He should be imprisoned for the rest of his life

A man facing first-degree murder charges for allegedly spreading the virus that causes AIDS went to trial in October, 2008 in what's believed to be the first prosecution of its kind in Canada. Two women died after allegedly having unprotected sex with him. Johnson Aziga, 52, has so far, spent five years in pre-trial custody while cycling through several legal teams.

The question before the court is, if it is established that two women died as a result of him having unprotected sex with them when he was HIV positive, is it first degree murder or second degree murder?

Now we all understand that first degree murder is one that is planned in advance however, it can also be first degree murder even if it isn’t planned in advance. For example, in Canada, if you kill a police officer while committing a crime, even if you didn’t intend to kill the officer, it is first degree murder. If someone dies when you are hijacking an aircraft, it is first degree murder. If you kidnap someone or are holding a person as a hostage and that person dies; that is also first degree murder. If you savagely sexually assault someone and they die as a result, that is first degree murder.

People in Canada who are HIV positive who had unprotected sex with their sexual partners without first informing them that they had AIDS, were convicted in Canada with aggravated assault.

Aggravated assault involves maiming, wounding, disfiguring or endangering the life of the victim. In the Johnson Aziga case before the court, that man certainly endangered the lives of the two women who ultimately died because he had unprotected sex with them.

Since first degree murder includes bringing about the death of a person as result of aggravated assault; the charge of first degree murder is the right charge that this man is facing.

If he is convicted of the two counts of first degree murder (and that is a given) he may only have to serve fifteen years maximum in prison before he can apply to the National Parole Board for release from prison. If they grant it, he will be on parole for the rest of his life. Later, I will explain why he can apply for parole in fifteen years and not the twenty-five year minimum which is the penalty for first degree murder.

In Canada, anyone convicted of first degree murder must serve a minimum of twenty-five years in prison. He could serve the rest if his life in prison but he is eligible to apply for parole after he has served twenty-five years. That doesn’t mean he will get it but he has the right to apply for it.

Because he killed two people, should he serve two sentences of twenty-five years consecutively? No. In Canada, if he killed a hundred people, the law says that he would only have to serve a minimum of twenty-five years unless the parole board says that he should stay longer in prison.

I should add that a man in South America served only twelve years in prison and he killed well over three hundred people as a serial killer, whereas in the United States, a man who killed three people was sentenced to a thousand years in prison for each death, the sentences to be served consecutively. He appealed on the basis that the sentences were gross. The appeal court agreed and reduced the sentences to 500 years for each death to be served consecutively.

There is an exception that I should bring to your attention with respect to the minimum sentence being twenty-five years. The "Faint Hope Clause" is the popular name for Section 745.6 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which is a statutory provision that allows Canadian prisoners who have been sentenced to life in prison, without the possibility of parole for a period greater than 15 years, to apply for early parole after he or she has served 15 years.

A ‘Faint Hope Clause’ application begins when the prisoner applies to the Chief Justice of the province where he or she was convicted. The Chief Justice (or another designated judge) then reviews the application to determine whether there is a reasonable chance the prisoner could be successful in his or her application before a jury, and if the applicant is likely to succeed, the court will empanel a jury to hear the application. The jury will hear evidence relating to the character of the prisoner, the prisoner's conduct while in prison, the nature of the offence, the effect of the crime on the family of the victim, and other information the presiding judge deems relevant. The jury then decides whether, if at all, the parole eligibility period should be reduced. The jury’s decision to reduce the parole eligibility period must be unanimous.

If the parole eligibility period is reduced, this merely permits the prisoner to apply for early parole, and the ultimate decision of whether to grant parole lies with the National Parole Board. If the jury decides that he cannot immediately apply for release, he must wait until he has served the full twenty-five years in prison before applying again for his release.

The ‘Faint Hope Clause’ remains controversial in Canada. Critics argue that applications made under the section unfairly traumatize the families of victims, while proponents argue that the section is necessary to give convicted murders some hope thus preventing prisons from being even more dangerous than they already are. I don’t accept the second reasoning. Persons serving life in prison are for the most part, not dangerous while they are in prison.

Persons convicted of multiple murders are not eligible to apply for a reduction in their parole eligibility period. This would include Johnson Aziga.

However, you may recall that I said that he could apply for parole after having served only fifteen years even though as a multiple killer, he would not be eligible to apply under the ‘Faint Hope Clause’. In Canada, if a person is in pretrial custody, whatever time he was in pretrial custody, it is credited with that time which is then doubled. The reason for this is that in a detention centre, he would not have the benefits available to him in a penitentiary such as participating in sports, watching movies, taking courses etc. He would simply stagnate in the detention centre.

Johnson Aziga has spent five years in pretrial custody and since that is doubled; he will be given ten years credit which when deducted from twenty-five years, amounts to fifteen years he must serve before he can apply for parole. This would make it then unnecessary for him to apply for an early release under the ‘Faint Hope Clause’.

The question that will be before the National Parole Board in the year 2023 will be, will it be safe to release this man back into society?

He will be 67 years of age if he is released. What will his libido (sex drive) be at that age? It's natural for men to have a gradual decline in sex drive as they age. The degree of this decline varies with the individual. Most men still maintain some sexual interest well into their 60s and 70s.

What about chemical castration? It is a form of castration caused by hormonal medication. It does not mean the actual removal of the genital organs. The medication is used mainly by countries as a preventive measure on people who violate their laws on sexual behavior, for example those who have committed rape or child sexual abuse. It really means that it brings about a reduction of the sex drive by the injection of the hormonal medication. However, this is only effective when the person takes the medication. If he stops taking it, the effect wears off and his libido returns.

In Johnson Aziga’s case, it could be used effectively because as a condition of his life-long parole, (which is mandatory for persons convicted of first degree murder) he would have to go regularly to a clinic and be injected with the medication. The clinic could then fax the medical report to the parole office proving that he was injected with the medication.

Alternatively, he could be kept in prison for the rest of his life if the National Parole Board deems him to be a risk to society. Why, you may ask, would he be a risk to society of he is being constantly injected with hormonal medication to reduce his sex drive?

Many years ago, there was a woman in Chicago called Typhoid Mary. She was born on September 23, 1869 and died on November 11, 1938. (I was five years old when she died) She was the first person in the United States to be identified as a healthy carrier of typhoid fever. Over the course of her career as a cook, she infected 47 people, three of whom died from the disease. Her notoriety is in part due to her vehement denial of her own role in spreading the disease, together with her refusal to cease working as a cook. She was forcibly quarantined twice by public health authorities. After she was released from her first quarantine, she carried on working as a cook and infected more people. The court then ordered that she was never to be released again and she died in quarantine in an institution.

If Johnson Aziga is released back into society, it is in the realm of possibility that instead of remaining under the authority of the parole authorities, he would abscond and disappear somewhere in Canada and then re-infect other women with AIDS. If that were to happen, other women might also die.

Now, you may well ask, why do I think he might do that? Consider this. He was warned by the medical people that he was not to have sex with sexual partners unless he first informed them that he was HIV positive. He ignored that warning and had sex with an at least twenty unsuspected women of which two of them died. He did however inform his wife and because he used a condom, she didn’t get AIDS. This is evidence of his contempt for the innocent women he infected.

That is sufficient reason for me to believe that he would not adhere to the regimen given to him by the parole authorities and for this reason, I think he should remain in prison for the rest of his life so that no other women will get AIDS from him and die.

As soon as his trial is finished, I will publish the court’s verdict and sentence in this article.