean was on trial again for this, it drove me crazy. The main question is why? Why is he doing this?"
"Prosecutors said Sykes began having a sexual relationship with a St. Joseph woman in 2004, never telling her that he had HIV.
"Sykes contended at his trial that the woman knew he was HIV-positive. He apologized Tuesday for his behavior.
""I will admit my behavior in the early '90s, and up until my first conviction, was not appropriate," he said. "Even though (the St. Joseph woman) was aware of my status, I should have seen nothing good would come as far as a sexual relationship."


OK, this sheds a bit of a different light on this. First, the guy said the woman knew his status. If that is true, he should not be sent to prison, or not for life, anyway.

The prognosis for the woman infected in the 90s is interesting. I wonder where they got that from. I know HIV care in the south is bad, but why is this woman being told what many of us were told back in the mid 80s?

Don't get me wrong. Knowingly exposing someone to HIV is wrong, especially if the positive person doesn't disclose. But folks, barebacking is barebacking, regardless of whether it is a couple of men or a mixed-sex couple.

Each person is responsible for their own health and these women should not have participated without proper protection.

Just my 2 cents worth.

HUGS,

Mark

[zeb]

Mark,

Your wise words... I always appreciate them!

Zeb

[Ulong]

Don't get me wrong. Knowingly exposing someone to HIV is wrong, especially if the positive person doesn't disclose. But folks, barebacking is barebacking, regardless of whether it is a couple of men or a mixed-sex couple.

Uh, women (and hetero men too) must "bareback" to become pregnant. I'm not saying that this was the motivation for these women who were his sex partners. However, I find the Everybody Should Know Their Partner's Status And Always Use Protection!!!  message severely lacking in reality from a female point of view. Matter of fact, the entire ABC approach so favored by the right-wing (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Use Condoms) has done little to protect women. By the previous definition here, we can either be responsible and protect ourselves from HIV, or populate the earth. Not both.

Good place for him.

I'll take the RapidRod line on this one. And add my good wishes that the guy drops the soap around someone who doesn't mind barebacking a pos guy.

[tigger2376]

By very definition, some of us, male or female contracted HIV by not using condoms. In my case the guy who infected me knew he was positive BUT I chose not to, (or was too pissed 2) use protection, for whatever reasons. Yes, I think this guy in the news story is a scumbag, but hasn't he already got a 'life sentence'?  OK I'm playing devils advocate here, anyone who knows me knows my views...prisons too good etc.
What worries me is cases like this still make the news...personally I chose not to take the ratbag who infected me to court out of self preservation...its still a 'sensational' case when this is in court...I know theres loads of other implications but call me a wuss! Anyone who has the virus and sleeps with someone bareback to me is out of order if they dont inform them, sorry

[emeraldize]

... I think this guy in the news story is a scumbag,...Anyone who has the virus and sleeps with someone bareback to me is out of order if they dont inform them, sorry

Good place for him.

DITTO on all three counts.

[Central79]

Yeah - this guy needs to be in prison.

I agree that people have a duty to protect themselves. But that doesn't excuse what he did - the women are being punished enough for their naivete, or whatever motivated them to have unprotected sex with this guy.

He should know better - in the UK, you cannot consent to GBH and there is a duty on the person who knows their status, and is probably better informed about it.

I dare say he has some mental health issues.

[Dragonette]

mmm, I understand that the psychos who drugged, raped and injected HIV to male victims will be given max 10 years in the Netherlands (any Dutchies correct me if I am wrong my Dutch is not that great).

I think they should be given a life (or death) sentence

About that guy... There is no arguing the damage that he did and that he is scum, but sadly I have to say, as long as he didn't rape these women, as long as he didn't force them not to use a condom or faked using a condom or knowingly sabotaged the use of a condom - if these women were fully aware that they were having unprotected sex, there is some reponsibility on them and I say that very painfully. The you have to ask maybe there is some responsibility on the policy makers who ensure that people, even in the west, remain ignorant (or not knowledgable enough) about HIV.

It doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to kill him, just some things the law is not equiped to handle, like sex between consenting adults. Something must be done to keep him away from society? Maybe a hospital for the criminally insane?

This sends the message again that only psychos infect from HIV and that if you have sex with a good, relaible, "nice man" (who even is sure that he is negative and even is not lying) you will not be infected... if you don't mix with the "wrong sort" you won't be infected... Ultimately unprotected sex passes HIV it doesn't matter if you have it with a crazy criminal or a nice guy.

[Ulong]

I agree that people have a duty to protect themselves. But that doesn't excuse what he did - the women are being punished enough for their naivete, or whatever motivated them to have unprotected sex with this guy.

but sadly I have to say, as long as he didn't rape these women, as long as he didn't force them not to use a condom or faked using a condom or knowingly sabotaged the use of a condom - if these women were fully aware that they were having unprotected sex, there is some responsibility on them and I say that very painfully.

Sigh. I may give up on convincing y'all that it isn't possible (or practical) for women to know their partner's status and protect themselves. Did y'all miss the birds and the bees talk? For our species to continue, women must choose male partners and have unprotected sex. Yes, the women may have been in it for the booty call, and I must too make the painful acknowledgment that if so, they share responsibility. But I wouldn't be surprised if some of them wanted to have a baby with this loser, or that he didn't encourage the idea of doing so.

I fail to see how everyone can protect themselves from HIV and continue to produce children.

I dare say he has some mental health issues.

It may indeed be mental health issues. But my money is on the idea that the guy is just an a%#hole.

[Carolann]

Anyone who knows that they are positive and has unprotected sex without informing is a criminal, a sack of poo.  There is just no excuse. That would be like saying, oh you chose to get into that drunk\\\'s car, you deserve to be mamed or killed. We all know that we all make stupid decisions throughout our lives. Our stupidity does not absolve anyone who knowingly hurts us from wrongdoing.

As I sit here and watch my cd4 and percentage drop, I curse the *&*&% who gave this to me, as it will soon be time for a medical intervention. Yes there will be many who argue that everyone is responsible for their own sexual health. If only life and human relationships were that easy, we would not be having this conversation.

What about people who are in supposed monogamous relationships and still end up with this? Do we still want to blame them. Knowingly causing someone harm and potentially shortening there life is just wrong, even if they consent to it, but especially if they were in the dark, like these women. Yes, everyone should be having protected sex all the time...I can just see the posts now.

Anyway, the question in this case is not whether the women should have protected themselves, but rather should this person be punished for knowingly infecting them? Yes, yes, yes...knowingly ausing harm is causing harm regardless of the device.

CA

[emeraldize]

as long as he didn't rape these women

D:

Interestingly, if you knowingly withhold such information from a person, regardless if it is consensual sex, a charge of rape can be made because you have not enabled that person to not have sex on the basis on that information. However, the difficulty is in proving intent to withhold such information. But, it is technically rape.

[camille07]

It is our responsibility to protect ourselves yes.  However, to knowingly have HIV and not disclose to their partner, I believe, is a moral crime.

[Dragonette]

I want to apologize to you I know a lot of women become infected through deceipt of a partner - a large percentage I believe, much larger than is ever trialed, and I do not mean to undermine the severety of that, and I am sure it feels extremely horrible.

[Rockit]

i read the first one and few after. i also think it takes 2 to tango. and life is too much if at all . for that bc those women didnt use protection themselfs. do they just assum its a gay thing?

[Ulong]

i read the first one and few after. i also think it takes 2 to tango. and life is too much if at all . for that bc those women didnt use protection themselfs. do they just assum its a gay thing?

Then you must not have made it to my post.

Do you assum (sic) that if we all have protected sex that babies will magically appear from a cabbage patch? One more time: Somebody has to have unprotected sex. Women in relationships will do so not just because it feels good, they do it to have children. Men in hetero relationships will do likewise.

Maybe it's a gay thing to forget that sex results in procreation.

I want to apologize to you I know a lot of women become infected through deceipt of a partner - a large percentage I believe, much larger than is ever trialed, and I do not mean to undermine the severety of that, and I am sure it feels extremely horrible.

Not as horrible as the feeling that someone doesn't have a clue as to why women have unprotected sex except for "irresponsibility".
Thank you for that acknowledgement, Dragonette.  I'm not one of those women, but it's inane to me to say that they should have used protection for their entire marriage/relationship, or else they were "tangoing".

[Bucko]

Then you must not have made it to my post.

Do you assum (sic) that if we all have protected sex that babies will magically appear from a cabbage patch? One more time: Somebody has to have unprotected sex. Women in relationships will do so not just because it feels good, they do it to have children. Men in hetero relationships will do likewise.

Maybe it's a gay thing to forget that sex results in procreation.

Not as horrible as the feeling that someone doesn't have a clue as to why women have unprotected sex except for "irresponsibility".
Thank you for that acknowledgement, Dragonette.  I'm not one of those women, but it's inane to me to say that they should have used protection for their entire marriage/relationship, or else they were "tangoing".

Enough already with the birds and bees, please. No one on these boards is ignorant to how humans reproduce. But you are making an odd conjecture in suggesting that these women were looking to start a family with this man. In this day and age sportfucking is the rule rather than the exception for every demographic, most especially young people. I'd be willing to wager that practically every woman infected was on the pill. In my 47 years I've NEVER met a woman who wanted to be impregnated during a casual encounter.

I also pride myself on being one of the most sex-positive people here. The sex drive is perhaps the most fundamental of our instincts after eating (and most of the time I'd prefer good sex to a lousy meal). The impulse to have sex, to experience the sensations, comes from the identical place in the brain whether procreation is involved or not. The results may vary, but the impulse is identical. The gay libido is no different from the straight libido...period.

I am also fundamentally opposed to criminalizing sex (in any form) or any illness of any kind for any reason. I have no solution to this dilemma, but resist such solutions as this one. Sociopaths need to be separated from society most certainly, but is jail the correct response or merely the most expedient one?

And lastly: although the article is absolutely race-neutral, I wonder if that has some bearing on the proceedings and/or the sentencing? About ten years ago (maybe less, can't remember any more) there was an almost identical case of a one-man HIV infection spree in a college town in Upstate NY. The racial overtones (the guy was black, all the women were white) were thick on the TV news coverage at the time, and the lynch-mob mentality was almost as sickening to see as the infection of the girls.

Brent
(Who knows that his views will likely be a minority in this thread)

[emeraldize]

Sociopaths need to be separated from society most certainly, but is jail the correct response or merely the most expedient one?

I am in total agreement with you on the first half of your statement/question. I want to give my answer to question. Because a sociopath's "job" is to continue to f with peoples' lives, money, health, etc., and they don't tend to categorize a specialty such as "I'll just infect women with hiv and not try to get any of their money or possessions" or "I'll just murder nurses." or "I'll just rip off stockholders.", then not only is jail the correct response but the more expeditiously used the better as a sociopath is the closest thing to a shark out of water. They awaken to bite, chew and swallow without fear or guilt and if you read the literature, it is the legal system and/or death that causes them to quit their "job." No amount of rehabilitation, chit-chat or coaxing makes a difference.

[camille07]

No amount of rehabilitation, chit-chat or coaxing makes a difference.

Or Therapy.

[Bucko]

I am in total agreement with you on the first half of your statement/question. I want to give my answer to question. Because a sociopath's "job" is to continue to f with peoples' lives, money, health, etc., and they don't tend to categorize a specialty such as "I'll just infect women with hiv and not try to get any of their money or possessions" or "I'll just murder nurses." or "I'll just rip off stockholders.", then not only is jail the correct response but the more expeditiously used the better as a sociopath is the closest thing to a shark out of water. They awaken to bite, chew and swallow without fear or guilt and if you read the literature, it is the legal system and/or death that causes them to quit their "job." No amount of rehabilitation, chit-chat or coaxing makes a difference.

So thieves like the Enron execs are no different from serial killers?

And they are all so irredeemably "broken" that nothing can make them ever understand the consequences of their actions? Who gets to make such prognostications, and by which evidence are such decisions made?

Am I the only one who sees a slippery slope leading to the execution of "incorrigibles"?

Brent
(Who opposes all forms of capital punishment)   

[RapidRod]

Brent, as you know here in the US unless the defendant waves the right to a jury trial, he/she will be found guilty or innocent of their charges by 12 of their peers and their fate is in the hands of the jury.

[Ulong]

Enough already with the birds and bees, please. No one on these boards is ignorant to how humans reproduce. But you are making an odd conjecture in suggesting that these women were looking to start a family with this man. In this day and age sportfucking is the rule rather than the exception for every demographic, most especially young people. I'd be willing to wager that practically every woman infected was on the pill.

True, I don't think that anyone here is truly ignorant as to how humans reproduce. I do think there is some ignorance--in the sense that one just doesn't know, not as in "Jane, you ignorant slut"--- as to what may have happened here, and how many women end up infected. When I see a post that seems to read "Yep, sportfucking! Ladies shoulda been using condoms! Guy's a psycho! Next case!" it seems very indicative of why women's infection rates are rising. Despite the popularity of sportfucking in all demographics, sportfucking is less popular among women as a whole, both as anecdotally observed and in number of  lifetime sexual partners. I'd be willing to wager what is sportfucking to the guy is less so to the women.

Bear with me, I think this post is getting overly long in part because I really enjoy using the term "sportfucking".

So we can agree on a couple of things, I hope. One, the news story shed no light on the nature of the relationship. We're only left with conjecture. It worries me that guys read the story and assume it was sportfucking, they shoulda used a condom. Having worked in testing and hanging around with poz women, There are a couple who I'd say were sportfucking when infected. And a considerable number who contracted HIV from IVDU or sex work. But the large majority were in a committed relationship--or at least committed on their part.

So nah, I don't think the women were looking for a white picket fence suburban existance. But there may have been a connection on their part, and in women, that "I dig him" is connected to "babydaddy" in a way that might not occur to a man. I'm not judging or bashing anyone's libido. But it is something that guys--especially gay guys---may not click with on the first pass. I do certainly feel that safer sex messages, ASO programs, and a lot of prevention advice is aimed toward curbing transmission in ways that don't take women primarily into account. Which may be why the infection rate among women has climbed  at an astounding rate, especially in the African-American community.

I will withhold commentary on the various approaches to criminalizing sex in this post. That seems to be a separate issue, but on the whole women seem to resonate more with locking up chronic knowledgable poz infectors. Maybe because we bear the brunt of such infections and can't avoid them with the usual advice that works for men.

Ulong
(who thinks her views are in the minority in the big world. And hopes Brent has not copyrighted the term "sportfucking")

[aztecan]

Reproduction is not prohibited because someone is positive. I know seven very healthy children born to parents who are both positive.

I had a discussion just this evening with someone asking my advice on getting pregnant when both the man and woman are possies.

I disagree that women can't avoid infection with the usual advice given men.

What differs seems to be a desire to procreate more than self preseve.

HUGS,

Mark

[camille07]

That's very encouraging Mark about your friends, and I'm glad to see something positive come out of this thread. 

[Iggy]

If he did lie about his status and knowingly infect others then I really disgusted. 

But that is also a bunch of variables in there.

It does happen that people lie about their status and I am too painfully aware of that undeniable fact by some of our own members situations. However  I also know a number of people who have been caught in a lie about how they got infected because they were unable to tell a family member or a friend that they just had sex without a condom without asking about status, and it had nothing to do with wanting a child or love.

Maybe that is the situation and maybe it is not - but I don't think we can say from this one article.  Again - if he knowingly and purposefully lied to the women about his status then I think he needs to be made to answer, but what that entails is uncertain to me at this point.

[Bucko]

Brent, as you know here in the US unless the defendant waves the right to a jury trial, he/she will be found guilty or innocent of their charges by 12 of their peers and their fate is in the hands of the jury.

Unless your name is Jose Padilla, Rod...

Ullie-
I first used the term "sportfucking" in my blog in 2005. I haven't copywritten it (yet), so use it with gleeful abandon 

I have no doubt that the majority of newly-infected women were in relationships presumed exclusive but proven otherwise. My acquaintance with the women on this board proves that easily. I cannot even begin to understand the depth of betrayal they must feel.

Many many many young women here in Ft Lauderdale conduct their sex/love lives with a gusto usually associated with gay men. They are both my co-workers and clients and I hear everything. They feel that condoms are a barrier to intimacy and trust much like many young gay men and feel immune to risk. Alcohol and recreational drugs play a huge role in this, too.

I have never said that a chick who sportfucks deserves to be infected. But the message needs to be universal whether to men or women, gay or straight: unprotected sex leads to STDs and HIV infection. The virus does not discriminate, but the current crop of Paris and Lindsay wanna-bes aren't listening.

I'm certain that you speak with authority as regards the whole "babydaddy" mindset. But as I stated above, most young people feel condoms are a barrier to intimacy and betray a lack of trust. And in an eagerness to "prove" their love, I don't really think there's as much difference between young women and gay men as you posit. I truly believe this is a generational thing, and the "abstinence only" theory of prevention will bear its bitter fruit soon enough.

Brent
(Who swims with many different types in this big aquarium)

[Iggy]

I just found a follow-up piece that is making me real uneasy -

A juror told the News-Press that the St. Joseph woman who was infected by Mr. Sykes testified Tuesday morning. Although the juror called the woman's testimony "emotional," he also said it was difficult to believe. He added that both Mr. Sykes and the woman had "shady" lifestyles, making it difficult to decide who was more truthful.

Public Defender Michelle Davidson said the defense presented evidence of a notarized statement that the woman knew Mr. Sykes was infected with HIV before engaging in sexual contact. Ms. Fisher said there was "conflicting" evidence that the woman wrote a letter stating she knew of Mr. Sykes' condition.

http://arepublic.blogspot.com/2007/05/hiv-trial-proceedings-closed-to-public.html

The whole "shady" thing sent a shiver down my spine.   Somehow I think that's code for the guy and the woman were drug dealers/users...which if true (and was true in the previous incidents) then I 've got a sinking feeling here that it isn't the guy who has been doing the lying in this case or the previous ones.

Regardless  of my own speculation (which my gut tells me that I'm right) the one juror seems to clearly state that this guy  has been convicted because he lost a coin toss and not because the jury had evidence that the guy maliciously and knowingly spread HIV.  If anything, I think the jury had enough reasonable doubt to not convict.  That they convicted him anyway is dangerous to me.

I think what we have just witnessed is society punishing someone because they were an undesirable and not because they were proven as doing something wrong.

[Coffeechick88]

It is definitely wrong for anyone HIV positive to not disclose and have unprotected sex.  However, in this case, unless i am misunderstanding the facts, there seems to have been sufficient evidence to give reasonable doubt and that it is very likely the woman did in fact know his status.  There always is the possibility that she did know and has vendetta against  him.  If that is the case, I don't agree with the conviction since we can't just go sending people to jail for life because we think they are undesirable or have a bias toward them. 

But if he did expose women knowingly, without telling them, then he belongs where he is.  I do believe that everyone who is HIV negative has a duty to protect their own status, but it still doesn't mean we should not tell them our status and fuck them unprotected anyway.  These cases always make me see that even after we have known for HIV so long, that there is still much ground to cover in terms of HIV education.  People do need to realize that people do lie about their status and never ever trust someone blindly and that to go ahead and fuck them unprotected is at their own peril and the importance of knowing their own HIV status and that of their partners.  It won't always help those who think they are in monogamous relationships and they have a cheater for a partner, but those who are sleeping with someone new.  And that some people still think that it is a gay disease only and that those with HIV will show signs of sickness (I cannot tell you how many times I have heard, "But you don't look sick!")

[zeb]

mmm, I understand that the psychos who drugged, raped and injected HIV to male victims will be given max 10 years in the Netherlands (any Dutchies correct me if I am wrong my Dutch is not that great).

I think they should be given a life (or death) sentence

Hey Dragonette,

It's possible that they can face more! If they are regarded as a danger to society they can be put in psychiatric treatment for criminals (after they've served in jail). In The Netherlands this is called TBS. If they don't show any improvement during this TBS they could stay there for the rest of their lives. But at this moment this is way to early to predict if they will face this.

Personally I'm against capital punishment.

greet
Zeb

[Ulong]

This is starting to look different to me...correct me if I'm wrong, but given the link by Iggy, it sounds more like the jury believed the woman did know his status. He was convicted of spreading HIV, not non-disclosure. Disclosure doesn't protect you from prosecution under the law. A news story from back when his trial began gives a little more detail on the exact wording of the charges. And the picture confirms Sportfu...ah, Brent's suspicion of the ethnicity of the accused; we'll likely never know the same of his accuser.

http://www.stjoenews-press.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=92357&SectionID=81&SubSectionID=272&S=1

So my very scared interpretation:  in Kansas the specific language of the statute doesn't address disclosure, it just says it's against the law to "knowingly expose another". That means even if you do disclose, the jury, DA, and whoever else get to decide what that means. My second scared interpretation: those headlines were completely misleading, which wouldn't surprise me a bit.

Many many many young women here in Ft Lauderdale conduct their sex/love lives with a gusto usually associated with gay men. They are both my co-workers and clients and I hear everything. They feel that condoms are a barrier to intimacy and trust much like many young gay men and feel immune to risk. Alcohol and recreational drugs play a huge role in this, too.

Hmmmm...Atlanta and Ft. Lauderdale may be culturally dissimilar enough for us to have differing ideas on the "typical" woman with HIV. I certainly saw some women in testing--not a huge number-- who were at risk from casual sex, none of them tested positive. When I worked with the already-diagnosed, I saw a couple, but as I said, the vast majority were infected through steady relationships. Matter of fact, they were in an older demographic--beyond the age when most of us begin to run out of the party hearty steam. Atlanta, despite it's larger size, may have more of the bible-belt mentality.

People do need to realize that people do lie about their status and never ever trust someone blindly and that to go ahead and fuck them unprotected is at their own peril and the importance of knowing their own HIV status and that of their partners.  It won't always help those who think they are in monogamous relationships and they have a cheater for a partner, but those who are sleeping with someone new.

This has clarified for me why I've been so irritable in this thread: contrary to Mark's (and many other's) opinions, I think women are at higher risk when they "follow the rules" that are supposed to protect them from HIV. Telling someone to know their partner's status depends at least in part on the partner being knowledgeable and truthful. Being in a long-term relationship with a poz (but undisclosing) man is far more dangerous than being out and playing the field. And women in those "monogamous" relationships have more reason to ditch safer sex; they think they're safe, and they like to assume that a baby is somewhere in the future, if not now.

[emeraldize]

So thieves like the Enron execs are no different from serial killers?

And they are all so irredeemably "broken" that nothing can make them ever understand the consequences of their actions? Who gets to make such prognostications, and by which evidence are such decisions made?

Am I the only one who sees a slippery slope leading to the execution of "incorrigibles"?

Brent
(Who opposes all forms of capital punishment)   

Hi Brent/Bucko

I wanted to reply to your previous post. If you were to listen to some of the interviews with those whose life savings were completely tapped due to the Enron execs' (and I'm so glad you cited them as they were precisely who I had in mind when I used that example) behavior, they would put them on a par with a serial killer as having "killed" their future from a monetary perspective and caused incredible suffering.

It is worth a little time spent reading about sociopaths as they comprise 4% of the population and are primarily male. Consequently, all of us have been, are or will be in touch with a sociopath, in some form at some time. It's good to know what their key characteristics are so that you may steer clear of them entirely or as much as possible or if you are so unlucky as to be in a "relationship" with one of them (no matter what that faux relationship may be), you may, pardon my French, get the fuck out of it as fast as humanly possible. Once you learn about the breed, you will, I think, see what I was referring to with regard to jail a bit differently.

[Bucko]

Em-

I'm 47 years old and am well-acquainted with sociopaths. I have even tried to love one until the truth became all too obvious. I posted about it endlessly in the old fora just prior to our moving over here, and it was the cause of much grief in my life.

I have lived in South Florida for the last four years, having moved here because a painful arthritic condition in my cervical spine made New England winters intolerable. As the skills I'd amassed in my career up north have little relevance to life in SoFla, I have been trying to find work that is both emotionally satisfying, mentally challenging and which will pay right to the line in order for me to remain eligible for ADAP/Ryan White. This, again, was debated in the old fora and I forget sometimes that I am not a known quantity here to the degree I once was.

I mention my job situation because two of the worst sociopaths I've ever met have been my employers down here in two of the four jobs I've had since my arrival here in 2003. One was truly evil, stole from me, wrecked my health and capsized my nine-year relationship (which was in bad shape at that point anyway). The other is probably more narcissistic and bi-polar than actually sociopathic, but in the end both "relationships" left me feeling used, depressed and questioning my self-worth. Both were corrosive and highly toxic individuals incapable of understanding virtues like loyalty and compassion except insofar as being able to milk me of mine.

Both of these specimens are women. One has disappeared (though she's being pursued by the IRS if not the INS, probably both). The other is recognized as a successful businesswoman for whom it's impossible to work. had I been aware of her reputation, I'd have never wasted a year and one-half in her employ.

As I am committed to keeping an open heart, I am diligent about not allowing bitterness to creep into my life, although these last four years have made it extremely difficult.

I am well aware of the terrible suffering caused by the unmitigated greed of Ken Lay and his ilk, just as I am no stranger to financial collapse myself. If by some miracle five years ago I'd been shown the life i lead today I'd have found it impossible and intolerable, yet here I am. I find their thievery criminal, and I find the lack of victim restitution an inexcusable example of Capitalism at its very worst. No one would argue that they were punished too severely.

But and this is the meat of this post, it is fundamentally incorrect to equate money or material possessions with human life. As criminal and damaging as the callous disregard of the welfare of their victims is (and I am not minimizing it in any way possible), the Enron scandal was not in the same league as any number of serial killer cases.

Equating money (even with all it brings) with human life is wrong, sweetheart. I know your empathy is totally sincere but I find your conclusions flawed.

With respect,
Brent

[emeraldize]

But and this is the meat of this post, it is fundamentally incorrect to equate money or material possessions with human life. As criminal and damaging as the callous disregard of the welfare of their victims is (and I am not minimizing it in any way possible), the Enron scandal was not in the same league as any number of serial killer cases.

Equating money (even with all it brings) with human life is wrong, sweetheart. I know your empathy is totally sincere but I find your conclusions flawed.

With respect,
Brent

Hi Brent

I won't go too far with this post. You don't know me, I don't know you and I don't know you from previous postings on a previous site. That doesn't factor into what I wrote or will write.

You extracted the reference to Enron making it seem as if that is all I referred to and it wasn't. It was among examples of sociopathic behavior. You took it out of context. I did not make any statement equating money/possessions with human life. And, that is not a belief of mine. I referred to those who were financially felled by Enron as putting the execs on a par with a serial killer, and, in particular, although not referred to in my post, Enron retirees who have no more earning years ahead.

It was not "empathy" I was demonstrating as I was not an investor in Enron. Additionally, I did not draw any "conclusions", I did, however, make references to text in my first post. I find it contradictory for you to call me "sweetheart" with condescension and to then sign your name " With Respect." I invite you to re-read my brief posts as it seems they were skimmed.