Comments about ‘New Hampshire hospital worker gets 39 years in hepatitis case’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Dec. 2 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
West Coast1
Secane, PA

Are you kidding me? This guy should definitely get life? 46 people have hep c so far, with probably many more diagnoses to come. This will be the cause of death of many innocent people. Not to mention, getting Hep C would be very traumatizing.

Spanish Fork, UT

I doubt the disease will cause the death of many people. There are many effective treatments now. Treating it shortly after infection is most effective. I was infected with the virus in 1978 when I got a number of blood transfusions. It took quite a while to find out and so I have cirrhosis of the liver. For me the treatment was horrible, worse than the dens-dose chemotherapy I received for breast cancer. However, it's been 6 months since I finished the treatment and tomorrow I will hear if I am cured of the disease. What the guy did was reprehensible, however, and he should be punished severely.

Provo, UT

This is bioterrorism. He should be punished with the maximum penalty.

Hyrum, UT

His defense lawyers are also reprehensible... as well as pathetic... for saying he should get a lighter sentence due to alcohol and drugs clouding his judgement. It's very much seems his defense team also lacks sane judgement for using such an argument in his defense.

Based on their analysis, we should give drunk drivers who kill people lighter sentences since alcohol clouded their judgement.
And we should have pity on drug dealers since drugs clouded their judgement, as well.
Totally a pathetic argument. He should fire his lawyers for obvious incompetence.

His victims didn't have any choices regarding his crimes. But he certainly did regarding his choices to use (abuse) drugs and alcohol. No one forced him to become a user. Because he made bad CHOICES is NOT a valid reason for getting a lighter sentence. In fact, it should be quite the contrary.

Fuaamotu, Tonga

Contrary to Tators’ opinion, his defense lawyers are neither “reprehensible” nor “pathetic.” They had a job to do. Their belief in his guilt or innocence had nothing to do with the requirements of their job. It’s the prosecutor’s job to prosecute not the defense attorneys. “Reprehensible” and “pathetic” are terms that belong to the defendant. Try not to get “kun-foozed.”

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments