In his essay “Criminal Law During (and After) COVID-19”, Terry Skolnik (2020) explores the application of the Mabior framework to COVID-19, particularly in cases where individuals knowingly transmit the virus. I agree with Terry Skolnik’s commentary on the need to consider intent in cases of COVID-19 transmission, but I disagree with his application of the Mabior framework to these cases. In this paper, I will argue that while intent is a crucial factor, the unique nature of COVID-19 warrants a different approach that focuses on negligence and recklessness rather than strict liability. Skolnik (2020) argues that the Mabior framework, which imposes criminal penalties on those who deliberately expose others to HIV, should apply to those who purposefully …show more content…
Even though it is evident when there is a deliberate transfer of COVID-19, it might be difficult to establish purpose when there is an unintentional transmission. COVID-19 can spread unintentionally, unlike HIV, particularly when an individual is asymptomatic. Furthermore, it is challenging to determine a direct link between an individual's behaviours and the virus's propagation due to COVID-19's quick proliferation and the absence of extensive testing. Moreover, Skolnik's reasoning falls short in addressing the possible repercussions of using the Mabior framework with COVID-19. The Mabior framework has drawn criticism for having the ability to stigmatize people living with HIV and dissuade them from being tested and coming forward. The laws discriminate against individuals living with HIV (PLWH) by punishing behaviours that are legal for others (Tatham, 2023). If COVID-19 were to follow a similar paradigm, people might be discouraged from getting tested and treated out of concern for potential criminal