Needle Exchange Case Study

• In the state of Massachusetts a prescription is required from a doctor in order to distribute hypodermic needles. In the year 1990, two citizens of the city of Lynn started a needle exchange program in an goal to fight against the spread of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome also known as (AIDS). The two men legally purchased new sterile needles over-the-counter in Vermont. The defendants were at a specific location on Union Street in Lynn from 5 P.M. to 7 P.M. every Wednesday evening in 1991 until their arrest made in June 19. They accepted dirty needles from society in exchange for clean needles; they exchanged between 150 and 200 needles each night ranging from 50-60 people. The defendants didn’t believe in charging for the service or

At the time of trial, he was in his tenth year of recovery from addiction; his health insurance covered his treatment. Leno learned of needle exchange programs from a National AIDS Brigade lecturer. Leno worked for needle exchange programs in Boston, in New Haven, Connecticut, and in New York City. Leno started a needle exchange program in Lynn in September, 1990, after realizing that "in my own back yard ... people were dying of AIDS ... and this particular service was not offered to them." Leno testified that he believed that by providing clean needles to addicts he was helping to stem the spread of AIDS, he was helping addicts, especially the homeless, to reach recovery, and that he was not helping addicts continue their

He joined Leno in operating a needle exchange program in Lynn as a matter of conscience: "I would have had a hard time with my conscience if I didn't do it without good reason. He knew people were dying of AIDS and when leno told him what he was doing, he thought he would save a few lives. It’s sort of an irresistible opportunity for Ingalls to save a lives.” The issue at question was if the defendants were eligible for the defense of necessity or not. The two men were not satisfied about the court not mentoring the jury about the defense of necessity and when it could be used. The court was trying to decide whether Leno and Ingalls were really using the defense of necessity when they claimed that they accepted dirty needles in exchange for clean needles and approximately exchanged between 150 and 200 needles each night, for fifty to sixty people in order to stop the spread of AIDS. The defendants argue that the increasing number of AIDS cases is a huge problem in society of great proportions, and that their actions were effective by helping reduce the magnitude of that problem; they claimed that their possession, transportation and distribution of hypodermic needles eventually would produce an over-all reduction in the spread of HIV and in the future incidence of AIDS. The defendants' argument raises the issue of jury nullification, not the defense of necessity. Although the