The pig should be executed...fools.

Marcel, Garland, TX

The response of the HIV charities is ridiculous! They say that this will make people reveal their HIV status less!? The point here is that if you don't reveal, you will GO TO JAIL. How can such a strong motivator to reveal make people reveal less? I think the charity is just looking for some free publicity.

Chuck, Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Intentional infection such as this instance should carry the death penalty to ensure no additional infection of others can occur.

Jay Weaver, East Berlin, USA

Many AIDS Charities like the one above are doing more damage to fighting HIV transmissions than we realize . Criticising assault with a deadly weapon by refereing to ad hominem remarks about the "Stigma" of AIDS is childish and precisely the reason countries like South Africa (currently 3rd worldwide with the highest rate of HIV) have done almost nothing to combat HIV/AIDS. They don't have LAWS that require you to tell anyone if you know you are HIV positive. I've lived there and have talked to many HIV infected people who have told me that they would never get tested because they would rather die having sex with multiple partners than to worry about infecting someone. National AIDS Trust, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

bryan, los angeles, usa, CA

"She will have to take drugs with serious and debilitating side-effects and may face hospitalisation. She may well face an early death.”

from which?

bg, jax ,

RS London--you are telling me that black is white, and I'm not buying it. We need to stigmatize AIDS, because that is how you curb the behavior that causes the spread of the disease. We need to criminalize the knowing transmission of the disease for the same reason. You and your ilk have invented some twisted, convoluted reasoning that tells us that such common sense measures to protect society will actually spread the disease, and you are flat wrong. There are no reputable studies that show that people are deterred from testing because of a fear of stigma or incarceration. That is just BALONEY! You can't tell me that people are going to say, "Oh, OK, so if I don't get tested I can't get treatment. I'll die of AIDS. But hey, while I'm wasting away and dying a horrible death at least I can't be prosecuted." No. They will get tested., and they will be glad to take the drugs that save their life, even if that means they have to behave responsibly or face prosecution..

Larry, New York, New York

He should have been given a life sentence, what a truley dispicable worthless charactor this man is.

D case, Newquay, UK

Nine years is too short. Many states have defined intentional exposure to HIV as "attempted murder" and some will escalate when the victim dies - and become a murder charge, perhaps while the perp is still in prison on the first charge.

While I have a serious mistrust of the "safe sex" mantra - I don't believe it is truly safe - I do understand that it is some protection, and it allows the states a "safe harbor" that makes feasable the prosecution of this type of malicious crime.

Mark, Richmond, MO

What this person did was criminal and wrong, he should be sent to prison. He is a danger to society. The head of the AIDS organization doesn't realize that this case is about one individual putting another in danger, it is not about improving the AIDS crisis in Scotland. This is a personal crime commited by the man against an innocent victim.

john, boston, ma

I agree that having to tell a new partner about HIV infection must be extremely difficult as it may well mean facing rejection for something that is not his/her fault in the first place. But unfortunately there is no real alternative - forcing another person to unwittingly take the risk of similar infection which will affect their health and any future relationships they might have has to be a crime. Even if Ms Jack is right about this making the epidemic worse (which I don't think she is) there simply is no good alternative. Mola's unfortunate victim now has the painful moral and legal duty to inform any future partner of her HIV status before having unprotected sex.

Rimo, Edinburgh,

There would be no AIDS problem in civilized countries if we adopted common sense immigration controls and required the informing of intimate partners as we do for gonorrhea and syphylis.

Someone who willingly transmits this disease ought to be isolated from other people in the way we quarrantine carriers of cholera.

Shaniqa, Chicago, USA

He should have gotten a harsher sentence! I agree with what Tim from Jacksonville, Fl wrote. Political correctness is making idiots out of most people conforming to leaders who are dictating what should be said and done. Reminds me of the Church in medieval days, when most people were illiterate. Now that more of us are literate and able to think, control is being exerted through the guise of pollitical correctness. The National Aids Trust is ignoring the issue that informed carriers of HIV should be responsible for their actions and prevent spreading the disease further. Personally, I think Mola should have been tried for premeditated murder, convicted and sentenced to the max.

Laurel, Forest Hills, NY

The National Aids Trust is clearly trying to use this case for publicity. Yes they should promote awareness about HIV and that it's not like leprosy so people can understand that they don't have to avoid sufferers. Mr Mola though has clearly showed a character which disregards all the risks infecting other people with the virus and so he should be identified as a criminal. The exact same way a driver should accept responsibility if they are drink driving. As soon as people don't accept responsibilty for their conscious actions, then it's the end of intelligent life among humans.

Alex K, Manchester, UK

Hi.
I believe that the National AIDs trust spokes person is completely wrong in claiming that prosecution for reckless endangerment is a barrier to AIDs patients getting treatment or spreading HIV. The man showed absolutely no care for another human life.

It was his choice to endanger another. That has nothing to do with whether he could seek help for his condition or not. He was free to seek medical care and counseling irrespective of his twisted personality or his apparent desire to keep his condition a secret.

It is necessary for people infected to take proper precautions to protect those with whom they might infect. This is true if it be a cold or a possible avian inspired flu.

It is especially true if the disease is probably lethal.

The accused deserved at least a nine year sentence....

Karlo

Karl Bouldin, San Jose, California, USA

I am confused how this will NOT help stop the spread of AIDS. If it was a crime to NOT tell then nore would be talking. The AIDS groups must not want to stop the spread maybe they don't want to give up their nice fat salaries.

de, Uniontown, OH

I have to say I find the idea of quaranting people because they may harmful to general welfare of society disgusting. Imagine a world whereby your loved ones are seperated when they have disease through no fault of there own. I.E. blood transfusions.

Pratish, London, UK

I agree with the reasoning that people with lifestyles that exposes them to STD will be disenclined to have themselves tested due to this ruling. This is bad news as the retroviral drugs currently available allow most HIV sufferers to live a long healthy life.

Pratish, London, UK

Since the National Aids Trust voiced its opposition in this ruling because it may loose money,, well they are right. I am no longer donating to this trust fund.

Ben

Ben, Boston, USA

So many people here saying AIDS chairties have got it wrong! The point is, if you don't get a test done ever, and therefore nevre find out you have AIDS, you can nevre get jailed. I bet this guy wishes he'd nevre got the test because there'd be no case! This verdict is a disaster and will mean many people will not get a test for fear of being jailed! An absolute disaster.

The cold reality of this is that people will not be saved by this verdict, but rather more people will catch AIDS as a result.

RS, London,

I understand the emotions all these people are feeling about this man and you're right- it was a terrible thing that happened. I think you may be missing the point that the AIDS Trust is trying to make. Criminalizing the transmission of HIV will do nothing to stop the spread of the virus, it will only add to the fear and stigma many HIV+ individuals are already living with. What many don't seem to understand is that the vast majority of HIV infections happen from persons who don't even know their status. Stop blaming people for having an illness! If you have ever had unprotected sex in your life you are lucky you aren't HIV positive. Monogamy means nothing- you never truly know what your partner is doing even if you think you do. Abstinence is unrealistic. This young woman had a terrible thing happen but if the sex was consentual as it seems it was, she is just as responsible. What if he didn't know he was HIV+? Would you still want him in jail? If so- you have some learning to do.

Wendy , Nashua, NH

Why such a lenient punishment for this murderer? Normally premeditated murder receives much longer sentences including death. Once again, our society cares more about the rights of the minoity at the expense of the rights of the majority. Law abiding citizens are being sacrificed every day at the expense of political correctness. This man will walk out of jail in nine years and infect someone else, we will be reading an article like this one, with a statement from some jerk at the National AIDS Trust, trying to make us feel like the people who pass AIDS to others are the victims.

Tim, Jacksonville, FL,

Prosecution of those who recklesslessy transmit HIV should be vigorous and sentences should be life, not a paltry 9 years. If this policy of protecting innocent people is going to make individuals who should know better voice opinions that this will somehow undermine efforts to prevent the transmission of HIV then all I have to say is prosecute and be damned.

Tarek Arab, Ottawa, Canada

An unbelievably stupid line taken by the National AIDS Trust. The other responses are spot on .
Deborah Jack's position is foolish at best and dangerous at worst.

Richard, Dubai,

To A, Anderson, USA - Female Condoms do not protect against HIV. Hope you dont rely on them!

I dont think that an HIV sufferer should have ANY kind of sexual contact with anybody without first making them aware of their condition. Condoms split in 3% of cases, that maybe acceptable to the sufferer but I am sure that 99% of people would not knowingly take that risk. Even in other non-penerative sexual contact body fluids can be exchanged by accident.

Jamie Brown, Maidstone, England

Aids from the very inception has been treated like a religion or Race rather than a disease. It could have been minimised at the inception but it was not politically correct to do so because of thonking like the aids charity.
This man is a criminal who committed a horrible crime on this foolish woman who trusted him. He should have gotten more time.If you punish conduct you get less of it. If you excuse it you will get more of it

Ron, san luis obispo,

"If you are going to have sex outside marriage, you need to be ready for anything, including a deadly disease." You can just as easily catch a deadly disease while married. What needs to be stressed is communication between sexual partners. People need to be open and honest with each other regardless of marital status.

Mauricio, Hollywood, CA, USA

Decent people would quarantine themselves.

Rusty, Orono, MN

I hope she sues this guy, and she should add The National Aids Trust too. I can't beleive this organization is basically saying, "what he did was wrong, but don't hold him accountable". How does that statement help pervent AIDS infections. Sounds to me like The National Aids Trust is helping to increase infections.

Steve Brown, NYC, NY

Aids charitiies should hang there heads in shame. What ever happened to the notion of responsibility and care. This man had a moral duty to protect his partner from harm. He chose not to do so, it is entirely right that he has been prosecuted and held to account for what he has done.

Andy, Worthing,

Once again, more proof that you embrace your virginity, realize that sex is a privilege of marriage and not a right, get married and STAY FAITHFUL. There is a reason why the Bible says to stay away from fornication, get married and enjoy a healthy sexual relationship with your spouse. There are always consequences to actions. AIDS is a horrible disease, and common sense says to stop sleeping around with whoever is available. Even syphillis and gonorrhea have mutated over the last 20 years so that many strains won't respond to anti-biotics. Casual sex can be a death sentence. Besides, AIDS is a federally protected disease. By law, you don't have to tell anyone you have it and groups like the ACLU and GLADD will protect you so you don't have to disclose anything. Never mind that someone, like this woman, could be handed a death sentence because someone doesn't want to disclose to a partner that they have AIDS. That's WRONG. This country is doomed unless it keeps its pants up.

Kathy, Sacramento, CA

In my opinion the man has committed murder and should be punished accordingly. The Women, while being the victim, is
paying the price for Her moral misbehaviour and is being punished by society.

Park Dana, Kailua, Honolulu, HI.

Derek,

Quarantining people is not the same as executing them. Shall we compare Auschwitz then to New York City in 18oos when thousands of immigrants with tuberculosis were quarantined? The result of that was an avoidance of a pandemic which would have killed hundreds of thousands. The quarantined were given medical care and many survived and were released. Hundred of Thousand of lives were saved.

We mask death and disease in our society these days, but it's not pretty, or to be taken lightly. Millions of people have died from AIDS needlessly because we play this silly head game about how human lives are less valuable than human emotions..."Oh go ahead and endanger my life..as long as I don't hurt your feelings"...

Most everyone agrees that smokers have no right to share their diseases with non-smokers and society has placed severe curbs on their behavior - why an exception for people with the deadliest of diseases?

Chuck C, Carlsbad, CA

The reason they say it will harm prevention efforts is that people may simply not get tested because they don't want to know. Not knowing is a perfect defense against this kind of action. If you never get tested you are much more apt to spread it since you won't be taking the antiviral drugs, yet also held completely harmless in spreading it. I can understand their argument.

Bob, Minnesota, USA

the logic that prosecuting people for the reckless transmission of HIV might undermine efforts to stop the spread of HIV is curious. By this reasoning, prosecuting people for the reckless placement of bombs in the underground might undermine efforts to peacefully deal with terrorists.

james rooney, webster, usa-massachusetts

Condoms don't have the greatest track record in preventing pregnancy . . . how many days each month can a woman get pregant? How many days each month is a woman susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases? Is there a condom for the human tongue? No, make no mistake about it -- the person who has dangerous diseases and does not inform his partner is simply vile, condom or no condom. But "victims" should not be naive either. If you are going to have sex outside marriage, you need to be ready for anything, including a deadly disease.

Christ Witmer, Tokyo,

How could The National AIDS Trust say that this trial undermines the spread of HIV? If more cases like this were actually followed through to the end, (and we have had plenty of examples of "lovers" knowingly putting their partners at risk here in the United States) maybe some people would think twice about having sexual intercourse without using proper protection.
If this man Mola had poisoned this woman with conventional means he would be ferociously adjudicated for doing so. Is there really such a difference between the two?

Elizabeth, Seattle, Washington, USA

Wow, thats ridicolus. She should have been more careful. Nine year? Geez

Pete, London, UK

It is entirely reasonable and correct that Mola was sent to prison for what amounts to an act of personal biological warfare inflicted on another human being. Quite frankly, he should have also been indicted for attempted murder.

M Hodgkin, Fredericksburg, USA

Consciously infecting someone with a disease and endangering their life is a crime and should not go unpunished - even if the person transmitting the disease is an AIDS victim. Being an AIDS victim does not exempt one from his/her responsibilities towards others especially those who enter into a relationship with them based on trust. In my opinion not penalising their wrongdoing may actually lead to more abuse.

Sylvana Cristina, Swieqi, Malta

Shame on the National Aids Trust for criticising this mans sentence, they are taking a very irresponsible attitude only serving to tell other overtly, promiscuious individuals that it's perfectly OK to infect as many innocent people as they choose. This man deserved more than 9 years for the vile and callous way he infected this woman and most likely others. He is no better than a murderer only his victims get to suffer and die slowly.

Vivica, Limerick, Ireland

It is clear the ruling indicates it is the infected partners responsibility to act, inform and take action to protect their partners. THAT will help stop the spread of AIDS, correct? I don't understand how AIDS programs can say with any credibility that this ruling will undermine the efforts to stop the spread of AIDS. If they were not hypocrites, they would point at this case and say to those they are targeting "This is what might happen to you if you do not act responsibly." But I don't think they are interested in what they are funded to be interested in.

Noelle, Houston, TX

what he did was to knowingly poison her, she was handed a death sentence. given, they have made and continue to make great strives in coming up with a cure for aids. suppose they have a cure for aids in five years and this woman gets cured. the damage done to her vital organs by the aids drugs she would have taken will have seriously shortened her life span and quality of life. this man will continue to spread aids in prison. does he not realize that one day he will appear before the great white throne judgement of our LORD and Saviour JESUS the CHRIST.

joe, chicago, usa

This Man should have gotten more then 9 years.
He needed to be thrown in prison, and the key be thrown away. What he did was commit"MURDER", when he knew exactly what he had, and did not take any precautions to protect his partners. If there is any outrage from anyone , it should be that HE only got 9 yrs.

Dee Dee, michigan , Michigan, USA

"HIV / AIDS infected people should all be quarantined and given a diginified life to exist in their own little world"

Great, what a wonderful idea.. I know, let's call it.. Auschwitz. Just because the majority of the people who are infected with Aids/Hiv shouldnt be punished because simply they got the disease..

We start quarantining the people, what's next?

Remember Germany...

Derek , San Antonio, TX

While I agree Mr Mola was wrong and deserves punishment. The severity of this sentence is harsh. While he knowingly did this, equally the other person has a responsibility to protect themselves as well. By having unprotected sex you are opening yourself up to a whole raft of viruses and infections, especially when you do this with someone you have only just met. YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT YOURSELF AS WELL. wake up!

Tim, London, UK

Are they really trying to paint Mr. Mola as a victim? What shame... What he did was wrong, no if , and or buts about it. He got was he deserved. I have total sympathy for people who suffer from HIV/AIDS but none for those who don't take proper measures to keep those who are uninfected from becoming infected.

C Rangel, Fort Lauderdale, FL., U.S.

Look at this another way: If I had TB and refused not to spread it, I could be forceably quarantined. So, that is what is happening here a forceable quarantine.

Justa Thought, Evansville, USA

The "National AIDS Trust" obviously has no interest in protecting the general public. They are clearly acting as a special interest group, advocating for those who have AIDS.

Honest AIDS sufferers have NOTHING to fear from enforement of reasonable standards of decency. The craven individuals that ignore the rights of others (to know the risks) need to be imprisoned permanently.

Dave H, Dayton, OH

This ruling is a farce. The man had HIV, but the woman could have insisted that he wear a condom, or worn a female condom. Learn a little more about your partner before you participate in a sexual relationship, if you must! The ruling is a violation of this man's civil liberties (if you have them in the UK) and sets an unhealthy precedent against all people with any type of STD who participate in unprotected sex.
I hope they appeal and and get the sentence revoked.

A, Anderson, USA

What this report really exposes is how EVIL these AIDS charities are. They are telling us that stigmatizing AIDS actually increases it and imprisoning those who wrecklessly infect others actually causes more of such behavior. What kind of LUNATICS would believe such upside-down thinking? If we stigmatize AIDS maybe people will have cause not to engage in the risky behavior that spreads it. If we put people in jail for wrecklessly infecting others, maybe we'll get the message out: DO NOT DO IT OR WE WILL PUT YOU IN JAIL. What are we going to hear next, don't stigmatize serial killers because we'll only encourage more people to take up the hobby? Come on, people. Don't buy the lie! Stigmatizing and crminalizing behavior helps to curb it. That is common sense, and anybody who tells you differently is trying to convince you that black is white. Don't buy the lie.

Larry, New York, New York

This guy knew he was infected and refused to wear a condom even though he was asked. Think how profoundly he has impacted this woman's life? If anything, 9 years was a light sentence. He should've been sentenced to a lifetime of going around to talk to people about the importance of protecting your partners. His face should be put on billboards with the message "If you have HIV or hepatitis and don't inform your partner, you're going to jail."

He is not being punished for having HIV, he is being punished for NOT admitting it. These charities, despite having good intentions, just don't get it. This woman has a right to justice, and the larger social ramifications are irrelevant.

Benjamin, Los Angeles, US/California

I guess The National Aids Trust wants him free to infect more people the same way. The more people infected means more funding for them. How pathetic to defend him.

Fritz, Madison, WI

The sentence is not harsh enough. He should have gotten at least 25 years. I strongly disagree with the National Aids trust on this subject. A horrible crime like this needs to be punished.

Annette, New Jersey, USA

Condoms are not fail safe. They only offer some protection, but they break and do not protect from HPV (human papoloma virus) or various other STD's. The only sure way not to catch something is ABSTINENCE. I know many find that to be unacceptable, but it is the only safe way. If you and your partner aren't willing to wait until you are married and then be with only that one person, then you must accept the consequences of your actions. Which may have devastating effects, as sadly was the case in this story.

Mike, Memphis, U.S.A.

If you put arsenic in your sugar bowl and did not tell – you would certainly go to jail. And this man did, in not telling that woman of his condition and offering her sex, so he ought to go to jail. In my community in Sacramento, California, I know several HIV infected individuals who are open about this, and this makes life easier, I can trust them, at least in this area. If I were interested in any one of them I would feel comfortable talking about safe sex before I proceeded. The man in your story is damaging relational trust as well of the position of HIV persons in community. Your National Aids Trust position needs to be thought out more. I am aware that in many communities broadcasting your HIV condition would be untenable, but those communities are causing more of the problem than a jail sentence for this man’s crime does. We all should ‘out’ that bigotry, and more money should be spent doing so.

Robert Oldfield, Sacramento, California, United States

I am more than agreeable with the conviction in this case. The Aides charity claims this will only make things worse for the HIV epidemic. Whether it makes it worse or not to tell someone about your infection still doesnt change the fact that u still have that responsibility! And when all is said and done what this is REALLY about is a civilian who decided his lovers life and health wasnt important enough for him to even ponder a thought on! For that he deserves to spend his life behind bars! The woman he delibertly slept with now will have these diseases for the rest of her life. A life for a life!

Danielle, Pittsburgh,

"will do nothing to promote Aids awareness or prevention. And shame on the self-serving Aids charities." Roland

Unfortunately you misunderstood what the charities are trying to accomplish. These charities confront the disease head on by encouraging people to come forward and acknowledge that they are infected, to make it comfortable for them to live with this fact, and most importantly to let their partners know about the infection. If you start sending everyone to jail, right or wrong, you may be encouraging people to remain silent, thus giving the upper hand to the virus. In this case the punishment was deserved, but we should be wary of such precedence.

Jon, Atlanta, GA

Hmmm. Let's think about this. Mr. Giovanni Mola has willingly sentenced a woman to a minimum life, possible death sentence, but 9 years is too strong a sentence for him. Where is the charity for Miss X?

Marty , Baltimore, MD, USA

Responsibility,huh!?Well,as a white southern man I have a responsibility to NOT drink and drive,NOT to shoot my handgun into the air indiscriminately,NOT to "offend" every group,except mine,(that type of discrimination is still socially,legally sanctioned)NOT to endanger anyone under our 1st amendment.Can you explain to me how an hiv infected person has NO RESPONSIBILTY to others?Remember,hiv/aids IS %101 preventable via RESPONSIBLE behavior.

Jeff, Fernandina, USA/Fl.

He's not being punished for having HIV. He's being punished for infecting someone else showing depraved indifference for her life. Will this discourage people from getting tested? Maybe, but if they don't get tested, they don't get treated, and they quit walking around and infecting other people that much sooner. Their choice. Wanna live? Get tested. If you're positive, wear a stupid condom. Getting your partner tested isn't a sure thing--they could cheat, shoot up, or be incubating it from an encounter in the past six weeks. If you're not both clean, sober, and mutually monogamous, use a condom. Hey, use one unless you're trying to get pregnant. The most tactful way to get a partner to get tested is to encourage them to buy life insurance--even a simple funeral insurance policy. This guy should go to jail. He may even like it--no shortage of HIV positive partners there.

Julie, Atlanta, GA, US

Yes, this concerns HIV and the destuction to peoples lives. However, the main point here is the heartlessness, and lack of concern for another human being, by Giovanni Mola. As far as I am concerned 9 years is not enough.. but I will add this Mr. Mola and Ms. X both are suffering because of a casual view of sex, and taking the act that is meant to be for a commited relationship, and trivializing it. Mr. Mola will stand before God one day to be judged for his act, as will Ms.X. Sorry for them both, better to do it as the Word of God states, one man, one woman devoted to each other for a life time.

Thomas, Ontario, California USA

I hope she pursues a civil suit against him, filing as a Jane Doe. He should live the rest of his life in jail and penniless. What a hateful man.

Patrizia, Chichester, U.K.

HIV / AIDS infected people should all be quarantined and given a diginified life to exist in their own little world - away from those who do not have the disease. How else can we deal with epidemic without the masses being victims?

In addition, all people should have their potential lover tested BEFORE ANY sexual contact is made. This is your only insurance for protection.

Tom, Olive Branch, USA

I understand that it may be horrendously difficult to tell someone that you are HIV+, however, how difficult is it to wear a condom?

Georgie, Hampshire, UK

The Aids charities sited her not perpetuating the myth that people living with HIV are subversives of society?

This appeal seems perverse and I would imagine that people living with HIV would agree with this.

LD, London, Beijing

Men have no regard for anything but satisfying their urge for sex. These cases are a waste of money because it was down to the woman to protect herself. NOBODY is unaware of the risk of disease with Aids, if you have unprotected sex, you know what may happen. This is not making excuses for this immoral man ,it is accepting the fact that this will continue to happen over and over again. Do we have enough room in our prisons for these people? I doubt it.

judy, Liverpool, england

"people living with HIV are cast as criminals" what nutters!

Mola is not a criminal because he has HIV: he is a criminal because, knowing he had it, he wilfully exposed the woman to acquirng these disease from him. That was the law in respect of venereal diseases many years before HIV became rampant.
He is well sentenced.

ABE, Gibraltar,

“Stigma and discrimination around HIV is increasing..." What planet are they living on? The response is typical of aid agencies whose use and relevance is dwindling. Shed no tears for Mr Mola as his imprisonment - fully deserved - will do nothing to promote Aids awareness or prevention. And shame on the self-serving Aids charities.

Roland, London,

I disagree with the National Aids trust's stance on this. This does not cast AIDS sufferers as criminals, it just states they have a responsibility to others. I think most people would agree with that and the Trust would gain more support if it acknowledged that.

Stephen Jones, China, China

Unfortunately we live in a callous and selfish age.People mostly are out for themselves and only think if they think at all of the reprocussions later. Life is to be valued. This man does not value his life nor the life of this lady. His is a miserable existence and he took this and gave it to another. I pray for them both.

Sonia, Colorado, USA

Not being gay myself I do have some gay friends. All of them Italked to were appaled at the nHIV charities were critical of their opinions. Ibelieve that what this gentleman? did to this lady was appalling and not representative of gay people I know. To deliberately infect someone when there are so many safegaurds available is a new low

Gaius Goetz, Alexandria, USA lOUISIANA

all of this objects (mola) assets should be sold to support the innocent ms x's life long requirement for expensive anti-viral treatment.
if and when he is released and deported, most of his earnings should be directed to supporting ms X.
whilst incarcerated, the object should not be supplied with drugs at state expense

Max E Webb, Mareeba, Australia

Denouncing the prison sentence of this callous individual for a horrible crime such as this shows exactly where the priorities of AIDS acitivists lie. Lack of contirbutions to thier cause due to comments like these also undermine efforts to stop the spread of AIDS.

K Herald, Kearney, NE

Lord Hodge did not cast Mr. Mola as a criminal because he has HIV.Mr.Mola is a criminal because his deliberate actions brought great harm to another human being.The suggestion that he should be excused from from the justice he has earned by those actions solely because he has HIV;is a sad commentary on the moral and ethical climate of our society.

Asher Galloway, Douglasville, Ga.USA

No... People living with HIV are not cast as criminals... people who intentionally give their partners HIV ARE criminals! The fact that he got away with ONLY 9 years is pretty generous. If anything, this should be a pretty good reason why to tell your partner. How can Debo-rah Jack not see that it's people like Mola that is really the threat of "undermining efforts to stop the spread." Not the fact that he's being put into prison for a horendous crime!?! Some people are truly amazing in the way they think!

Laura, Olathe, USA/kansas

well, what did National aids trust expect court to do ? give a bag full of sweets to mr mola and tell him to keep on spreading aids...

ash, guildford, uk

The prison sentence is not too severe. It is not severe enough. Sending Mola to jail is not making criminals out of HIV sufferers, it is punishing a criminal.

James Stewart, London,

This sad excuse for a human, deserves a long prison sentence.

Stephen Middlesbrough, Middlesbrough, UK

HIV-infected people have an overwhelming moral duty to inform their partners of their condition. If they shirk this, they deserve to be severely punished.

David Russell, Sheffield, South Yorkshire

The sentence should have been 99 years for murder.

Bob Hicks, CIBOLO, tx