NORFOLK
Can a healthy adult consent to having unprotected sex with a partner she knows is HIV-positive?
Two women who had sexual relationships with Petty Officer 1st Class Steven R. Franklin apparently decided the risk was worth it - but on Tuesday it cost Franklin his career.
According to testimony in a special court-martial at Norfolk Naval Station, both women chose to have unprotected sex with Franklin after learning he had HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
Their consent did not let Franklin off the hook. The 37-year-old aviation electronics technician was sentenced to three months' confinement and a bad-conduct discharge after pleading guilty to two counts of aggravated assault as well as disobeying an order.
Cmdr. Tierney Carlos, the military judge, also demoted him in rank to seaman recruit. Franklin faced additional charges, including adultery, that were dropped as part of a plea agreement.
The charges stemmed from Franklin's ignoring written and oral orders not to have unprotected sex. He also was compelled to advise sexual partners that he was HIV-positive and that condoms are not guaranteed to stop the spread of the virus.
Franklin, who was diagnosed with HIV in 2003, was reminded of the restrictions every time he visited the HIV clinic at Portsmouth Naval Medical Center, he told the judge.
He also signed an order from his commanding officer at the Aviation Intermediate Maintenance Depot in Norfolk in November 2007 pledging to meet those conditions.
Within a few weeks of signing that document, though, Franklin began a new sexual relationship. The couple used condoms for a few weeks but later stopped at Franklin's request.
After the woman learned of his diagnosis, she continued having unprotected sex with him for a few more weeks, according to testimony.
The second woman - now his ex-wife - testified at an earlier hearing that she also had unprotected sex with Franklin after learning he was HIV-positive.
Neither woman has contracted HIV, according to testimony.
Regardless of the women's actions, the law does not allow people to consent to a sexual act that could result in "grievous bodily harm," Carlos explained.
Unprotected consensual sex became aggravated assault because of the likelihood it would cause serious harm or death.
Franklin, who has spent more than 18 years in the Navy, told the judge his HIV is well-controlled and the virus is no longer detectable in certain medical tests. However, he still carries the virus and acknowledged there is still the risk of transmitting it.
Lt. j.g. Brian Hodgdon asked the judge for a six-month sentence.
Greg McCormack, Franklin's civilian lawyer, called the case "an extremely sad situation" and asked the judge for leniency. Franklin's actions were "a serious mistake," McCormack said, but didn't warrant a bad-conduct discharge or time in the brig.
Franklin gave a tearful, unsworn statement during the sentencing hearing, apologizing to the women, his command and the Navy.
Franklin also thanked his new wife - his third - for standing by him throughout the ordeal. They do not have sex without a condom, he said.
Kate Wiltrout, (757) 446-2629, kate.wiltrout@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
"A court order that dictated your personal love life?"
Don't ask, don't tell does no such thing--unless a person is forced into the military by a court order. Which doesn't happen.
hmmm
Hold up... he is in the Navy for 18 years and only a PO1? My guess is, this probably isn't the first time he's been in trouble...
I'm wondering what kind of...
stud is this guy that he can can have repeated unprotected sex with gals who KNOW he is HIV positive? Either this guy is the greatest lover since Don Juan, or we have a progression of 'stupidity' that may merit study from an institution of higher learning, of all involved!
This could be fodder for one of those "Dummies in the news" reports you hear on morning radio stations and whatnot. You know, bank robbers who provide their IDs in return for the cash, that sort of thing? Geezz Loueezz...
Another point of view
While the issue of having unprotected sex while infected with a potentially deadly virus is certainly worth some serious scrutiny; I have to wonder about another issue that dove-tails into this one. I wonder about the Constitutionality of the order. While I completely agree with the majority of posters that what this sailor did was horrendous, the fact is, it’s not like he was doing it out of malicious intent. It seems to me that these were 2 distinct established relationships. He wasn’t engaging in multiple one-night stands to see how many partners he could infect. The government essentially told him how and where he was allowed to have sex. How much government do we need in our lives? I have to wonder how the government found out. Did one of the women turn him in? Or did the government (his command) press him to admit his sexual relationships? How would any of you react if you had a court order that dictated your personal love life? To me, it’s kind of chilling.
that's exasctly what "don't ask don't tell" does
How would any of you react if you had a court order that dictated your personal love life?
historical day
Gertz, you can mark this as a historical day. I actually agree with you. But I won't let it go to my head.
and i won't either
I won't let it go to my heard either. LOL
my two questions...
1. Why is the Pilot not naming those two women who had unprotected sex with this diseased person? If you can name the MAN, why won't you name the WOMEN?
2. Are we to assume these irrespnsible women will advise their current and future sexual partners that they once (or many times) knowingly had unprotected sex with an HIV+ man, prior to having sex with them? I think NOT! How many men, and possibly women, coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan have these women already had sex with, possibly passing on the virus. I can foresee some other serviceMAN a few years from now being being diagnosed HIV+ and likewise subsequently discharged for having had unprotected sex with one of these two women....
Come on, Pilot, out with the names!
Names
The Pilot will not name the women because under the law they are victims of an aggravated assault. Additionally, Franklin did not tell the women he was HIV positive when they first had unprotected sex. -Patrick Wilson and Kate Wiltrout, online news desk, The Pilot.
How many partners...
So how many other partners have these women had sex with and possibly infected and sooo on?? Chances are if they were sleeping with him, surely they were sleeping with others and so on and the wheel just continues. Nowadays, you can't trust anyone... I am so glad I am not a "younger" person.. young people have no clue or no sense when it comes to these things... old ones as well.. people seem to love playin roulette with their bodies... go figure... Not everyone is Magic Johnson or has his money to stay healthy and alive... Just Stooooopid!
Two questions: 1. Why is he
Two questions:
1. Why is he still in the Navy?
2. Why wouldn't a reporter use verbal in the following sentence?"ignoring written and oral orders not to have unprotected sex."
Nuff said.
this article will be a shock to many
This article will be a shock to many because many people think you have to be gay to test positive for HIV. It doesn't matter how "well controled" HIV is, once you get it you don't get rid of it. The only thing that can vary is the viral load, but you still have HIV which can lead to full blown AIDS.
Some one posted "stupid X 3" You are absolutely correct.
More information on the HIV case
To clarify, here is a bit more information from the court-martial on Tuesday: One of Franklin's sexual partners testified that they had unprotected sex routinely for weeks before she discovered he was HIV positive. At that point, she told the court, she was certain she had already been infected. So she didn't think it was necessary to start using a condom.
She confronted him about his health after finding prescription drugs in the refrigerator. He later acknowledged being HIV positive.
Check Your FACTS....
I'm sorry, but you're contridicting yourself on points here...
First, your on-line web desk partner, Patrick says that both women have tested positive for HIV, and yet in your report you wrote, "Neither woman has contracted HIV, according to testimony." So which is it? (I happen to know the truth and that is that NEITHER woman has tested positive.) Did Patrick read your report before responding?
Second...you say, "One of Franklin's sexual partners testified that they had unprotected sex routinely for weeks before she discovered he was HIV positive. At that point, she told the court, she was certain she had already been infected. So she didn't think it was necessary to start using a condom. She confronted him about his health after finding prescription drugs in the refrigerator. He later acknowledged being HIV positive."
Did it ever occur to you to interview the actual parties involved? Do you know Petty Officer Franklin and/or either of the two women? If the ex-wife knew from the start of her relationship about her husbands HIV status and still chose to have unprotected sex with her husband during their marriage, then when they seperated and eventually divorced, wasn
Not positive for HIV
Sorry, that was a typo. The comment should have repeated what was in the story - that the women have NOT tested positive for HIV. Thanks. -Patrick Wilson
More wasted tax dollars?
STUPID X 3 = We will pay for their EXPENSIVE medical treatments when needed !
Hope they enjoyed it!
to answer pLamastra
As you mention, and as expected, there is or was a program to cover these expenses, I think, through Medicaid.......The services are waivered meaning the criteria is different from regular Medicaid..........You are indeed correct!!!!!
Navy & HIV/AIDS
Interesting facts about this subject. It should be noted that AIDS/HIV seems to be taken very seriously by the Navy. Note the article, which states that there is a clinic expressly for this problem at Portsmouth Naval. One could draw the conclusion that there are enough cases to warrant a designated clinic. In addition, the statistics of HIV/AIDS infected Navy personnel are not part of the local statistics reported by our local Health Departments i.e. local numbers of people with HIV/AIDS. The Navy, is not required to report these numbers to local agencies, as I understand the policy. Their statistics belong to them. Remember that when AIDS/HIV local numbers are reported. Confidentiality laws also impact these statistics. People with HIV/AIDS, in the Navy or civilian, have unprotected sex all the time, here locally, with people who may or may not know that their partner is infected. People really need to be very careful...We don't hear about it as much as we once did, but it is still alive and well.
sources on numbers?
Because you are implying there are a lot. As for having "a clinic expressly for this problem at Portsmouth Naval" there are a lot of clinics at PNaval, and some of them have very few patients. What good is a major military hospital if it doesn't have a clinic for every issue that might come up? Take the decompression chambers the pilot made a huge stink about a few years back, turns out they weren't ever used at all, but they still had a clinic huh...
1) The poster said "one
1) The poster said "one could draw a conclusion..." Meaning... we don't really know... but it could be the case.
2) You shouldn't be so bitter. Eat more fiber.