October 9, 2009

HIV-Positive Sailor Sentenced for Consensual, Unprotected Sex

An HIV-positive U.S. Navy officer was sentenced to three months of confinement for having unprotected, consensual sex with two women who were aware of his status, The Virginian-Pilot reports. According to testimony in a court-martial at Norfolk Naval Station, neither women—one of whom is an ex-wife—contracted the virus.

Petty Officer 1st Class Steven R. Franklin, a 37-year-old aviation electronics technician, was sentenced to three months of confinement and a bad-conduct discharge after pleading guilty to two counts of aggravated assault and disobeying an order. Franklin was also demoted to seaman recruit. Additional charges—including adultery—were dropped as part of a plea request.

After being diagnosed with HIV in 2003, Franklin was ordered both verbally and in writing not to have unprotected sex, and he was required to disclose his status to all sexual partners. While he disclosed his status to both women before having sex, not using a condom was grounds for punishment.

Search: Navy, unprotected, condoms, consensual

Scroll down to comment on this story.

Previous Comments:

Puleeze, Portland OR, 2009-11-17 17:24:21
Jay in Houston, you are completely one-sided in your argument. Those women were at fault also, maybe they should be forced through a court order to undergo sex-addiction therapy. What about an 'attempted suicide' recognition? Next thing they'll be crying rape! PATHETIC!! Both parties should be held accountable, not just the infected one. I mean they KNEW his status and had sex with him anyway!! It's always the Poz person's fault and I for one am SICK OF IT!!!

Outraged Homo, Washington, 2009-11-15 03:53:56
How ludicrous! Why don't they just execute HIV+ people when they're diagnosed instead of prosecuting people for what they do in their own sex lives? It seems unfair and inhumane to spend so much effort on promoting life-saving drugs if the life they're saving isn't worth living when you've got to always worry about whether someone is going to say you didn't tell them you're poz, or in this guy's case, not using a condom. LUDICROUS!!!

Eliza, Unity, Maine, 2009-11-12 13:47:59
WTF? So what this says is that only people with HIV have to be responsible for having protected sex? What about these two women who CHOSE to have unprotected sex with him? They are not accountable for their actions? This is NUTS! These women could have given the man something he didn't want-herpes, HPV or Hepatitis. They had unprotected sex--chances are they have done it before and will do it again! This is so icky and sounds like the 1980's hysteria and ignorance. I say again, WTF?

Jay, Houston, 2009-11-11 23:54:59
That is an unfortunate situation however, we are held accountable for our own actions and as an officer he more then any one else should know that once you enlist you are property of the government and no longer have free will.

KGil, Philadelphia, 2009-11-05 23:37:25
Here's my two cents. If I am questioning the HIV+ officer, I would ask him what he could be responsible for. If I were questioning the two women, I would ask them the same question! Responsible as in NOT fault or blame, but that each of us is responsible for our own lives and our own actions. Pointing the finger doesn't make any difference!! We give all our power away every time we do that & then become the victim. If I lived that way as a positive man- like I'm a big victim- I'd be dead!

healthy now, Washington, 2009-11-04 14:31:04
I believe that it is the responsibility of both partners to know to use protection;

clay, SETX, 2009-11-03 11:51:07
so he was given an order not to have unprotected sex, are they giving that order to all service men? it would seem that would be appropriate. get real people how many men and women in the military contract and spread not just HIV but many other STD's that could also have devastating consequences.

Trish Steen, Kansas City, 2009-10-24 10:25:34
He told his status, the women chose to have unprotected sex. That was their decision. However, he was ordered to use a condom and he disobeyed that order. But I think 3 months confinement is a bit extreme. The women knew his status, they are just as responsible. They risked it and luckily they weren't infected. Maybe the Navy needs to take a look at responsibly educating their servicemen and women with the facts of HIV transmission, etc. Breaks my heart we're still living in the 1980's.

George, Indianapolis, 2009-10-23 09:06:53
Punished, not necessarily, reducated, yes. It is serious for ANYONE to have sex with ANYONE when they knowlingly have any STD. We have to leave it up to that person and their partner(s). If they share it with each other they know the risks involved. It is irresponsible for anyone knowingly having any STD to knowingly do this, however, we can't eliminate responsibilty for the other partner either. Med resistance needs to be understood and not having sex in the heat of the moment as well.

Donna, West Covina, 2009-10-21 03:46:01
Goodness, If you are going to be selfish enough to have sex with an HIV- person, then at least have enough respect for them and use a rubber. In my perspective I believe it is okay to have sex with someone who is negative as long as you make sure to use protection, I am actually surprised that the girls still had sex knowing about his condition, but then again we think we are invincible until something really does happen to us. LOL

Bill, California, 2009-10-20 11:27:58
As a HIV/AIDS patient, I am appalled by the survey results of whether Franklin should be punished or not for consensual unprotected sex!!! 81% said NO??? What is going on with people???? He knew better and that HIV people are expected to uphold safe sex protocols! Should drunk drivers not be charged since their drinking was "consensual?" The ignorance of erradicating HIV is mind boggling. BE SAFE, PLAY SAFE or go to JAIL!!!

Blaine, Dallas, 2009-10-18 06:45:24
The government needs to get out of our consensual sexual lives. If you tell someone you are positive and they still want sex it's their body and their choice. Period. It's amazing that women can have a legal abortion but poz/neg sex is deemed immoral/illegal. Give me a break!

loca, , 2009-10-16 06:30:12
HIV+ person is in a position of trust if you read the text below. Abuse of a position of Trust All HIV+ should clearly understand the need to maintain appropriate boundaries in their dealings with HIV-. Intimate or sexual relationships between HIV+ and HIV- will be regarded as a grave breach of trust. Any sexual activity between a HIV+ and HIV- under or above 18 years of age may be a criminal offence.

rmjk, boston, 2009-10-13 18:48:35
I would hope thr reason for this officers punishment was disregarding a direct order. His responsibility is to inform hispartners havingdone so both are consenual adults and decesions made by them are thier responsbilities not the morality police. Howevert being in the service and being ordered he has no choice in matter other then resign from the service or take punishnent for disobeying a direct order

SteveDiego, Southwest, 2009-10-13 18:26:13
The partners were told of his status and apparently consented to sex - he did his job as far as I'm concerned! If you have no other STDs, take your meds and are undetectable the chances are slim-to-none that you'll transmit the virus. Yes, he should have insisted, but criminial prosecution on any level is absurd!! Are people who spread other STDs prosecuted?? Get the gov't. out of the bedroom!