In Dallas, Texas, an HIV-positive homeless man has been sentenced to thirty-five years in prison for spitting in the mouth and eye of a Dallas police officer. The man, Willie Campbell, was found guilty of harassing a public servant with a deadly weapon—his saliva. None of the three officers contracted HIV. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says there are no known cases of contact with saliva, tears or sweat transmitting HIV. Campbell will not be eligible for parole until serving at least seventeen years behind bars.

I actually agree with Peter on this. If HIV could be spread though saliva the charge might have been justified but since there is no evidence it does his sentence goes beyond cruel and unusual punishment.

The prosecutor, jury and judge all are responsible for this miscarriage of justice. I imagine his lawyer was not very competent. How could his client have been convicted of “harassing with a deadly weapon” if the weapon can’t even cause injury?

Spitting in someone’s mouth is pretty vile and he should have been charged with, convicted of and sentenced to what a non-HIV positive person would.

Takes a pretty slaw jacked officer that someone can spit in his mouth with any confidence of accuracy.

To me this sounds more like spitting in the guy's face and some going in his mouth.

Justice, Texas style, I guess.

Seig Heil.

I'd say this reflects badly on the jury (assuming there was a jury involved). Another thing to think about, what was the spitter's intent? We know it is unlikely to get AIDS from saliva but did he? Did he intend to try to infect the officer by spitting in his mouth?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/16spit.html?ref=us

The impression I have is that this was not a trial by Jury -- but it is not stated either way.

Campbell claimed he did not spit at the officer or resist arrest. At the time he was arrested he was drunk. Sounds to me to have been bravado.



Right. Send him to prison where he can infect dozens through willing or forced sexual contact behind bars.