Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

What's happening in your world? Discuss it here.
Forum rules
Play nice. We will be watching

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby sunglasses » Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:56 pm

NoodleFox wrote:
It isn't something like herpes, a disease that won't cripple your life; almost everyone has it at this point and the worst it gets is that you break out on occasion


I'm about to be incredibly pedantic.

*ahem*

Herpes can in fact cripple your life. It can cause herpes simplex encephalitis. This can be caused by HSV 1 or 2.

Untreated HSE is progressive and often fatal in 7-14 days. A landmark study by Whitley et al in 1977 revealed a 70% mortality in untreated patients and severe neurologic deficits in most of the survivors


Anyhoo, the notion that HIV is more deadly then other STDs really isn't applicable anymore. While there are now treatments for Hep C- these aren't exactly cost effective and if untreated it is still deadly. Syphyllis will eventually cause death-and now that's drug resistant. There is drug resistant gonorrhea-which won't kill you outright but can lead to PID and ectopic pregnancies that can cause death. Same with chlamydia.

My point is-HIV isn't the only scary STI or the only one that can cause death. It's just one that more people are aware of as being deadly (except for the fucking HIV truthers).

Anyway, as Lind pointed out they were trying to lump all intentional exposure to STIs as one classification. I agree with him that they should most likely all be upgraded to felonies.
  • 11

TCS Etiquette Guide

Rules and FAQs

Zevran wrote:Magic can kill. Knives can kill. Even small children launched at great speeds can kill.
User avatar
sunglasses
TCS Moderator
TCS Moderator
 
Posts: 11541
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:52 pm
Show rep
Title: The Speaker of Horrors.

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby Learned Nand » Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:31 pm

Noodle, the fact that you're treating HIV as uniquely awful among communicable diseases undermines your point that there is no stigma against HIV. The fact that you are treating it different from, for example, Hepatitis, is an example of that stigma. And once we remove the stigma, there is no longer a justification for treating the intentional infliction of HIV more harshly than the intentional infliction of other life-threatening diseases.

Of course, you might still argue that the intentional infliction of any life-threatening disease should be treated as a felony, but then we're no longer singling out HIV. That would be a general argument against the criminal offense, not a specific argument against this change.
  • 2

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby IamNotCreepy » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:10 pm

I don't think anyone is arguing there is no stigma for having HIV. What people are balking at is the idea that punishing people more harshly for a worse crime (purposely spreading a worse disease) would make the stigma worse for everyone with the disease.

The irony, of course, is that the stigma surrounding HIV should actually make purposely spreading it worse because not only do the victims have to deal with the disease, they also have to deal with the stigma.

I think people who purposely spread a deadly disease should be charged with attempted murder.
  • 4

User avatar
IamNotCreepy
TCS Admin
TCS Admin
 
Posts: 1521
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 5:00 am
Location: Inside the "Cone of Uncertainty"
Show rep
Title: Chasing after the Wind

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby Learned Nand » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:15 pm

IamNotCreepy wrote:I don't think anyone is arguing there is no stigma for having HIV.

Just to be clear, Noodle's exact words with respect to the disease were:

NoodleFox wrote:There's no stigma towards the disease


That's the statement against which I was arguing.
  • 5

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby IamNotCreepy » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:51 pm

Ok, I missed that line from Noodle, but before that you were taking issue with what Lindvaettr had said.

It seems to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong) he was not arguing that HIV having a stigma was BS, but the argument based on the stigma was.

Anyone who thinks there is no stigma for HIV is dead wrong.
  • 2

User avatar
IamNotCreepy
TCS Admin
TCS Admin
 
Posts: 1521
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 5:00 am
Location: Inside the "Cone of Uncertainty"
Show rep
Title: Chasing after the Wind

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby Crimson847 » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:55 pm

aviel wrote:Except that we had already decided that, for the infliction of other diseases, a misdemeanor charge was appropriate.


"We" as in those of us here, or "we" as in the California government?

In the first case those of us here had not decided any such thing; in fact the more common view seems to be that intentional transmission of any incurable and life-threatening disease should be a felony. In the second case, it's not clear to me why we should accept the California government's view of the matter as gospel.
  • 5

"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
Crimson847
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:18 am
Show rep

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby Marcuse » Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:01 pm

I suppose it's not controversial to say that I think infecting anyone knowingly with any kind of harmful disease should be some kind of crime. I don't know if I'd support gradations based on whether the disease in question is fatal or not, but I think it'd be reasonable to distinguish them in that way.
  • 7

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby Learned Nand » Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:04 pm

Crimson847 wrote:"We" as in those of us here, or "we" as in the California government?

"We" as in the people of California, which I recognize was a bit unclear in context.

I never suggested that we take California's current policy as "gospel", or anything similar. But if people here are so firm in their belief that a misdemeanor classification is unreasonable, and that Weiner's argument in favor of it is unfounded, then it seems like they should have evidence to support that stance.
  • 0

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby IamNotCreepy » Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:17 pm

When is "evidence" ever used to determine the appropriate punishment for a crime?

Mostly it's based on the will of the people and what they think is appropriate. A lot of people think the punishment is not severe enough.
  • 4

User avatar
IamNotCreepy
TCS Admin
TCS Admin
 
Posts: 1521
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 5:00 am
Location: Inside the "Cone of Uncertainty"
Show rep
Title: Chasing after the Wind

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby Crimson847 » Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:33 pm

Marcuse wrote:I suppose it's not controversial to say that I think infecting anyone knowingly with any kind of harmful disease should be some kind of crime. I don't know if I'd support gradations based on whether the disease in question is fatal or not, but I think it'd be reasonable to distinguish them in that way.


My thinking is that we distinguish simple assault from aggravated assault and distinguish both from manslaughter and murder for that precise reason--the degree of injury is relevant when prosecuting a crime. If your actions lead to someone's death (or could easily have done so), that's a more serious offense against them than an action that leads to a more minor injury--or illness, in this case.

aviel wrote:
Crimson847 wrote:"We" as in those of us here, or "we" as in the California government?

"We" as in the people of California, which I recognize was a bit unclear in context.

I never suggested that we take California's current policy as "gospel", or anything similar. But if people here are so firm in their belief that a misdemeanor classification is unreasonable, and that Weiner's argument in favor of it is unfounded, then it seems like they should have evidence to support that stance.


Nobody has to present evidence to support skepticism of a claim that is unproven, especially when the claim is prima facie implausible. Rather, the claimant is the one with the burden of proof, a burden that nobody's even tried to meet as far as I can see.

Can you prove that reducing murder to a misdemeanor charge when it's committed by an elderly person would not diminish stigma against the elderly? If you can't prove that, does that mean it's sensible to give it a shot and see what happens? I wouldn't think so, because most elderly people don't commit murder and allowing them to do so with fewer consequences has no logical negative relationship with society's view of the elderly. If anything, we would expect the relationship would be positive--i.e. allowing elderly people to get away with murder would increase society's ill will toward them, not decrease it.

The same applies here. How the hell is allowing people who intentionally transmit HIV to get off easier supposed to make society more compassionate toward people with HIV? What is the psychological mechanism by which this would occur? I can give you a psychological mechanism to explain why this could increase stigma: the availability heuristic, combined with media coverage of people like this guy that NoodleFox mentioned getting off with a mere misdemeanor conviction. Do you have a counteracting mechanism you'd care to mention?
  • 6

"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
Crimson847
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:18 am
Show rep

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby Learned Nand » Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:41 pm

Crimson847 wrote:Nobody has to present evidence to support skepticism of a claim that is unproven, especially when the claim is prima facie implausible. Rather, the claimant is the one with the burden of proof, a burden that nobody's even tried to meet as far as I can see.

I agree with this, I just don't see how it's relevant to the discussion on the forum. People weren't just expressing skepticism over Weiner's argument. If that was all, then there wouldn't be an issue, because I would share that skepticism. They were lambasting it as stupid or absurd. That kind of harsh criticism requires evidence.

I'll also note that we discussed the analogy with elderly murderers. This change brings the penalty for spreading HIV in line with that of other diseases. It doesn't create an exception for HIV; it eliminates one. The argument here isn't over whether there should be an exception for HIV -- the general consensus is that there shouldn't be. The argument then is whether the intentional spreading of any life-threatening disease should be treated as a misdemeanor or a felony. I don't know why you think, in that case, the default should be a felony.
  • 0

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby D-LOGAN » Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:50 pm

While I'm sure this was done with good intentions, namely reducing stigma on being HIV and the likes, I find the idea of reducing the penalty for knowingly exposing someone to the risk of infection without allowing them to decide for themselves if they wanted to take said risk or downright deliberately trying to infect them out of malice, to be abhorrent. (I mean not just HIV, but any infectious illness of similar or greater severity. And I think all such should be felonies, not single one out, but since this thread is about HIV I’ll focusing on that).

Like I saw some videos on this from a pro-doing this perspective when I first saw the idea being floated. In particular people with HIV pointing out the effect it has on their love life, as in perspective partners not wanting to be with them, in particular gay dating sites where upon revelation of one's HIV status, potential dates start drying up just like that *I just did that finger snap thing*. With them pointing out how with modern medicine the risk of infection is low and how even if one does contract it, it is more manageable than ever to live with it and will undoubtedly only get better. But here's the thing, YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE WHAT RISKS IT’S OK FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO FACE WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE! If you have HIV you have a responsibility to inform any potential partner. IMO any fear of any rejection or stigma in no way trumps another person’s health. Because at the end of the day people do have the right to not want to be with you over this, you’re not entitled to anybody else’s body.

My whole thing basically comes down to, you do your thing as long as you’re not harming anyone else (well obviously there’s a lot more to it than that but just simplifying for effect here) and knowingly or deliberately exposing someone to such an illness without them being aware definitely crosses that line. Like if someone knew they were HIV and didn’t inform a sexual partner beforehand or as in the cases Noodle’ mentioned deliberately infected you, in some cases ripping condoms and whatnot just to ensure infection, or donate blood they knew was infected, well I believe the victims deserve to have those who abused them in such a fashion to be charged with more than a misdemeanour.

Like I think reducing the rates of infection and tackling the stigma are probably, it appears to me anyway, a whole different animal to all this. I think that needs to targeted through education campaigns and the likes. Ensuring people know that having HIV isn’t the end of the world particularly with advances in medicine and the importance of safe sex, not just for your safety but for others. As calling out prejudice and misinformation and whatnot.

Being HIV isn’t a crime and shouldn’t be treated as such. Knowingly or deliberately exposing others to it, as far as I’m concerned should be, and a serious one at that. And I don’t believe that’s a knock at people with HIV in general, because I’m gonna go out on a limb and say most of them are good people who wouldn’t want to give it to another person and will restrict themselves to sexual partners who understand the situation and are prepared to take said risks.

That’s my two cent anyhow. I aint here to win no legal case, just see a thread, have an opinion, feel like sharing it. Aint here to live up to anybody else's standards over how conversations are to be conducted. Just here for me. Cause I'm an outlaw baby, AND I CAN'T BE TAMED!
  • 11

Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.
User avatar
D-LOGAN
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:08 pm
Location: Éire
Show rep
Title: ALL PRAISE UNTO MIGHTY KEK!

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby Marcuse » Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:03 pm

YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE WHAT RISKS IT’S OK FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO FACE WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE!


UNLESS THEY'RE CHILDREN OR OTHERWISE NOT COMPETENT.
  • 6

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby Crimson847 » Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:06 pm

aviel wrote:
Crimson847 wrote:Nobody has to present evidence to support skepticism of a claim that is unproven, especially when the claim is prima facie implausible. Rather, the claimant is the one with the burden of proof, a burden that nobody's even tried to meet as far as I can see.

I agree with this, I just don't see how it's relevant to the discussion on the forum. People weren't just expressing skepticism over Weiner's argument. If that was all, then there wouldn't be an issue, because I would share that skepticism. They were lambasting it as stupid or absurd. That kind of harsh criticism requires evidence.

I'll also note that we discussed the analogy with elderly murderers. This change brings the penalty for spreading HIV in line with that of other diseases. It doesn't create an exception for HIV; it eliminates one. The argument here isn't over whether there should be an exception for HIV -- the general consensus is that there shouldn't be. The argument then is whether the intentional spreading of any life-threatening disease should be treated as a misdemeanor or a felony. I don't know why you think, in that case, the default should be a felony.


Because involuntary manslaughter is a felony, aggravated assault is a felony, and rape by deception is a felony, and those are the three closest analogues I can think of to deliberately infecting someone with a life-threatening and incurable STI. The first because intentional HIV infection could very well get someone killed even though that isn't necessarily the intention, the second because it's an act of commission that results or can easily result in grave injury to the victim, and the third because deception was used to obtain consent to sex that quite probably wouldn't have been granted without the deception.
  • 9

"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
Crimson847
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:18 am
Show rep

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby Learned Nand » Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:11 pm

I think a relevant question then would be whether convictions under some of those charges could be sustained notwithstanding this law. In other words, does this law act as its own offense when the illness is non-lethal, but as more of an enhancement to traditional violent crimes when the illness is life-threatening?
  • 1

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests

cron