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

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

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.

I said diseases that require medical care to maintain a quality of life or prevent death. Hand warts doesn't really fall into that, does it?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mad Jack]

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.

Disagree. Sex is gone into with the knowledge that some bad things might happen. Pregnancy, disease, all that other stuff is all on the table. You might expect that they missed their last STD screen and you'll end up with a case of the clap, but you got the high five. It's like expecting a theatrical tap with the bat versus the swinger going hard when they had the intention to go hard all along. But hey, you want to give people felony assault and five years instead of attempted murder and 20, be my guest, I just think it's foolish.

 

[Mad Jack]

I said diseases that require medical care to maintain a quality of life or prevent death. Hand warts doesn't really fall into that, does it?

They can be deforming, reoccurring, and require constant burning off or freezing if you're one of those unfortunate few that can't shake them. You've clearly never seen someone that has a bad case, it can be literally horrifying, and they probably picked it up from someone with a tiny bump they never noticed.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Why's that?

It ignores and/or simplifies real issues. I've never met a libertarian who had any consistent philosophy on what government should be involved in.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Disagree. Sex is gone into with the knowledge that some bad things might happen. Pregnancy, disease, all that other stuff is all on the table. You might expect that they missed their last STD screen and you'll end up with a case of the clap, but you got the high five. It's like expecting a theatrical tap with the bat versus the swinger going hard when they had the intention to go hard all along. But hey, you want to give people felony assault and five years instead of attempted murder and 20, be my guest, I just think it's foolish.

That's absolutely absurd. You do not consent to sex with the assumption that you might be about to get HIV. What are you smoking?

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

They can be deforming, reoccurring, and require constant burning off or freezing if you're one of those unfortunate few that can't shake them. You've clearly never seen someone that has a bad case, it can be literally horrifying, and they probably picked it up from someone with a tiny bump they never noticed.

Fair enough. I have seen some nasty stuff like that, but tbh I have not myself sat down and decided which diseases I think should be covered. My personal threshold is something that will kill you without medical treatment, but obviously that's a broad view that needs refining.

However, that said, the solution isn't to repeal a law that aims to protect people from being knowingly given a deadly chronic disease.

 

[vernhart]

It ignores and/or simplifies real issues. I've never met a libertarian who had any consistent philosophy on what government should be involved in.

Personally, I think this can easily be said about any political philosophy (at least as applied by the majority who subscribe to the respective philosophy)

 

[Mad Jack]

That's absolutely absurd. You do not consent to sex with the assumption that you might be about to get HIV. What are you smoking?

You consent understanding that there might be consequences.

Sports are a good example of this. There's several cases in an old copy of Lawyers' Reports Annotated (Volume 63, page 383, from 1904) that cover the formation of law in regard to manslaughter in the context of consensual activities in which one party pushes the bounds of consent. Because of the way common law works, they're as valid of arguments today as ever.

 

[Mad Jack]

Fair enough. I have seen some nasty stuff like that, but tbh I have not myself sat down and decided which diseases I think should be covered. My personal threshold is something that will kill you without medical treatment, but obviously that's a broad view that needs refining.

However, that said, the solution isn't to repeal a law that aims to protect people from being knowingly given a deadly chronic disease.

Oh, I agree with you. I just am much more harsh than you, as you're pushing the assault standard to the case and I'm pushing the attempted murder/manslaughter standard.

It's a pretty heated topic, legally, as you can argue either way. It's considered aggravated sexual assault if you don't take precautions in Canada, for instance, but if they die of it they can be charged with murder as anyone that dies from complications aggravated sexual assault automatically upgrades the charge to murder, even if that was not the intent. There's a lot of arguments to be made either way.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Oh, I agree with you. I just am much more harsh than you, as you're pushing the assault standard to the case and I'm pushing the attempted murder/manslaughter standard.

It's a pretty heated topic, legally, as you can argue either way. It's considered aggravated sexual assault if you don't take precautions in Canada, for instance, but if they die of it they can be charged with murder as anyone that dies from complications aggravated sexual assault automatically upgrades the charge to murder, even if that was not the intent. There's a lot of arguments to be made either way.

Agreed. I brought up the assault angle simply to show that even non fatal poisonings are considered major crimes, so at the very least attempting to infect someone with HIV should be treated the same. However, I personally view it at attempted murder. I have no sympathy for dinguses who intentionally infect someone and would give them all life if it were up to me.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

You consent understanding that there might be consequences.

Sports are a good example of this. There's several cases in an old copy of Lawyers' Reports Annotated (Volume 63, page 383, from 1904) that cover the formation of law in regard to manslaughter in the context of consensual activities in which one party pushes the bounds of consent. Because of the way common law works, they're as valid of arguments today as ever.

Yes, I get what you're playing at. I simply don't agree. When you consent to have sex with someone, you are of course taking on some risk; however, implied in that consent is the expectation that if you are more likely to get something horrific in the process, that increased risk will be brought to light. We tell patients if they are more likely to experience a negative outcome 2/2 something specific to their situation, and I think most people feel that way about sexual encounters too. I wager the vast majority of people would be extremely taken aback if after they had sex with someone they were told they had HIV. That's the reasonable person standard. Would a reasonable person expect it to be okay to not disclose HIV+ status prior to a sexual encounter? Probably not.

 

[wholeheartedly]

Yes, I get what you're playing at. I simply don't agree. When you consent to have sex with someone, you are of course taking on some risk; however, implied in that consent is the expectation that if you are more likely to get something horrific in the process, that increased risk will be brought to light. We tell patients if they are more likely to experience a negative outcome 2/2 something specific to their situation, and I think most people feel that way about sexual encounters too. I wager the vast majority of people would be extremely taken aback if after they had sex with someone they were told they had HIV. That's the reasonable person standard. Would a reasonable person expect it to be okay to not disclose HIV+ status prior to a sexual encounter? Probably not.

The thing is, I don't know a lot of people who get tested regularly. I would never trust anyone to be sure of their status, nor would I take someone's word for it. I'd need to see those test results myself before going any further. Ultimately, the only person who you can really trust to look out for your own interests is you. People have a responsibility to do whatever they need to do to keep themselves safe and minimize risk.

 

[mistafab]

The problem with viruses is that some of the effects we don't really understand just from the symptoms they present. Viruses can have potent mutagenic effects and can instigate inflammatory cascades during each infection/reactivation. Another important thing that viruses like to do is establish reservoirs in the body to duck the immune system.

HIV for example, once latent in your brain, can continue to produce viral proteins despite antiviral treatment (no replication) - because the proteins transcribed are upstream of the targets of current HIV drug therapy. This may explain some of the mild cognitive impairment that is subtle but common in the HIV infected even in the setting of undetectable viral loads. So even if an STD is "ubiquitous" in the population, to me it is unethical in all cases to knowingly transmit these uncurable viral diseases during sex. I would argue that because the effects of viral infections may be insidious and undetectable by our current technology, that it would be impossible to make a "cost to victim vs right to privacy" argument since the costs are not truly quantifiable. Meanwhile people are willing to sell their privacy to facebook so that they can be fed ads and crappy, clickbait stories.

So I would go farther than "Knowledgable HIV transmission should be a crime" to say "knowledgable sexual, viral disease transmission without partner notification should be a crime," with punishment matching an ideal system of fairness. In reality, however, laws will just make people point fingers at their ex-lovers and create a hodgepodge of legal mess that ends up just hurting everyone and not helping anyone prevent transmission of diseases.

So although ethically I think it is unacceptable to transmit sexual viruses knowingly, the reality is that if someone agrees to sex, they agree to risk for transmission of diseases. It is up to people having consensual sex to make the judgement of their sexual partner's character and likelihood of infection before sex. Education can help people make better judgements, via knowledge of who gets infections and how to prevent them.

TL;DR - Ethically, I think sexual virus transmission is wrong (if known) and should be punishable. Realistically, I don't think it could be enforced, so people should educate themselves and make good judgements about their sexual partner's trustworthiness. I think a system of punishment erected (teehee) around this issue would be inherently flawed.

 

[Stagg737]

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.

I think the old "Ignorance is bliss" thought process sums it up pretty well.

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.

Bj's can be argued along the same lines as sex, spitting potentially implies intent though. You don't spit at someone unless you're attempting to negatively impact the target, that is even more true for those with transmittable diseases.

That's absolutely absurd. You do not consent to sex with the assumption that you might be about to get HIV. What are you smoking?

If you're having sex with a random stranger you shouldn't make any assumptions, or really make any assumptions in any way about someone you just met. Doing so is how most people end up with these diseases.

Yes, I get what you're playing at. I simply don't agree. When you consent to have sex with someone, you are of course taking on some risk; however, implied in that consent is the expectation that if you are more likely to get something horrific in the process, that increased risk will be brought to light. We tell patients if they are more likely to experience a negative outcome 2/2 something specific to their situation, and I think most people feel that way about sexual encounters too. I wager the vast majority of people would be extremely taken aback if after they had sex with someone they were told they had HIV. That's the reasonable person standard. Would a reasonable person expect it to be okay to not disclose HIV+ status prior to a sexual encounter? Probably not.

Why would you expect someone you know nothing about or know very little about to be a reasonable person? People are dishonest, immature, and self-serving to varying degrees. Again, making assumptions about people you know nothing about is how bad things happen. Especially when you put yourself in intimate one-on-one situations with others you don't know.

 

[Precedexed Out]

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

Hard to believe this is even a discussion, but its California so I'm not surprised.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I think the old "Ignorance is bliss" thought process sums it up pretty well.



Bj's can be argued along the same lines as sex, spitting potentially implies intent though. You don't spit at someone unless you're attempting to negatively impact the target, that is even more true for those with transmittable diseases.



If you're having sex with a random stranger you shouldn't make any assumptions, or really make any assumptions in any way about someone you just met. Doing so is how most people end up with these diseases.



Why would you expect someone you know nothing about or know very little about to be a reasonable person? People are dishonest, immature, and self-serving to varying degrees. Again, making assumptions about people you know nothing about is how bad things happen. Especially when you put yourself in intimate one-on-one situations with others you don't know.

As for the first part, having sex with random strangers is not a very smart idea. That said, I think most people still assume there would be a warning given if they were about to sleep with someone infected with a sexually transmitted disease. It's only because there are dinguses who won't that we say you shouldn't make assumptions.

The reasonable person standard is a legal term which is the context I was using it in.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

The thing is, I don't know a lot of people who get tested regularly. I would never trust anyone to be sure of their status, nor would I take someone's word for it. I'd need to see those test results myself before going any further. Ultimately, the only person who you can really trust to look out for your own interests is you. People have a responsibility to do whatever they need to do to keep themselves safe and minimize risk.

We're talking about knowingly infecting someone, not doing it because you had no idea you were HIV+.

 

[wholeheartedly]

We're talking about knowingly infecting someone, not doing it because you had no idea you were HIV+.

I'm talking about personal responsibility for keeping yourself safe regardless of what the other person does or doesn't know.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I'm talking about personal responsibility for keeping yourself safe regardless of what the other person does or doesn't know.

That's great, but that wasn't the topic. Unless you plan to be celibate, you will at some point have to assume that when you sleep with someone they are telling you the truth about being clean (either directly or through not bringing up warnings otherwise). When a person knowingly keeps that information from you to infect you, your personal responsibility is not enough to protect you.

 

[libertyyne]

I think the old "Ignorance is bliss" thought process sums it up pretty well.



Bj's can be argued along the same lines as sex, spitting potentially implies intent though. You don't spit at someone unless you're attempting to negatively impact the target, that is even more true for those with transmittable diseases.



If you're having sex with a random stranger you shouldn't make any assumptions, or really make any assumptions in any way about someone you just met. Doing so is how most people end up with these diseases.



Why would you expect someone you know nothing about or know very little about to be a reasonable person? People are dishonest, immature, and self-serving to varying degrees. Again, making assumptions about people you know nothing about is how bad things happen. Especially when you put yourself in intimate one-on-one situations with others you don't know.

So let me get this straight, A person spits on the other person and in addition to whatever charges spitting covers for most people you want the HIV person to be charged with an additional HIV Felony, even though the spit cant transmit anything.

 

[wholeheartedly]

That's great, but that wasn't the topic. Unless you plan to be celibate, you will at some point have to assume that when you sleep with someone they are telling you the truth about being clean (either directly or through not bringing up warnings otherwise). When a person knowingly keeps that information from you to infect you, your personal responsibility is not enough to protect you.

I'm not saying I don't have a problem with people knowingly not telling partners if there's a problem. But personal responsibility was absolutely part of the discussion above. It's an absolutely horrible thing to knowingly expose someone and not tell them. However, if you have sex, you assume some level of risk and you yourself are responsible for deciding if and how much. You can lower your risk by taking certain actions like using protection, not engaging in casual sex with multiple partners, and requesting partners test negative prior to doing anything. Those can be enough to provide significant protection. In a lot of these cases, exposure could've been prevented if some these steps were taken.

 

[Stagg737]

So let me get this straight, A person spits on the other person and in addition to whatever charges spitting covers for most people you want the HIV person to be charged with an additional HIV Felony, even though the spit cant transmit anything.

Replace HIV with DR TB or any other potentially deadly disease that the person spitting knowingly has and yes, I would charge them assuming they're actually trying to spit in the person's face.

 

[Gorne]

I think you can tell whose got the HIV and herpes in this thread, if ya catch my drift...

 

[moisne]

Maybe someone should make an STD info card and that information can be loaded by any potential partners to check their STD status (and date when last status was checked). lol

 

[masaraksh]

What if we test everyone in the US, take everyone with HIV, and move them to an island? Would this be legal?

 

[RooskayAliskay]

California has lost their mind

I have to agree with this statement 100%. This is a very absurd law to be passed and I certainly wouldn't be surprised if a copious amount of lawsuits result from this.

 

[Crayola227]

What if we test everyone in the US, take everyone with HIV, and move them to an island? Would this be legal?

that's hardly necessary or the same thing as telling people to try to keep their HIV to themselves

 

[ZedsDed]

Recklessness on the part of a victim does not absolve criminals of their culpability. That argument was and is still used to justify rape apologetics and other forms of victim blaming.

I mean, what did she expect? She should've known not to go home with a strange man by herself. She definitely shares some of the blame here... right?

 

[ZedsDed]

View attachment 224227
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.

What is the point of this post?

 

[libertyyne]

What is the point of this post?

1. The point of the post is that people are losing their minds over something that 24 states only have currently.
2. as physicians we should probably advocate for science based policies. Spitting on someone shouldn't be a felony considering there is a nil risk of HIV transmissions.

 

[Crayola227]

1. The point of the post is that people are losing their minds over something that 24 states only have currently.
2. as physicians we should probably advocate for science based policies. Spitting on someone shouldn't be a felony considering there is a nil risk of HIV transmissions.

screw that on #2, the point is that the intent is clearly there

I don't know that knowingly spitting HIV infected blood on someone because you're pissed and want to give them the AIDS should be a felony, but I do think there should be legal consequences

send the message that running around thinking you're going to infect people with your HIV on purpose, will not be tolerated

unless you just meant saliva
that shouldn't be OK either, but we could call it a different crime

everyone seems to know blood can transmit HIV, as far as saliva it's just as likely the HIV pos or neg person knows that doesn't do squat as to think it's a risk

 

[Gorne]

1. The point of the post is that people are losing their minds over something that 24 states only have currently.
2. as physicians we should probably advocate for science based policies. Spitting on someone shouldn't be a felony considering there is a nil risk of HIV transmissions.

Someone who knows they have HIV and is willing to spit on another human thinking it will potentially transmit it deserves the ramifications that come with a felony.

 

[ConspecificPlasma]

/

 

[ZedsDed]

1. The point of the post is that people are losing their minds over something that 24 states only have currently.
2. as physicians we should probably advocate for science based policies. Spitting on someone shouldn't be a felony considering there is a nil risk of HIV transmissions.

1. I don't follow. Unless I missed something, HIV prevalence is not equally distributed between states. Legislative bodies tend not to act unless after a problem presents itself. There is a reason Vermont has lax gun laws despite being one of the most progressive states in the country.
2. If their intent was to infect another person with the HI virus then it should still be a punishable offense. Hard to say whether or not it should be a felony. But I would seriously question the mental competence of anyone dumb enough to try and transmit via spitting (saliva).

 

[libertyyne]

1. I don't follow. Unless I missed something, HIV prevalence is not equally distributed between states. Legislative bodies tend not to act unless after a problem presents itself. There is a reason Vermont has lax gun laws despite being one of the most progressive states in the country.
2. If their intent was to infect another person with the HI virus then it should still be a punishable offense. Hard to say whether or not it should be a felony. But I would seriously question the mental competence of anyone dumb enough to try and transmit via spitting (saliva).

Some of the most populous states in the union do not have laws specific to this issue. NY, TX, yet hell has not broken loose in those states with HIV positive people trying to go around infecting other people.

If an HIV positive person casts a spell with the intent to infect another person with HIV should that also be a felony? If someone spits at another person with the intent of just spitting on them to display anger should they be charged with a crime in addition to the crime of just spitting on someone because of their HIV status.

And more to the point lets be clear who is being charged with this offence, its prostitutes ,Charlie sheen aint getting charged. Maybe the conversation should be about sex work and how to make that safer rather then send people to jail for longer durations of time and stamp them with felonies so they never can work a normal job anymore.

 

[ZedsDed]

Some of the most populous states in the union do not have laws specific to this issue. NY, TX, yet hell has not broken loose in those states with HIV positive people trying to go around infecting other people.

I mean, I'm sure there are other things that need to be incorporated into the risk model other than population density. Levels of inequality? Demographics? If you have data showing that the law "does nothing" in California then please share.

But you're missing the point. The law exists to prevent or redress a gross violation of rights (or at least it should, in my view.) Who cares if it rarely happens? Are we falsely imprisoning people? If not, what reason is there to remove it? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

If an HIV positive person casts a spell with the intent to infect another person with HIV should that also be a felony? If someone spits at another person with the intent of just spitting on them to display anger should they be charged with a crime in addition to the crime of just spitting on someone because of their HIV status.

No, don't be silly.

I don't know about an additional charge, but a distinction should definitely be made.

You act like these questions have never been asked (or answered!) before. Why do we treat premeditated murders differently from "crimes of passion?"

And more to the point lets be clear who is being charged with this offence, its prostitutes ,Charlie sheen aint getting charged. Maybe the conversation should be about sex work and how to make that safer rather then send people to jail for longer durations of time and stamp them with felonies so they never can work a normal job anymore.

And here we get to your real grievance. You find the disparate outcomes between classes (and presumably races, ethnicities, genders, etc.) distasteful. Is the issue that more prostitutes are charged or that Charlie Sheen gets off? If the latter, I hear you. No one should be able to buy a get-out-of-jail-free card. If the former, I don't really know what to tell you. I know it's uncomfortable for some to consider but prostitutes may just be more likely to assault someone in this manner. And certain people may just be more likely to become prostitutes due to a mix of innate psychology, SES, and upbringing. That isn't to say that sex workers do not deserve sympathy or that nothing can be done to help them, but the disparate outcomes you object to may very well reflect a proper application of justice. I don't see how this is a zero sum game.

 

[WhiteCoatWonder]

California has lost their mind

its gotta be the ganja.

 

[Kurk]

Only in California...

 

[mehc012]

Yes, I get what you're playing at. I simply don't agree. When you consent to have sex with someone, you are of course taking on some risk; however, implied in that consent is the expectation that if you are more likely to get something horrific in the process, that increased risk will be brought to light. We tell patients if they are more likely to experience a negative outcome 2/2 something specific to their situation, and I think most people feel that way about sexual encounters too. I wager the vast majority of people would be extremely taken aback if after they had sex with someone they were told they had HIV. That's the reasonable person standard. Would a reasonable person expect it to be okay to not disclose HIV+ status prior to a sexual encounter? Probably not.

And this attitude right here is why STDs are as prevalent as they are.

When you agree to have sex with someone, you are agreeing to get their diseases and possibly their babies. If you frame it that way, all of a sudden safe sex campaigns make a lot more sense.

My friends get tested every time they get a new partner, and ask the partner to also get tested, before they start sleeping together. Obviously not everyone is that stringent, but that's how you avoid finding out that your partner had asymptomatic Chlamydia and you, well...not so asymptomatic. Also how you avoid surprises like HIV or herpes, which they don't need to know they have to pass on to you. Do you expect your sex partners to tell you how many sexual contacts they've had in the past 6mo? Because if they have multiple and don't tell you, that's them not bringing an increased risk of something horrific to light...and I'd bet you would find it perfectly natural not to disclose that.

Bottom line: in an ideal world, everyone would know their risks and exposures, and feel comfortable being tested, and tell all partners about them before having sex. But the world is not ideal, so having sex means risking disease unless you take the time to make sure it's as safe as can be. Relying on 'reasonable people' is, well...unreasonable.

 

[Kurk]

As a lawyer I will make sure any potential partners sign a disclosure form.

 

[ZedsDed]

And this attitude right here is why STDs are as prevalent as they are.

When you agree to have sex with someone, you are agreeing to get their diseases and possibly their babies. If you frame it that way, all of a sudden safe sex campaigns make a lot more sense.

My friends get tested every time they get a new partner, and ask the partner to also get tested, before they start sleeping together. Obviously not everyone is that stringent, but that's how you avoid finding out that your partner had asymptomatic Chlamydia and you, well...not so asymptomatic. Also how you avoid surprises like HIV or herpes, which they don't need to know they have to pass on to you. Do you expect your sex partners to tell you how many sexual contacts they've had in the past 6mo? Because if they have multiple and don't tell you, that's them not bringing an increased risk of something horrific to light...and I'd bet you would find it perfectly natural not to disclose that.

Bottom line: in an ideal world, everyone would know their risks and exposures, and feel comfortable being tested, and tell all partners about them before having sex. But the world is not ideal, so having sex means risking disease unless you take the time to make sure it's as safe as can be. Relying on 'reasonable people' is, well...unreasonable.

Wait a minute. I thought our priority here was to protect the poor and disadvantaged? Isn't that why these laws should be repealed? Widespread adoption of your attitude would almost certainly negatively impact POC and other disadvantaged groups. Who are White, bourgeois women to tell others to be sexually responsible? Pretty condescending. Kind of a "check your privilege" moment, don't ya think?*

*I don't actually think this. I'm just trying to make a point.

 

[mehc012]

Wait a minute. I thought our priority here was to protect the poor and disadvantaged? Isn't that why these laws should be repealed? Widespread adoption of your attitude would almost certainly negatively impact POC and other disadvantaged groups. Who are White, bourgeois women to tell others to be sexually responsible? Pretty condescending. Kind of a "check your privilege" moment, don't ya think?*

*I don't actually think this. I'm just trying to make a point.

I'm not trying to comment on what the laws ought to be, just that if people as a whole moved away from the mentality that "if my partner had an STI, they'd know and they'd tell me before sleeping with me," people would probably have safer sex practices and thus we'd have fewer STIs.

Not sure how white, bourgeois women got involved in this discussion (unless that's you describing me, or my friend who you don't know anything about other than the 'woman' part). I also don't understand how "get STD screens, don't just trust that you'll be safe" negatively impacts POC or poor/disadvantaged folks.

Seriously, I don't understand the point you're trying to make at all.

 

[libertyyne]

1. I don't follow. Unless I missed something, HIV prevalence is not equally distributed between states. Legislative bodies tend not to act unless after a problem presents itself. There is a reason Vermont has lax gun laws despite being one of the most progressive states in the country.
2. If their intent was to infect another person with the HI virus then it should still be a punishable offense. Hard to say whether or not it should be a felony. But I would seriously question the mental competence of anyone dumb enough to try and transmit via spitting (saliva).

I mean, I'm sure there are other things that need to be incorporated into the risk model other than population density. Levels of inequality? Demographics? If you have data showing that the law "does nothing" in California then please share.

But you're missing the point. The law exists to prevent or redress a gross violation of rights (or at least it should, in my view.) Who cares if it rarely happens? Are we falsely imprisoning people? If not, what reason is there to remove it? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.


No, don't be silly.

I don't know about an additional charge, but a distinction should definitely be made.

You act like these questions have never been asked (or answered!) before. Why do we treat premeditated murders differently from "crimes of passion?"


And here we get to your real grievance. You find the disparate outcomes between classes (and presumably races, ethnicities, genders, etc.) distasteful. Is the issue that more prostitutes are charged or that Charlie Sheen gets off? If the latter, I hear you. No one should be able to buy a get-out-of-jail-free card. If the former, I don't really know what to tell you. I know it's uncomfortable for some to consider but prostitutes may just be more likely to assault someone in this manner. And certain people may just be more likely to become prostitutes due to a mix of innate psychology, SES, and upbringing. That isn't to say that sex workers do not deserve sympathy or that nothing can be done to help them, but the disparate outcomes you object to may very well reflect a proper application of justice. I don't see how this is a zero sum game.

What is fascinating in this response is you think the state legislative bodies are intelligent enough to implement laws when the appropriate risk model indicates it, yet you dont think they are smart enough to repeal them when they think it is appropriate? which one is it ? Are they wise enough to know when to implement certain laws based on issues or they not wise ?

 

[Crayola227]

none of this is particularly able to be applied to herpes or HPV, for which carrier status and testing is not as simple an issue as it is for HIV

besides those 3, most other things can be tested and cured (OK, yes, issues with drug resistant gonorrhea)

I agree that for the most part the onus is on people trying to prevent getting an STD to practice safe sex

however, we frequently forget that sex isn't always consensual, or there can be issues around it

for example, we might not expect a married person trying for a baby to use protected sex, yet if their partner is not as monogamous as expected, past negative HIV results might not be applicable

so no, I don't think people need to run around with a scarlet letter H on their chest for herpes, HPV, or even HIV

but if you know you have HIV, which let's face it is a bigger PITA than herpes any day of the week, you really should be held responsible for purposefully trying to infect others

remember that having unprotected sex with others when you know you have HIV doesn't always necessarily meet the standard for this

 

[Citizen #3]

I think a lot of you are arguing as if this is concerning giving another person HIV when actually it's about "intentional" spread of HIV. You'd have to be able to prove intent in court. That means that the person has to know that they have HIV, not disclose that to a partner, and deliberately contaminate needles or sabotage condoms or lead their partner to believe that having unprotected sex was safe.

Some of the most populous states in the union do not have laws specific to this issue. NY, TX, yet hell has not broken loose in those states with HIV positive people trying to go around infecting other people.

I don't know about NY, but TX doesn't have a specific law about intentionally spreading HIV because they consider not disclosing HIV-positive status to a sexual or needle-sharing partner to be assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder. They don't need a specific law.

I personally don't think that this will change people's mindset about HIV. I imagine it would be counterproductive and that some people would think that any transmission of HIV would be malicious. Attitudes about HIV need to change, but I don't think that this is a solution. HIV transmission is a matter of public health, and we need to approach it that way instead of a matter of individual rights. The stigma around HIV and treatment and support of people with HIV should be the only things about the disease that are a matter of individual rights.

 

[masaraksh]

So let me get this straight, A person spits on the other person and in addition to whatever charges spitting covers for most people you want the HIV person to be charged with an additional HIV Felony, even though the spit cant transmit anything.

If someone with HIV spits on me I want them taken behind the barn.