Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

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

Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby NoodleFox » Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:03 pm

Not anymore for California!
Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill Friday that lowers from a felony to a misdemeanor the crime of knowingly exposing a sexual partner to HIV without disclosing the infection.

(Note: Rather than facing two to six years in jail for the offense, those found guilty under the proposed bill would face up to six months in jail, which is the same penalty for knowingly exposing people to other communicable diseases (which includes STDs))

The reason? It's discriminatory (or so says the bill's author, Scott Wiener), probably because HIV/AIDS is more prevalent in black and gay communities? Also:
“HIV-related stigma is one of our main obstacles to reducing and ultimately eliminating infections,” Wiener said. “When you criminalize HIV or stigmatize people who have HIV it encourages people not to get tested, to stay in the shadows, not to be open about their status, not to seek treatment."

Spoiler: show
Image

Sure yeah okay, that makes logical sense, yeah - one would think that the looming threat of years behind bars would make you more willing to disclose that info, but sure let's go with the spooky option.

And don't bother with the fact that you're on a medication regimen that costs thousands of dollars a month for the rest of your life or knowing that a simple cold could kill you since your immune system is worthless for the rest of your life all because a HIV Harry/Heather is running around deliberately infecting others with the disease: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-41516164
Daryll Rowe, 26, is accused of telling his partners he did not have the virus and insisting they had unprotected sex or then tampering with condoms.
Lewes Crown Court heard he sent one partner a message saying: "I have HIV LOL. Oops!"
Mr Rowe, from Brighton, denies infecting four men with the virus.
He also denies attempting to infect a further six men in the Brighton area between October 2015 and December 2016.

I'm sorry you got AIDS, but being a shitty person and having unprotected sex with someone who doesn't know makes you low-key a biological terrorist (and still a shitty person).
More examples of deliberate infection: https://thoughtcatalog.com/jim-goad/2015/11/hiv-terrorism-13-cases-where-people-deliberately-infected-others/
  • 15

User avatar
NoodleFox
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 8:16 pm
Location: Kekistan
Show rep
Title: Third Person Facepalm-er

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby iMURDAu » Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:30 pm

I believe. There are things that should have a stigma attached. A killer transmittable disease is high on the list right up there with a narcotics addiction. Sadly the world seems to want these things to be okay.

I think this reduction in penalty is a big mistake but who am I?

Quick Role Play:

I'll play jerkass with AIDS who is trying to get laid. Hmmm. OK. I can tell this potential partner I have AIDS and get denied because I can ruin their immune system. Or. I can not tell them because I'm trying to get laid gat-dim-it. Worse that can happen to me is a 6 month sentence. Maximum. Whew! That used to be like years no questions asked. Shit I can probably get dragged into court 3 or 4 times before a judge wakes up and sentences me to the full 6 months. Pfffft I'm not telling anybody shit.
  • 8

"Our landfills are third world bling"
- Doug Stanhope
User avatar
iMURDAu
TCS Chomper
TCS Chomper
 
Posts: 5655
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:08 am
Location: Route 11 by Scoopalicious
Show rep
Title: King of Fuh

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby DamianaRaven » Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:31 pm

I agree - deliberately spreading a fatal disease should NOT be a misdemeanor, especially if it can be proven that the person did so knowingly!
  • 13

Anything worth doing is worth doing for money. (13th Rule of Acquisition)
User avatar
DamianaRaven
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 5663
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:37 am
Location: Yippee-ki-yay, motherfuckers!
Show rep
Title: Crazy Cunt

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby Lindvaettr » Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:43 pm

The reason for this is basically that knowingly giving someone HIV/AIDs is a felony, while knowingly giving someone else any other disease is a misdemeanor (including permanent, life-altering diseases like Hepatitis), so the bill is intended to bring the law for HIV in line with the rest of the laws.

In my view, the opposite course is the only reasonable method. If intentionally infecting someone with other diseases isn't a felony, it absolutely should be. You should also have to pay the millions of dollars in medical fees the newly-infected person is now going to incur throughout their life.

The stated premise, that HIV/AIDs has a stigma attached, is bullshit. I don't have a problem with people with HIV or AIDS. I have a problem with people with HIV or AIDS who intentionally infect other people with their permanent, life altering, and often life terminating, disease. String 'em up, quite honestly.
  • 18

User avatar
Lindvaettr
TCS Camper
TCS Camper
 
Posts: 847
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:19 am
Location: Various, depending on time and day
Show rep
Title: Lord of the Dance

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby PSTN » Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:58 pm

Honestly, I'd like to see how much the severity of sentencing actually works as a deterrent for people with HIV. Because if it's the same whether it's six months or six years, then we might as well not waste money imprisoning people and instead spend money to help educate people.
  • 1

User avatar
PSTN
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1410
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 1:24 am
Show rep
Title: II

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby 52xMax » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:29 pm

I think the most glaringly stupid and potentially dangerous part about this dumb decision is that this also applies for blood donations from HIV carriers who don't disclose this information. Sure, they test the samples either way for such things, but I can only see this as leading to a huge waste of time, money and resources, as well as the terrible implications for anyone who might become infected this way.

One thing is being partners with someone HIV positive, and after evaluating the relationship as well as the risks implied, making an informed decision as consenting adults to engage in a sexual relationship with all the due precautions to avoid transmission, but what about the thousands of people who need emergency transfusions every day? Is it alright for governments to assume the risks on behalf of their people just because AIDS is no longer the threat it used to be? I mean, neither is leprosy, but you don't see advocacy groups for spreading it.

Also, this:
HIV has been the only communicable disease for which exposure is a felony under California law. The current law, Wiener argued, may convince people not to be tested for HIV, because without a test they cannot be charged with a felony if they expose a partner to the infection.
.

This is fucking bullshit. If I suspected I might have a life threatening disease, the first thing I'd do is getting tested. It wouldn't even cross my mind that I might be punished by the law for not knowing, and I certainly would not be so selfish and stupid to run the risk of transmitting it to my partner.

Honestly, this is one of the most nearsighted policies I've seen in a while, even for California.
  • 11

"When in doubt... well, don't ask me!"
User avatar
52xMax
Knight Writer
Knight Writer
 
Posts: 2966
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 6:38 pm
Location: In all the wrong places.
Show rep
Title: Salmon the Wise

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby aviel » Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:54 am

Lindvaettr wrote:The stated premise, that HIV/AIDs has a stigma attached, is bullshit.

I'm confused by how this meshes with the rest of your argument. It seems like you acknowledge that even the intentional infliction of other life-threatening and debilitating disease would be only a misdemeanor, so what justification is there for treating HIV/AIDS differently from those diseases?

Of course, one might reasonably think that the infliction of any life-threatening disease should be treated as a felony, but that seems like a separate argument. I think that depends on whether such a classification would actually deter STD testing, which is an empirical question I haven't seen answered either way.
  • 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
aviel
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9778
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 Lindvaettr » Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:44 am

aviel wrote:
Lindvaettr wrote:The stated premise, that HIV/AIDs has a stigma attached, is bullshit.

I'm confused by how this meshes with the rest of your argument. It seems like you acknowledge that even the intentional infliction of other life-threatening and debilitating disease would be only a misdemeanor, so what justification is there for treating HIV/AIDS differently from those diseases?

Of course, one might reasonably think that the infliction of any life-threatening disease should be treated as a felony, but that seems like a separate argument. I think that depends on whether such a classification would actually deter STD testing, which is an empirical question I haven't seen answered either way.


It's two separate arguments, basically. The first argument is that the actual effect of the bill is to bring it in line with other similar crimes, but that due to the severity of the disease in question, it should be a felony, and so should similar diseases.

The second argument is that the alleged reason for doing so is to save sufferers from some apparent stigma is a bullshit reason.

I have a bunch of other arguments against this bill, on multiple levels, because it's really f'ing dumb.
  • 3

User avatar
Lindvaettr
TCS Camper
TCS Camper
 
Posts: 847
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:19 am
Location: Various, depending on time and day
Show rep
Title: Lord of the Dance

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby aviel » Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:47 am

Why is the stigma argument so dumb? It seems correct to say that HIV/AIDS was treated differently from other diseases more due to stigma than actual severity. And Weiner's assertion that stigma discourages testing and treatment seems prima facie reasonable, although I don't know if it's true. I suppose if someone has evidence demonstrating that it is false, that would be persuasive, but I've so far not found any referenced in stories on this bill.
  • 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
aviel
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9778
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 Tesseracts » Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:54 am

aviel wrote:Why is the stigma argument so dumb? It seems correct to say that HIV/AIDS was treated differently from other diseases more due to stigma than actual severity. And Weiner's assertion that stigma discourages testing and treatment seems prima facie reasonable, although I don't know if it's true. I suppose if someone has evidence demonstrating that it is false, that would be persuasive, but I've so far not found any referenced in stories on this bill.

It's dumb because making it easier to infect people has nothing to do with reducing AIDS stigma.
  • 10

User avatar
Tesseracts
Big Brother
Big Brother
 
Posts: 9340
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:31 am
Show rep
Title: Social Media Expert

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby Grimstone » Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:26 am

Tesseracts wrote:It's dumb because making it easier to infect people has nothing to do with reducing AIDS stigma.


Or genius, because once everyone has HIV/AIDS there will be no more stigma.
  • 5

"The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart." — Albert Camus
User avatar
Grimstone
TCS Guerilla
 
Posts: 1929
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:52 am
Show rep
Title: Creature of the Night

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby aviel » Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:09 am

Tesseracts wrote:It's dumb because making it easier to infect people has nothing to do with reducing AIDS stigma.

Again, that seems like an empirical question: does this change increase the rate at which people with HIV will be tested or treated? I don't see how it's self-evident that the answer is "no".
  • 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
aviel
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9778
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 Crimson847 » Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:15 pm

Maybe the stigma around old age and infirmity in our culture is encouraging elderly folks to commit suicide more often. I propose that we reduce murder to a misdemeanor if the offender is over 60 to try to combat this stigma.

Nobody's tried allowing people suffering a stigma to commit a largely unrelated crime without serious consequence before, so we can't prove this won't work. What do we have to lose?
  • 3

"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: 2795
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:18 am
Show rep

Re: Felony Charges for Knowingly Giving Someone HIV-

Postby aviel » Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:48 pm

Except that we had already decided that, for the infliction of other diseases, a misdemeanor charge was appropriate. A better analogy would be if we used to have a law that made murder an automatic capital offense when the offender was elderly, and we changed that so that the law didn't care about the offender's age. Arguments emphasizing the awfulness of murder would miss the point unless they also came with evidence that the harsher penalty was necessary to reduce incidence of murder.
  • 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
aviel
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9778
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 NoodleFox » Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:28 pm

aviel wrote:Except that we had already decided that, for the infliction of other diseases, a misdemeanor charge was appropriate. A better analogy would be if we used to have a law that made murder an automatic capital offense when the offender was elderly, and we changed that so that the law didn't care about the offender's age. Arguments emphasizing the awfulness of murder would miss the point unless they also came with evidence that the harsher penalty was necessary to reduce incidence of murder.

It should definitely be a felony if there's intent to spread any sort of disease, but here's the big issue with HIV:





It's HIV.

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 (unless it's your junk, you might get some other issues).
HIV still kills a million people a year; just because it's not 1980 doesn't mean it's not a big deal anymore.

As for the stigmatism bs:
Again, can we please just have California secede at this point? There's no stigma towards the disease. If anything, most would feel pity or sympathy at hearing someone has a incurable disease.

What, does someone whose last name is literally Wiener only think about sex? (Speaking of, same dude authored a bill that would make sex offenders appeal their charge after x number of years) ANYONE can get HIV, it's transmitted through bodily fluids and bodily fluids don't just mean your junk fluids.

If anything, these morons are the ones stigmatizing the disease back to 1980, where people only thought T H E G A Y S could get it
  • 2

User avatar
NoodleFox
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 8:16 pm
Location: Kekistan
Show rep
Title: Third Person Facepalm-er

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests