In a disturbing case that has garnered significant attention, Lucio Catarino Diaz, a 52-year-old janitor from Houston, Texas, was sentenced to six years in prison on Tuesday, March 18, 2025, for infecting at least 13 women with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) by urinating in their water bottles and a communal water cooler.
The incidents occurred in 2022 at a medical building where Diaz was employed, and the sentencing has sparked debate over whether the punishment fits the severity of the crime.
According to a report from AOL.com Diaz’s actions came to light after a female employee noticed an unusual taste in her water bottle and subsequently tested positive for herpes and hepatitis A—both incurable STDs with potential long-term health consequences, including blisters and liver failure.
Suspecting foul play, the employee installed a hidden camera on her desk, which recorded Diaz contaminating her water bottle with his urine after hours.
Further investigation revealed that Diaz had similarly tampered with a shared water cooler and other personal bottles, affecting at least 12 additional women in the building.
The New York Post, in an article published on March 20, 2025, noted that Diaz’s contamination led to the spread of these diseases among unsuspecting victims, who experienced a range of symptoms before receiving their diagnoses.
The prosecution argued that Diaz knowingly engaged in reckless behavior, though no clear motive was publicly established.
Diaz was sentenced to six years in prison, a term that many have criticized as overly lenient given the number of victims and the permanent impact of the diseases he spread.
AOL.com described the sentence as “a light prison sentence of just six years,” highlighting the disparity between the harm caused and the punishment received.
Posts on X echoed this sentiment, with users expressing outrage over the judicial outcome. One user, posting on March 21, 2025, questioned, “Who gave this [individual] a lenient sentence?” accompanied by an angry emoji, reflecting broader public frustration.
The case has raised questions about workplace safety and accountability for such unconventional and malicious acts.
While the six-year sentence falls within Texas sentencing guidelines for related charges—potentially including aggravated assault or reckless endangerment—the lack of harsher penalties has left victims and observers dissatisfied.
No additional fines or restitution details were widely reported, further fueling perceptions of leniency.
This incident has prompted discussions about the adequacy of legal frameworks to address biological harm inflicted through non-traditional means.
The New York Post emphasized the “wee prison sentence” pun, underscoring the perception that justice was not fully served.
Meanwhile, the AOL.com report noted that the case has left a lasting mark on the affected workplace, with victims grappling with lifelong health challenges.
