In fairness it's not like she ripped the condom off their dicks. They chose to be stupid and now they have to pay the price.
No, that's not in all fairness at all. If the woman had HIV and told the guy, then he had sex it'd be "in all fairness". If if woman had HIV and didn't know, and they had unprotected sex, it'd be "in all fairness".
Knowing and not telling and allowing the man to have unprotected sex is defined as criminal charge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV
There's no "in all fairness" about the choices of the victim when a crime has been committed.
While odd circumstances, this is black and white. It's pretty much no different than assault with a deadly weapon because the intent of the infected person. If I'm careless with a gun and shoot someone (and they live) what am I charged with?
Here's the relevant quotes:
She said she was 'careless during those days' and admitted she did not tell her sex partners about her condition.
And she claimed that she had been told the likelihood of her passing on HIV was 'more or less zero'.
Ignorance of the transmission rate doesn't mean a damn thing. Good luck with that defense.