usa California Lowers the Penalty for Knowingly Exposing Someone to HIV

[+Red King Subscriber²]

Quote

 

California Lowers the Penalty for Knowingly Exposing Someone to HIV
Lisa Marie Segarra
Oct 07, 2017

 

California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill Friday that would make knowingly exposing someone to HIV a misdemeanor instead of a felony.

The law, SB 239, removes penalties that previously required someone convicted of the crime — defined as exposing someone to HIV through unprotected sexual activity if the infected person knew of their HIV-positive status at the time — to serve 3, 5 or 8 years in state prison, Fox affiliate KMPH reported.

The new law will also include those who donate blood without disclosing their HIV status to the blood bank, the LA Times noted.

 

http://time.com/4973588/california-lowers-the-penalty-for-knowingly-exposing-someone-to-hiv/
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-gov-brown-downgrades-from-felony-to-1507331544-htmlstory.html

[Circaflex]

California is trippen man.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

"a maximum of 6 months in a county jail"

vs

"The average total cost of HIV care was $19,912 per patient per year. Costs were highest for patients with advanced disease. The cost for providing care to each patient who died was $44,000. Total annual per patient cost for an individual with a CD4 cell count below 50 cells/mm3 averaged $40,678."

[The Rev]

I'm tellin yall...  The govt is secretly trying to kill off a large portion of the population, preferably the poor, while simultaneously making it easier for the rich to get off with a slap on the wrist...  I think this might be related to the fact that there's better treatments out now...  For people who can afford treatment, thru insurance or otherwise, the disease becomes a chronic condition that doesn't have to kill you anymore...  So I mean, in a sense, it's actually made the disease LESS scary...  So i can sorta get why they'd lower the penalties...  But it's still a dick move.

[techbeck]

Crimes like this should be stricter.  HIV is pretty much a death sentence/killing a person.  Maybe it has something to do with the legalization of recreational marijuana in CA....all the low makers are baked.

[Son_Of_Dad]

16 hours ago, The Rev said:

I'm tellin yall...  The govt is secretly trying to kill off a large portion of the population, preferably the poor, while simultaneously making it easier for the rich to get off with a slap on the wrist...

I thought the Democrat government in California were all for the common man on the street?

[+Fulcrum Subscriber¹]

14 hours ago, Son_Of_Dad said:

I thought the Democrat government in California were all for the common man on the street?

No. That would be the GOP Graham-Cassidy bill backed by Trump, that's the government who is looking out for the common man, duh. Please man, The Outback gets FOX NEWS, right?

[Son_Of_Dad]

22 minutes ago, Fulcrum said:

No. That would be the GOP Graham-Cassidy bill backed by Trump, that's the government who is looking out for the common man, duh. Please man, The Outback gets FOX NEWS, right?

 

[+Fulcrum Subscriber¹]

So you don't get Fox News in The Down Under, got it.

 

The downvote was really flagrant. Do they at least have referees there?

 

 

 

[Son_Of_Dad]

1 minute ago, Fulcrum said:

So you don't get

 

The "don't get" is really the requirement to flip issues. Try and get back on the original topic or just skip commenting.

[+Fulcrum Subscriber¹]

17 hours ago, Son_Of_Dad said:

I thought the Democrat government in California were all for the common man on the street?

Well, lowering the penalty on HIV is not necessarily a stab on the common man. The common man should be a little smarter about choosing sex partners or he will not be so common.

Here's the Republican talking point

Quote

“I’m of the mind that if you purposefully inflict another with a disease that alters their lifestyle the rest of their life, puts them on a regimen of medications to maintain any kind of normalcy, it should be a felony,” said Sen. Joel Anderson (R-Calif.) during debate over the bill, according to the Los Angeles Times. “It’s absolutely crazy to me that we should go light on this.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/10/09/knowingly-infecting-others-with-hiv-is-no-longer-a-felony-in-california-advocates-say-it-targeted-sex-workers/

Here is the alt-right doubling down (it's Breitbart)

Quote

Breitbart’s story about the bill, which drew more than 4,500 comments, focused on three cases, in Michigan, California and Scotland, where in each case a man had allegedly attempted to intentionally infect others.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/10/09/knowingly-infecting-others-with-hiv-is-no-longer-a-felony-in-california-advocates-say-it-targeted-sex-workers/

And here's the metrics (SCIENCE with MATH)

Quote

 

Of the 379 HIV-related convictions in California between 1988 and 2014, only seven — less than 2 percent — included the intent to transmit HIV, according to a recent series of studies from the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute.

Instead, the law mostly affected sex workers or those suspected of sex work. The vast majority of the convictions — 90 percent — were for solicitation cases where it was unknown whether any physical contact had occurred. When expanded to include the 800 or so people arrested or charged for the laws through 2014, more than 95 percent were related to sex work, the researchers found.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/10/09/knowingly-infecting-others-with-hiv-is-no-longer-a-felony-in-california-advocates-say-it-targeted-sex-workers/

Then there's this  (PRECEDENCE WITH OTHER INFECTIOUS VIRUSES)

Quote

 

Supporters pointed out that the knowing or intentional transmission of any other communicable disease in California, including some potentially deadly ones like SARS, Ebola and tuberculosis, is a misdemeanor crime.

“There’s no reason that HIV should be treated differently,” said Rick Zbur, executive director of Equality California, a LGBT civil rights nonprofit which was a co-sponsor of the bill. “A lot of what was behind this was basically looking at the laws to see how we could improve public health and modernizing these laws, so HIV is treated the same.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/10/09/knowingly-infecting-others-with-hiv-is-no-longer-a-felony-in-california-advocates-say-it-targeted-sex-workers/

 

 

TL;dr

There's only been a handful (7) convictions under intent to transmit HIV since 1988. In particular this bill is an attempt to mitigate infectious disease (not just HIV)  transmission via the sex worker culture (it's California), by getting them to test more often.

 

A better title would be: California reduces penalty for knowingly exposing someone to HIV to match that of more active infectious diseases which do not have nearly as many treatments!

[Memphis]

On 10/9/2017 at 7:45 PM, Fulcrum said:

Well, lowering the penalty on HIV is not necessarily a stab on the common man. The common man should be a little smarter about choosing sex partners or he will not be so common.

Here's the Republican talking point

Here is the alt-right doubling down (it's Breitbart)

And here's the metrics (SCIENCE with MATH)

Then there's this  (PRECEDENCE WITH OTHER INFECTIOUS VIRUSES)

 

TL;dr

There's only been a handful (7) convictions under intent to transmit HIV since 1988. In particular this bill is an attempt to mitigate infectious disease (not just HIV)  transmission via the sex worker culture (it's California), by getting them to test more often.

 

A better title would be: California reduces penalty for knowingly exposing someone to HIV to match that of more active infectious diseases which do not have nearly as many treatments!

Funny, I will give some insight as a nurse, all of those listed conditions are airborne precautions. Those diseases are also temporary conditions (that can obviously be fatal), meaning their is either a cure, or you will eventually get over the sickness. SARS and TB are both airborne precautions meaning simply being within 6 feet of you can give you the disease. Ebola has its own precaution standard that is even stricter. Those who are actively infectious also have obvious signs that they are indeed sick. It is hard to transmit that disease through deception because you are quickly dehabilitated. In the hospital, they would all be placed into negative pressure rooms and we would use N95 respirators to even enter the room. With AIDS, we would walk in and treat them like any other patient. Chances are they would not even appear sick in allot of ways.  Its exclusive in this regard as well as that it is a permanent condition that costs many thousands a year. There is good reason it is not included with these diseases and only someone ignorant of medicine would not understand this.

[+Fulcrum Subscriber¹]

1 hour ago, sidroc said:

Funny, I will give some insight as a nurse, all of those listed conditions are airborne precautions. Those diseases are also temporary conditions (that can obviously be fatal), meaning their is either a cure, or you will eventually get over the sickness. SARS and TB are both airborne precautions meaning simply being within 6 feet of you can give you the disease. Ebola has its own precaution standard that is even stricter. Those who are actively infectious also have obvious signs that they are indeed sick. It is hard to transmit that disease through deception because you are quickly dehabilitated. In the hospital, they would all be placed into negative pressure rooms and we would use N95 respirators to even enter the room. With AIDS, we would walk in and treat them like any other patient. Chances are they would not even appear sick in allot of ways.  Its exclusive in this regard as well as that it is a permanent condition that costs many thousands a year. There is good reason it is not included with these diseases and only someone ignorant of medicine would not understand this.

I am not an expert, but i'll defer you to any of the 150 Groups who support this bill and justified exactly that, including several AIDS/HIV organisations. Contact these organizations if you disagree, you might change their mind.

Quote

Addressing HIV the same as other communicable diseases benefits public health because it reduces the stigma associated with this particular disease, thereby addressing barriers to testing and treatment. The National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), HIV Medicine Association, American Psychological Association, AIDS United, and others agree that outdated HIV criminalization laws must be replaced with laws promoting public health.

https://www.eqca.org/chcr/sb-239/

 

[Memphis]

 

I will read that at some point, however, you will find I support knowingly giving someone any of those diseases a felony instead of a misdomeanor. TB, SARS, all of it. If deception can be proven, that should warrant a felony, all of them are dehabilitating in some way or another. I'm actually really surprised the other diseases were listed as misdomeanors at all.

 

[DocM]

I think intentionally infecting someone with any disease should result in felony assault charges due to the malice involved. Sentencing enhancements for those diseases with high mortality rates. No misguided mercy on this one.

[redfish]

2 hours ago, Fulcrum said:

I am not an expert, but i'll defer you to any of the 150 Groups who support this bill and justified exactly that, including several AIDS/HIV organisations. Contact these organizations if you disagree, you might change their mind.

 

I read the link you posted, and for the most part I feel it glosses over the substance, because the main part of the law  which made it a felony applies to someone who acts with the specific intent of infecting someone with HIV,

Quote

(1) Existing law makes it a felony punishable by imprisonment for 3, 5, or 8 years in the state prison to expose another person to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by engaging in unprotected sexual activity when the infected person knows at the time of the unprotected sex that he or she is infected with HIV, has not disclosed his or her HIV-positive status, and acts with the specific intent to infect the other person with HIV. 

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB239

 

This was repealed. Yet, the eqca.org focuses on the fact "There are now effective medications that greatly lengthen and improve the quality of life for people living with HIV—treatment that also nearly eliminates the possibility of transmission. In addition, HIV-negative individuals can take similar medications to prevent acquisition of HIV. " Neither of these things would matter at all if the person "acts with the specific intent to infect the other person with HIV." 

 

There was another part of the law involving felony charges which dealt firstly with blood donations and secondly with prostitution. But here, I'm still drawn to the site's own language, which says it only "nearly eliminates the possibility of transmission." "Nearly" -- really? Not completely, just nearly. So donating blood or working as a prostitute still has some possibility of infecting... but since people who take blood donations can take medications to prevent HIV acquisition or they can take medication to lengthen and improve their quality of life if they contract HIV means this doesn't matter, I guess?

 

So what does this all have to do with the "current scientific understanding"? The situation reflected in the first part of the bill remains unchanged; that its about knowingly infecting someone. Why repeal that one part of the law if the treatment of sex workers is the concern? In the second part, the article all but admits that transmitting the disease is still possible and will generally lead to death in the long run even with quality of life improvements from taking meds. And if its true that in many cases the solicitation cases involved "it was unknown whether any physical contact had occurred", then why not strengthen the bar for evidence of such physical contact so to not prevent harassment of sex workers? It is possible to write a law as to have certain standards of evidence. So, this was always possibility, too -- one the lawmakers didn't opt for. The fact that the text concludes with a plea about undocumented populations just makes me more skeptical of the whole intent behind the argument.

 

There have been many people on the left who have been concerned with the "stigmatization of people with HIV" for years. Fair enough. If they feel this is the case, I'm open to listening. Honestly, I'm not sure what exactly that means in practice. If AIDS were the same as every other communicable disease, then, in the complete interests of equality, instead of AIDS Walk, we'd have Communicable Diseases Walk, but we don't for a reason. Its because the people who organize AIDS Walk realize there's heightened reason to be concerned about AIDS. Would they argue that heightening public concern about AIDS by holding AIDS Walks also stigmatizes AIDS victims? I don't know.

 

Yet, I'd still be open to hearing arguments if you can link to something that I didn't feel glossed  the substance involved. The eqca.org article seems not completely upfront and honest and more concerned with side issues like illegal immigration than it does with simply treating the issue in a dry, objective fashion. And the WaPo articles you're referencing seem to be just repeating what activists are saying.

 

[Emn1ty]

I mean... I guess if everyone has it then it's no longer a stigma, right?

[+Fulcrum Subscriber¹]

12 hours ago, sidroc said:

I will read that at some point, however, you will find I support knowingly giving someone any of those diseases a felony instead of a misdomeanor. TB, SARS, all of it. If deception can be proven, that should warrant a felony, all of them are dehabilitating in some way or another. I'm actually really surprised the other diseases were listed as misdomeanors at all.

 

I might support even more punitive measures IF i believed it would dis-incentivize such criminal behavior. One thing you can do is challenge the evidence they used,

 

The stats are just being ignored, and the loaded title is making it look like this will affect or put a lot of people at risk.

 

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/headlines/hiv-criminal-laws-affect-marginalized-communities/

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/HIVCriminalization.EvaluationofTransmissionRisk.2016.pdf

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/HIV-Criminalization-California-Updated-June-2016.pdf

 

13 hours ago, redfish said:

This was repealed. Yet, the eqca.org focuses on the fact "There are now effective medications that greatly lengthen and improve the quality of life for people living with HIV—treatment that also nearly eliminates the possibility of transmission. In addition, HIV-negative individuals can take similar medications to prevent acquisition of HIV. " Neither of these things would matter at all if the person "acts with the specific intent to infect the other person with HIV." 

The statement you are quoting can be rhetoric to reduce the stigmatization of AIDS/HIV. Actually, it really says something interesting, maybe @sidroc can advise, but is there  some kind of treatment that an HIV Positive person can take which will allow them to have sex with an HIV Negative person without infection? If so, then I would think this works largely in favor.

 

And here it is:

https://www.poz.com/article/hiv-meds-not-sexually-infectious-13922-7422

Year: 2008

13 hours ago, redfish said:

There was another part of the law involving felony charges which dealt firstly with blood donations and secondly with prostitution. But here, I'm still drawn to the site's own language, which says it only "nearly eliminates the possibility of transmission." "Nearly" -- really? Not completely, just nearly. So donating blood or working as a prostitute still has some possibility of infecting... but since people who take blood donations can take medications to prevent HIV acquisition or they can take medication to lengthen and improve their quality of life if they contract HIV means this doesn't matter, I guess?

The full context of what you quoted, deflates your emphasis of it:

There are now effective medications that greatly lengthen and improve the quality of life for people living with HIV—treatment that also nearly eliminates the possibility of transmission.

Were we any closer to eliminating HIV/AIDS by having higher penalty? Who knows. Probably not, because incrimination due to diseases usually makes people less willing to come forward. I'm pretty sure a cure is not going to come from incarcerating everyone who has the disease, and we don't even know if it's something naturally encountered in the world.

13 hours ago, redfish said:

So donating blood or working as a prostitute still has some possibility of infecting... but since people who take blood donations can take medications to prevent HIV acquisition or they can take medication to lengthen and improve their quality of life if they contract HIV means this doesn't matter, I guess?

 

The situation reflected in the first part of the bill remains unchanged; that its about knowingly infecting someone. Why repeal that one part of the law if the treatment of sex workers is the concern?

RE: Donating Blood has a possibility of infection

There are international guidelines and FDA regulations requiring all blood donations be screened for HIV and other viruses before given to any patient. They are repealing the part of state law that was redundant with Federal Law. If you get a blood transfusion, that blood has already been screened for a variety of diseases. This law has not been amended since 1988~.

 

In the WAPO  article this is how it responds to this inquiry :

In the case of the laws around blood donation, research has shown that the [previous] law was probably never enforced and probably did little to enhance the screening measures that already exist to identify sources of infected blood. - WAPO

13 hours ago, redfish said:

In the second part, the article all but admits that transmitting the disease is still possible and will generally lead to death in the long run even with quality of life improvements from taking meds. And if its true that in many cases the solicitation cases involved "it was unknown whether any physical contact had occurred", then why not strengthen the bar for evidence of such physical contact so to not prevent harassment of sex workers? It is possible to write a law as to have certain standards of evidence. So, this was always possibility, too -- one the lawmakers didn't opt for.

Sex work is still illegal in California,  just solicitation is illegal, some people are arrested on just suspicion. Are you suggesting we legalize prostitution? I'm not an expert on harassment, but I'm going to guess it's rarely convicted or punished, since it's so commonplace.

 

If you doubt the statistics, why don't you bring it to the attention of Williams University @ UCLA School of Law. I provided the web link and research link at the top of this post.

 

But if you're suggesting changes to how police interact with sex workers, doubt it'll work. Police are people, and suffer tribalism, stigmatized attitudes, and all the other faults. Again, address it to appropriate people, Attorney General of California,

13 hours ago, redfish said:

The fact that the text concludes with a plea about undocumented populations just makes me more skeptical of the whole intent behind the argument.

Here is the full quote:

Quote

And though foreign-born individuals are underrepresented among those criminalized based on their HIV status, felony charges can result in dire consequences, including deportation proceedings for those who are undocumented.

https://www.eqca.org/chcr/sb-239/

An appeal to heart? Why would this make you any _more_ skeptical, diseases affect everyone, and you can blackball undocumented, but you cannot ignore that they too can release an epidemic if laws blackball them from healthcare. They're here, they're in our borders, deal with it.

13 hours ago, redfish said:

There have been many people on the left who have been concerned with the "stigmatization of people with HIV" for years. Fair enough. If they feel this is the case, I'm open to listening. Honestly, I'm not sure what exactly that means in practice. If AIDS were the same as every other communicable disease, then, in the complete interests of equality, instead of AIDS Walk, we'd have Communicable Diseases Walk, but we don't for a reason. Its because the people who organize AIDS Walk realize there's heightened reason to be concerned about AIDS. Would they argue that heightening public concern about AIDS by holding AIDS Walks also stigmatizes AIDS victims? I don't know.

I'm not sure why they needed to compare it to Communicable Diseases like Ebola, SARS, tuberculosis, etc. But the UCLA research is worth a read.

 

There is a heightened reason to be concerned about AIDS over EBOLA, SARS, etc., there's a lot of people infected with it and it's terminal.

 

I wish I could put this in better words,  These legislators, are trying to make a compromise, and reduce penalties to get more people in to AIDS/HIV test centers. Will it work? Nobody knows.

 

Note:

Longer incarceration has not stopped the drug war, it has not revived urban neighborhoods where predominately black people reside and crime rate continues to rise.

Would you prefer we try something else, I'm all ears.

13 hours ago, redfish said:

Yet, I'd still be open to hearing arguments if you can link to something that I didn't feel glossed  the substance involved. The eqca.org article seems not completely upfront and honest and more concerned with side issues like illegal immigration than it does with simply treating the issue in a dry, objective fashion. And the WaPo articles you're referencing seem to be just repeating what activists are saying.

The eqca.org is one of the sponsors of the bill, it's not a bad place to start at all.  If you thought my articles were glossing over this: eqca and wapo, did you even try the original post?

Zero Research links

Plenty non-productive and loaded rhetoric

Zero solutions to curb an upward trend in HIV/AIDS among gay community in California (Los Angeles).

 

Anyways... I don't really know what else I can add here. 

7 incidents in the last 30 years that the previous law has been enforced, were convicted for knowingly transmitting HIV

Reducing it to a misdemenor, doesn't seem too crazy if it gets more people into blood labs for testing/treatment.

[Memphis]

The eqca.org is one of the sponsors of the bill, it's not a bad place to start at all.  If you thought my articles were glossing over this: eqca and wapo, did you even try the original post?
Zero Research links
Plenty non-productive and loaded rhetoric
Zero solutions to curb an upward trend in HIV/AIDS among gay community in California (Los Angeles).
 
Anyways... I don't really know what else I can add here. 
7 incidents in the last 30 years that the previous law has been enforced, were convicted for knowingly transmitting HIV
Reducing it to a misdemenor, doesn't seem too crazy if it gets more people into blood labs for testing/treatment.

I don't think accidents should get anyone in trouble, just intent to infect, however, even if you only have a small chance to pass on the disease, you should still tell your partner, it should not be a felony if they know your infected before intercourse. Again, it's just quite shocking that intent to give someone a disease of any kind was ever a misdomenar.

[redfish]

17 hours ago, Fulcrum said:

I might support even more punitive measures IF i believed it would dis-incentivize such criminal behavior. One thing you can do is challenge the evidence they used,

The primary purpose of penalties in my opinion is not to be a deterrent, but to protect people. In this case, the rationale would be getting people off the streets who are exposing others to danger. Supposing someone guilty of intentional infection would be in jail... 

 

Anyway as I pointed out, in the law there are different provisions for felonies. They could have repealed the part that applies to prostitution without repealing the part that applied to intentional infection. For the part on prostitution, they could have added a higher standard of evidence or required sex acts that would have led to transmission. But instead of tweaking the law to deal with concerns about abuse, the main intent seemed to be to repeal any felony charge for any crime involving AIDS transmission.

[Emn1ty]

20 hours ago, Fulcrum said:

... snip

I didn't intend to kill them, I just didn't tell them I had a gun pointed at them and they had a chance of getting hit by it.

There are crimes that are about intent, and there are crimes that are about the actual/potential result and risk. You are risking giving someone something that provides a lifetime of medical and financial burden without their knowledge. It shouldn't matter if your intent was to transmit the disease or not, that's just negligent (criminal negligence).

Someone should not be knowingly (even if unintentionally) risking another's health without their knowledge.

[+Fulcrum Subscriber¹]

Some more research:

According to research by the NIH, one of current treatment options for HIV, called antiretroviral drugs can reduce the risk of transmitting the virus to HIV-negative partners by up to 96 percent (assumedly without a condom).

https://www.poz.com/article/hiv-treatmentasprevention-hptn052-20423-2123

 

I promise you, I'm not the "common man" who will risk having sex with someone who is admittedly HIV positive even if they are taking ARV.

 

There is also a supplement someone HIV-negative can take, to reduce the risk of infection by 90%, known as Truvada treatment.

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2017-10-08-education-department-tackles-hiv-prevention-on-seven-campuses/#.WeEasrKGOM8

5 hours ago, redfish said:

The primary purpose of penalties in my opinion is not to be a deterrent, but to protect people. In this case, the rationale would be getting people off the streets who are exposing others to danger. Supposing someone guilty of intentional infection would be in jail... 

Supposing jail time for intentional infection is extended (instead of reducing it to 6months MAX, a felony has a minimum imprisonment of 16months)

1) You will be paying for their imprisonment via tax dollars

2) You will be fully responsible for their HIV treatment via tax dollars

3) The victim(s) are still with the fully responsibility of the virus

 

This criminal behavior will not be affected EITHER way.

Quote

Anyway as I pointed out, in the law there are different provisions for felonies. They could have repealed the part that applies to prostitution without repealing the part that applied to intentional infection. For the part on prostitution, they could have added a higher standard of evidence or required sex acts that would have led to transmission. But instead of tweaking the law to deal with concerns about abuse, the main intent seemed to be to repeal any felony charge for any crime involving AIDS transmission.

When you talk about raising the bar of evidence, the minimum sentence for solicitation of sex is already a misdemeanor, they don't need to check for any actual physical exchange, regardless of STDs or infections, you're going to jail. The reason we have this metric is that some of these people were sent for mandatory HIV testing, and then we have this metric - solicitation of sex resulting in mandatory HIV testing.

 

It looks like they have tried changing this legislation in the past:

 

 

This is the legislation being amended here. there never is a guarantee you will transmit the virus and the penalties do not require infection. "Would have led" is just too ambiguous to legislate.

HIV-Criminalization Research by UCLA Williams School of Law

 

3 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

I didn't intend to kill them, I just didn't tell them I had a gun pointed at them and they had a chance of getting hit by it.

There are crimes that are about intent, and there are crimes that are about the actual/potential result and risk. You are risking giving someone something that provides a lifetime of medical and financial burden without their knowledge. It shouldn't matter if your intent was to transmit the disease or not, that's just negligent (criminal negligence).

Someone should not be knowingly (even if unintentionally) risking another's health without their knowledge.

I don't think that it's comparable to pointing a gun at someone though.

- In the case of HIV-positive who are actively being treated (ARV), they pose a very small risk of transmitting the virus. (4%+/-)

This is like pointing a gun with blanks?? There is no evidence to suggest any significant portion of our population are looking to actively weaponize highly infectious communicable diseases.

 

Lucky for you, neither the existing law nor the proposed law give consideration to whether the virus has been transmitted or not, same penalty.

 

At the end of the day, the primary situation we're talking about is consensual sex with persons of unknown backgrounds, and that's just stupid. Certainly not the "common man" as others have cried. Know your partner, know about HIV treatments out there. Laws rarely protect people from their own stupidity.

 

Just an FYI: When said loved one dies from the HIV infection, maybe the family can press charges for murder. I don't think that is being legislated against here.

 

 

 

[redfish]

3 minutes ago, Fulcrum said:

There is also a supplement someone HIV-negative can take, to reduce the risk of infection by 90%, known as Truvada treatment.

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2017-10-08-education-department-tackles-hiv-prevention-on-seven-campuses/#.WeEasrKGOM8

Supposing jail time for intentional infection is extended (instead of reducing it to 6months MAX, a felony has a minimum imprisonment of 16months)

1) You will be paying for their imprisonment via tax dollars

2) You will be fully responsible for their HIV treatment via tax dollars

3) The victim(s) are still with the fully responsibility of the virus

 

Yes, but it prevents them from intentionally infecting more victims. If someone is a murderer, why do we put them in jail? -- the guy they killed is already dead, according to your logic. I  don't believe in deterrence theory when it comes to violent crimes and believe most people who commit violence will commit violence anyway no matter what the penalty, because usually the decision to kill people isn't rational. But there's some reason to isolate them from society until there's some sort of rehabilitation or penitence. The tax dollars thing isn't an issue for me if its necessary to protect more people from harm. Plus, I don't buy the argument from conservatives that being in prison is something people want, and in any case infecting someone with a deadly virus is not something you want to treat lightly (ie 6 months) The needs of the victim is another issue entirely.

 

23 hours ago, Fulcrum said:

 

Here is the full quote:An appeal to heart? Why would this make you any _more_ skeptical, diseases affect everyone, and you can blackball undocumented, but you cannot ignore that they too can release an epidemic if laws blackball them from healthcare. They're here, they're in our borders, deal with it.

 

Its pretty obvious why it would make me more skeptical. Because it demonstrates the interest of the activism is not in the issue in and of itself, but all sorts of side issues about social justice. If there is a crime that warrants a certain penalty, then it warrants a certain penalty... Period. If you have a case to make about how to treat felony charges for undocumented immigrants, its a separate case to make. But if an undocumented immigrant commits murder, I don't want his murder reduced to a misdemeanor just because he might be deported and I should feel sorry that he's being deported. So talk about the actual issue and whether the crime warrants a certain penalty, and leave all these side issues out of it, and I'll listen to you more.

[Emn1ty]

4 minutes ago, Fulcrum said:

I don't think that it's comparable to pointing a gun at someone though.

- In the case of HIV-positive who are actively being treated (ARV), they pose a very small risk of transmitting the virus. (4%+/-)

This is like pointing a gun with blanks?? There is no evidence to suggest any significant portion of our population are looking to actively weaponize highly infectious communicable diseases.

You're missing the point, even if I was only 4% likely to get hit with the bullet and it wasn't going to kill me (perhaps permanently damage a rib or a bone of some kind) I would prefer knowing that I am putting myself in that situation than not.

 

Lets try another analogy, you get into a car with an Uber driver. The driver doesn't tell you that he's got black mold in the car and you could potentially get very sick from it (this is why there are regular inspections of Uber driver's vehicles). Or maybe he doesn't tell you his license is expired, or that he doesn't have insurance.

4 minutes ago, Fulcrum said:

Lucky for you, neither the existing law nor the proposed law give consideration to whether the virus has been transmitted or not, same penalty.

It's not about it actually being transmitted, it's about the risk of the transmission. Being negligent.

4 minutes ago, Fulcrum said:

At the end of the day, the primary situation we're talking about is consensual sex with persons of unknown backgrounds, and that's just stupid. Certainly not the "common man" as others have cried. Know your partner, know about HIV treatments out there. Laws rarely protect people from their own stupidity.

This is like saying that walking home down a dark alley by yourself in a questionable neighborhood is stupid, so we shouldn't protect people in such scenarios. I mean... I think riding motorcycles on freeways is stupid; so does that mean we shouldn't have laws protecting cyclists who get hit by cars that don't pay attention?

The problem with the qualifier of "stupid" is that it's open to interpretation.

 

[+Fulcrum Subscriber¹]

2 hours ago, redfish said:

Yes, but it prevents them from intentionally infecting more victims. If someone is a murderer, why do we put them in jail? -- the guy they killed is already dead, according to your logic. I  don't believe in deterrence theory when it comes to violent crimes and believe most people who commit violence will commit violence anyway no matter what the penalty, because usually the decision to kill people isn't rational. But there's some reason to isolate them from society until there's some sort of rehabilitation or penitence. The tax dollars thing isn't an issue for me if its necessary to protect more people from harm. Plus, I don't buy the argument from conservatives that being in prison is something people want, and in any case infecting someone with a deadly virus is not something you want to treat lightly (ie 6 months) The needs of the victim is another issue entirely.

I don't see any provision in this law preventing a victims family from bringing murder charges upon a suspect who intentionally transmitted the HIV virus, resulting in the death of a loved one.

Remember

1) they haven't actually killed anyone

2) The victim can probably sue for financial damages from the cost of treatment, I'm sure a good DA will be an indispensable ally in this

3) HIV treatment can keep a person alive and functioning normally for a very long time (Magic Johnson)

4) It's possible there will be a cure before the victim dies.

(you're STILL only talking about intentional infection which there has been very few convictions)

 

If there were more convictions for intent to infect with HIV, we could expect this law to be changed. Also know, criminal charges for intent to infect with HIV punish the same, regardless of there being an actual victim.

 

If someone intended to infect a room of people, The Attorney General has privilege to intervene and override the charges, potentially under terrorism charges. I don't believe it's really a free pass for HIV infection, District Attorneys are crafty and up-charging things which betray the public trust.

Quote

Its pretty obvious why it would make me more skeptical. Because it demonstrates the interest of the activism is not in the issue in and of itself, but all sorts of side issues about social justice. If there is a crime that warrants a certain penalty, then it warrants a certain penalty... Period. If you have a case to make about how to treat felony charges for undocumented immigrants, its a separate case to make. But if an undocumented immigrant commits murder, I don't want his murder reduced to a misdemeanor just because he might be deported and I should feel sorry that he's being deported. So talk about the actual issue and whether the crime warrants a certain penalty, and leave all these side issues out of it, and I'll listen to you more.

Fair enough, the eqca.org organization obviously appeals to LGBT, in this case I believe we're talking about undocumented Hispanic LGBT. While that community might be part of the one's who are disproportionately trending upward in HIV infections, there is no provision in the bill specifically defending undocumented persons having HIV - that is more part of law enforcement: I believe on felony charges they do more vigorous background check and thus it can result in deportation. So it's kind of just a consequence of how misdemeanors are treated differently from felony.

 

The bill itself includes nothing about undocumented persons to my knowledge.

2 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

You're missing the point, even if I was only 4% likely to get hit with the bullet and it wasn't going to kill me (perhaps permanently damage a rib or a bone of some kind) I would prefer knowing that I am putting myself in that situation than not.

Why is there a gun pointed at you in the first place! Did you walk into a bank robbery, or someone yelled "Shots fired" and you followed the cry into an alley. The gun analogy doesn't work here, because people don't knowingly put themselves in harms way of a firearm (usually), It's nothing like intentionally soliciting a sex worker for sex.

 

If you engage in sex with a partner of whom you have not personally seen their HIV test results, you have a risk of contracting the HIV virus. You know you are putting yourself in a risky situation. I am simply saying, that most people are not at all affected by this bill. It's primarily promiscuous ones.

Quote

Lets try another analogy, you get into a car with an Uber driver. The driver doesn't tell you that he's got black mold in the car and you could potentially get very sick from it (this is why there are regular inspections of Uber driver's vehicles). Or maybe he doesn't tell you his license is expired, or that he doesn't have insurance.

It's not about it actually being transmitted, it's about the risk of the transmission. Being negligent.

Negligence is a charge that can be levied on either a defendant and/or plaintiff. If you are walking downtown and you see rocks falling from a building, and you still walk underneath, are you really going to sue when a rock hits you? You can't sue a doctor if you didn't take the medication on the advised schedule, or had checkups on the advised schedule.

 

Reasonable care is expected..

Quote

This is like saying that walking home down a dark alley by yourself in a questionable neighborhood is stupid, so we shouldn't protect people in such scenarios. I mean... I think riding motorcycles on freeways is stupid; so does that mean we shouldn't have laws protecting cyclists who get hit by cars that don't pay attention?

The problem with the qualifier of "stupid" is that it's open to interpretation.

 

We're talking about risky behavior. 

If you want the law to better protect people, who are walking into dark alleys in questionable neighborhoods,  there are measures we can advocate for:

1) more lighting in dark alleys - neighborhood funding

2) what makes a neighborhood questionable might be violence - so more cops routes

 

If you want measures to better protect people from having promiscuous sex and risking HIV infection

1) Legalize then regulate sex worker industry to enforce mandatory HIV testing*

2) (Education) Raise awareness about the HIV virus and other potential infections and how to avoid them

 

* In countries where prostitution is legal, sex work is regulated with mandatory checkups. Here we have a black hole where an unregulated industry is vulnerable to infection and afraid to get tested due to threat of incarceration.