Nadja Benaissa (left) is in the girl band No Angels, which staged a comeback in 2007

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10983227

Edit: Hmm, she said she didn't intent to hurt anyone, although it has now come out that she knew about her HIV status in 1999, but slept with 3 men unprotected after that date...

Looks like she might be free in time for the next reunion tour...

She claims she didn't intend to hurt anyone, but the fact remains she was aware of her infection but still chose not to warn her sexual partners first. At best that's misguided, at worst it's criminally negligent.

Yep. That is what the court is currently trying to decide...

It is not something that I could decide.

Really? It seems rather easy to me. You were aware that you had HIV, you did not warn the other person, the other person now has a fatal illness = guilty. Next.

Yes but people do not think when sex is involved. They get caught up in the passion. Rationality goes out of the window. That is why I cant decide.

If you have HIV or in fact any communicable disease then it's your responsibility *not* to get caught up in the passion until everyone's reading from the same page. FFS even just insisting on a condom would have been something!! She had a responsibility to her sexual partners to divulge a potentially life-threatening illness, she didn't, so guilty!!

We don't allow that as a defense, generally speaking. The 'crime of passion' defense is a myth. Legally, you are responsible for your own actions, unless you can prove you were actually clinically insane at the time.

Lots of people have unprotected sex when they shouldn't - that's just a fact of life, if you'll excuse the pun. However once you know you're HIV positive, you gain an extra responsibility. One of the fundamental bases of law is that you should not do something which you know will bring harm to another. That includes sleeping with them in this case.

I did see a news report which suggested the woman had been told the chances of her passing on her condition to a man was very very small so she thought it was OK. That suggests she's an idiot rather than malicious. The thing I'm not sure about is this - the accusation seems to be she had unprotected sex with three men after finding out she was HIV+. What I don't remember hearing is whether any of those men were actually infected or not as a result. Surely the offense becomes much more serious if she has passed on the infection, rather just than she might have?

I read that two men were not infected, but one was. Based on that, she deserves to go to prison.

Yes but crimes of passion do actually result in lower sentences. If any form of pre-mediation is involved then it is longer. What about the alcohol levels? I do appreciate that this could be similar to rape which is clearly wrong. Her intentions were not to infect the men. If it were then yes she is guilty.

It really doesn't work that way. For example : Almost never do people get into a car intending to kill people. But we expect people to drive carefully and if you drive recklessly or when drunk, the penalties are higher than if you are involved in an accident that is simply that.

What she has done is much more similar to drink driving than say driving without due care. She was in a given situation and if she knew a given set of actions on her part would put someone else at risk, then she should suffer a heavy punishment. If she genuinely believed what she was doing presented little or no risk then she has a much lesser case to answer, if any at all. In that case, however, if she was given such incorrect information by a member of the medical profession or some such, then they have serious questions to answer.

i have but one word for this infected HIV young lady ...

BITCH ...