Thoughts? "Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California."

[vernhart]

Just wondering what you all think of this.

Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Treebeard]

It's definitely more consistent, though I'd think intentionally giving someone any disease should be a pretty serious crime.

 

[Kkshake]

That's ridiculous. Of course it should be a felony.

 

[libertyyne]

That's ridiculous. Of course it should be a felony.

What about herpes, DR TB, Hepatitis, HPV ? Should all those be felonies as well?

 

[Osteoth]

Wait so HIV is mandatory reporting for us, so wouldn't partners/state officials have to be told anyway?

Also, the article said that people were refusing to get tested so they couldn't get caught by the law. That means they already pretty much knew and were screwing over their partners anyway. Super sad.

 

[Gorne]

Today's America would rather be exposed to HIV than offend those with HIV

 

[deleted480308]

California has lost their mind

 

[Kkshake]

What about herpes, DR TB, Hepatitis, HPV ? Should all those be felonies as well?

Yes.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

What about herpes, DR TB, Hepatitis, HPV ? Should all those be felonies as well?

So you don't think intentionally injuring someone to the point where they need lifelong medical care to stay alive shouldn't be a felony?

 

[Lannister]

Also, the article said that people were refusing to get tested so they couldn't get caught by the law. That means they already pretty much knew and were screwing over their partners anyway. Super sad.

I would really like to know these peoples' thought process. Not only are they screwing over their partners, but they're also screwing themselves over by not getting tested/treated. Doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Crayola227]

IIRC, I thought they could throw your ass in jail to get TB treatment

not everything on the list above can be treated all the same, but yeah, public health woo hoo

 

[deleted480308]

IIRC, I thought they could throw your ass in jail to get TB treatment

not everything on the list above can be treated all the same, but yeah, public health woo hoo

They absolutely can (and do) because TB actively transmits to rando bystanders

 

[Crayola227]

They absolutely can (and do) because TB actively transmits to rando bystanders

you misunderstand me, I'm totally on board with that

just saying, I don't think HIV, TB, should be treated the same as say, herpes simplex

doesn't mean there shouldn't be consequences

 

[Gorne]

you misunderstand me, I'm totally on board with that

just saying, I don't think HIV, TB, should be treated the same as say, herpes simplex

doesn't mean there shouldn't be consequences

I think it should. Knowingly having HSV and having unprotected sex with an unknowing partner is transmitting an agent that will cause years of pain, embarrassment, and potential serious consequences later in life if they find themselves immunocompromised.

 

[libertyyne]

So you don't think intentionally injuring someone to the point where they need lifelong medical care to stay alive shouldn't be a felony?

maybe you should lead an initiative to get that converted into a felony as well if you think they should be treated equally. Surprised to see all the self proclaimed libertarians on this forum jump up for more policing and laws and state interventions between individuals.

 

[deleted480308]

maybe you should lead an initiative to get that converted into a felony as well if you think they should be treated equally. Surprised to see all the self proclaimed libertarians on this forum jump up for more policing and laws and state interventions between individuals.

everyone can still indiscriminately bang each other, it's just that all the people banging have right to know if someone in the pile knows they have HIV.....

that's not absurd

 

[libertyyne]

everyone can still indiscriminately bang each other, it's just that all the people banging have right to know if someone in the pile knows they have HIV.....

that's not absurd

i thought you believed government intervention was the devil tho.

 

[deleted480308]

i thought you believed government intervention was the devil tho.

I believe govt violating rights is the devil.....no one has a natural right to hide a seriously transmittable disease from a sexual partner or blood recipient.....

 

[jw3600]

I think it should. Knowingly having HSV and having unprotected sex with an unknowing partner is transmitting an agent that will cause years of pain, embarrassment, and potential serious consequences later in life if they find themselves immunocompromised.

This is a little bit of an over reaction. Do you feel this way about HSV-1?

 

[libertyyne]

I believe govt violating rights is the devil.....no one has a natural right to hide a seriously transmittable disease from a sexual partner or blood recipient.....

libertarians need laws for that? And enforcement by police? How do you propose paying for that by the government forcing you to give up money in the form of taxes?

 

[libertyyne]

the absolute horror that NM, Texas, NY dont have such laws on their books.

 

[libertyyne]

State HIV Laws | Law | Policies | HIV/AIDS | CDC

 

[takeurmeds02]

What about herpes, DR TB, Hepatitis, HPV ? Should all those be felonies as well?

I definitely wouldn't put Herpes in the same category as HIV. Sure they're both life-long illnesses but you also don't require lifelong, chronic treatment for self-limiting cold sores.

And please don't quote me Herpes zebra cases.

 

[Mad Jack]

They absolutely can (and do) because TB actively transmits to rando bystanders

HIV can be passed on to a great number of people care of the magic of infidelity and drug use. I completely disagree with this decision.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

maybe you should lead an initiative to get that converted into a felony as well if you think they should be treated equally. Surprised to see all the self proclaimed libertarians on this forum jump up for more policing and laws and state interventions between individuals.

First, I think libertarianism is a political philosophy of the immature. Second, you didn't answer my question. You think it should not be a felony to intentionally permanently injure another person?

 

[Gorne]

This is a little bit of an over reaction. Do you feel this way about HSV-1?

Sure. What's the difference between knowingly transmitting HSV-1 to someone who doesn't know and having them get encephalitis than taking a baseball bat to their skull?

 

[hurtem&healem]

the absolute horror that NM, Texas, NY dont have such laws on their books.

And the entirety of New England? I'm legitimately surprised by that.

 

[Crayola227]

Sure. What's the difference between knowingly transmitting HSV-1 to someone who doesn't know and having them get encephalitis than taking a baseball bat to their skull?

legally speaking, a lot of things

 

[deleted480308]

libertarians need laws for that? And enforcement by police? How do you propose paying for that by the government forcing you to give up money in the form of taxes?

most libertarians aren't against having police, a properly sized govt could be funded just fine with user fees

 

[Mad Jack]

First, I think libertarianism is a political philosophy of the immature. Second, you didn't answer my question. You think it should not be a felony to intentionally permanently injure another person?

A better analogy would be what is the difference between giving someone HIV versus, say, intentionally poisoning someone that you offer a sandwich? Let's say it's with a high-potency aflatoxin, which would give them a virtual 99% chance of liver cancer down the line, but causes minimal immediate effects. Either way, they're accepting activity with you and getting a disease as a result.

 

[libertyyne]

First, I think libertarianism is a political philosophy of the immature. Second, you didn't answer my question. You think it should not be a felony to intentionally permanently injure another person?

I dont know to be honest. I think it should not be singled out. If there is no transmission should it still be a felony?

 

[Mad Jack]

I think it should. Knowingly having HSV and having unprotected sex with an unknowing partner is transmitting an agent that will cause years of pain, embarrassment, and potential serious consequences later in life if they find themselves immunocompromised.

The difference being that >90% of people are HSV-1 positive and could potentially pass the disease at any time. While I'd be furious to no end if I got herpes, it's really not that bad of a disease to the majority of those infected, and only a small percentage end up with the classic stress outbreaks multiple times per year.

 

[Mad Jack]

I dont know to be honest. I think it should not be singled out. If there is no transmission should it still be a felony?

If they lied, yes.

 

[68PGunner]

It looks like the profit of the pharm companies is tapering off. Therefore, they need fresh supplies of chronic STD pts in order to boost sales and stock prices. This change is 100% bought by big pharmas.

 

[deleted480308]

I dont know to be honest. I think it should not be singled out. If there is no transmission should it still be a felony?

if I drive past a picnic and shoot my gun at a large crowd but manage to quite hit anyone, should it be a crime?

do you see how silly that is?

 

[deleted480308]

It looks like the profit of the pharm companies is tapering off. Therefore, they need fresh supplies of chronic STD pts in order to boost sales and stock prices. This change is 100% bought by big pharmas.

or a bunch of cowards who care more about their pride and chances of getting laid than the lives and autonomy of others

 

[libertyyne]

Prevalence and Public Health Implications of State Laws that Criminalize Potential HIV Exposure in the United States

Bj's are felonies too, as well as spitting.

 

[jw3600]

Sure. What's the difference between knowingly transmitting HSV-1 to someone who doesn't know and having them get encephalitis than taking a baseball bat to their skull?

There is said zebra...

Because although herpes is certainly a "disease," a lot of hype about it was to sell the treatment. I think the stats show that adults ages 18-60, around 60% are HSV-1 positive. It's more of a ubiquitous virus that essentially everyone is exposed to but only a select few have a reaction. Honestly it's more akin to an allergic reaction than it is to a serious STD like HIV.

 

[hurtem&healem]

In trying to find out how many people have actually been charged with HIV transmission related crimes, I found this paper from The Center for HIV Law & Policy.

Much more interesting than the fact that there have been 303 cases filed to date since 2008, is the second item on the list. On July 15, 2017, a man in New Orleans, in the course of resisting arrest, bit an officer on the hand and spit at him. A blood test found the man positive for HIV. He is now being charged with "attempted intentional exposure to AIDS virus."

The AIDS virus.

 

[libertyyne]

In trying to find out how many people have actually been charged with HIV transmission related crimes, I found this paper from The Center for HIV Law & Policy.

Much more interesting than the fact that there have been 303 cases filed to date since 2008, is the second item on the list. On July 15, 2017, a man in New Orleans, in the course of resisting arrest, bit an officer on the hand and spit at him. A blood test found the man positive for HIV. He is now being charged with "attempted intentional exposure to AIDS virus."

The AIDS virus.

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla....minalization-California-Updated-June-2016.pdf

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

A better analogy would be what is the difference between giving someone HIV versus, say, intentionally poisoning someone that you offer a sandwich? Let's say it's with a high-potency aflatoxin, which would give them a virtual 99% chance of liver cancer down the line, but causes minimal immediate effects. Either way, they're accepting activity with you and getting a disease as a result.

It's not an analogy. Intentionally infecting someone with HIV is injuring them permanently. They will require lifelong medical care without which they will likely die. How anyone could think that isn't worthy of a felony is beyond me.

And poisoning someone is a serious crime whether they die (murder) or not (aggravated assault).

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I dont know to be honest. I think it should not be singled out. If there is no transmission should it still be a felony?

That makes no sense. Why shouldn't it be singled out? There is no cure, and it requires chronic medical care.

If you shoot at someone but the bullet misses, should you not be charged with a crime? That's why we have different crimes and different degrees of punishment. Cutting someone's head off isn't the same as wielding a hatchet at them, and infecting someone with HIV and trying to but failing aren't the same.

 

[libertyyne]

That makes no sense. Why shouldn't it be singled out? There is no cure, and it requires chronic medical care.

If you shoot at someone but the bullet misses, should you not be charged with a crime? That's why we have different crimes and different degrees of punishment. Cutting someone's head off isn't the same as wielding a hatchet at them, and infecting someone with HIV and trying to but failing aren't the same.

Why not hepatitis? Or drug resistant TB? Or herpes? you need the same life long therapy for some of those conditions Even a BJ or spitting on someone counts as a felony if you have HIV and dont disclose. Knowing that those pathways of exposure have an almost nil chance of infection should they continue to be felonies?

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Why not hepatitis? Or drug resistant TB? Or herpes? you need the same life long therapy for some of those conditions Even a BJ or spitting on someone counts as a felony if you have HIV and dont disclose. Knowing that those pathways of exposure have an almost nil chance of infection should they continue to be felonies?

Oh I'm not saying HIV alone should be a felony. I mean that intentionally transmitting any disease that causes chronic medical care to maintain a normal quality of life or to prevent death should be a felony.

 

[Mad Jack]

It's not an analogy. Intentionally infecting someone with HIV is injuring them permanently. They will require lifelong medical care without which they will likely die. How anyone could think that isn't worthy of a felony is beyond me.

And poisoning someone is a serious crime whether they die (murder) or not (aggravated assault).

The big difference is that this is generally voluntary on one party. To use your baseball bat analogy, it's like if a guy said, "alright, it's okay if you hit me with that bat" but then the guy got hit waaaaay harder than he expected. He still consented, so it wouldn't be assault, but it might be attempted murder, manslaughter, or murder, depending on the nature of what went down. While some might consider it assault in the "I wouldn't have initially consented" sense, that would carry a much lower sentence and much weaker connotations than my described scenarios.

 

[libertyyne]

Oh I'm not saying HIV alone should be a felony. I mean that intentionally transmitting any disease that causes chronic medical care to maintain a normal quality of life or to prevent death should be a felony.

Thats what I meant, why single out HIV when there are other devastating disease that can require life long treatment. should probably have similar consequences. and BJs and spitting should probably not be considered felonies considering transmission is almost non existant through those means.

 

[Mad Jack]

Oh I'm not saying HIV alone should be a felony. I mean that intentionally transmitting any disease that causes chronic medical care to maintain a normal quality of life or to prevent death should be a felony.

Disagree. HPV, for instance, is carried by roughly 80% of the population. Should everyone have a subtyping, and then have to share their paperwork before engaging in intercourse? That could get really complicated, since of the 4 out of 5 people with HPV, many do not have the same strains. What about a person with hand warts? Going to throw them in prison every time they shake someone's hand? The unfortunate fact is, human interaction spreads disease. What about a person who refuses to get tested for herpes, but keeps having partners turn up with it even though they're asymptomatic? Criminalizing it would do much more harm than good, except for in exceptional cases like HPV, and would cause an explosion in the criminal justice system population and the destruction of countless lives.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

The big difference is that this is generally voluntary on one party. To use your baseball bat analogy, it's like if a guy said, "alright, it's okay if you hit me with that bat" but then the guy got hit waaaaay harder than he expected. He still consented, so it wouldn't be assault, but it might be attempted murder, manslaughter, or murder, depending on the nature of what went down. While some might consider it assault in the "I wouldn't have initially consented" sense, that would carry a much lower sentence and much weaker connotations than my described scenarios.

What? How is it voluntary? Just because you consent to have sex with someone doesn't mean you consent to getting their STDs. It's not voluntary if they don't tell you, which is the whole point.

It'd be more like consenting to a massage and then getting hit with a baseball bat. You would expect them to warn you first, since most people wouldn't volunteer to be massaged by a strike from a bat.

 

[vernhart]

First, I think libertarianism is a political philosophy of the immature. Second, you didn't answer my question. You think it should not be a felony to intentionally permanently injure another person?

Why's that?

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Thats what I meant, why single out HIV when there are other devastating disease that can require life long treatment. should probably have similar consequences. and BJs and spitting should probably not be considered felonies considering transmission is almost non existant through those means.

Okay, but why is the solution to loosen the laws? If you're saying we shouldn't single out HIV, shouldn't you be arguing that the law should have been expanded instead of repealed?