Bill proposed in AZ to criminalize "intentional" HIV exposure

[zsdersw]

http://www.hivplusmag.com/case-stud...ician-wants-jail-people-who-expose-others-hiv

An Arizona legislator introduced a bill that would make it a felony to intentionally expose someone to HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Lela Alston, a Democrat serving in Arizona's House of Representatives, was inspired to introduce the bill after a constituent described to her how she was unknowingly infected with an STD. If passed, Alston's bill would make it a felony to intentionally infect someone through sex, organ donation, or needle sharing. The legislation, referred to a judicial committee, is already gaining sponsors in the House.

Many bills such as Alston's were passed in the '80s and '90s, but later repealed. Many legal scholars find such bills dubious since it's difficult to prove that someone intentionally infected another person with a disease.

“They’re very difficult to prosecute,” legal scholar Veda Collmer told Cronkite News. “It would be hard to meet the burden of proof.”

I understand why bills like these are proposed, but as a practical matter it is indeed very difficult to prove that someone intentionally exposed someone to HIV or other STDs. It also seems to absolve the "victim" from any responsibility for engaging in the activities that resulted in exposure, as well.

 

[Thump553]

This is a huge problem for prison guards. Any alleged dificulty in proof can easily be handled in the court system.

 

[nehalem256]

They should change "intentional" to "knowingly" to make it easier to prosecute.

Did you know you had HIV/other STD?

Did you have sex without a condom and/or informing your partner.

Then you are guilty. Seems pretty simple and a reasonable expectation on infected people.

 

[ichy]

In theory I'm all for this. In reality I wonder how practical/enforceable this is.

 

[zsdersw]

They should change "intentional" to "knowingly" to make it easier to prosecute.

Did you know you had HIV/other STD?

Did you have sex without a condom and/or informing your partner.

Then you are guilty. Seems pretty simple and a reasonable expectation on infected people.

Many states already have "knowingly" in their laws about this, but they remain difficult to prosecute because how do you prove someone actually knew if they say they didn't know? HIV tests are usually anonymous.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In theory I'm all for this. In reality I wonder how practical/enforceable this is.

It would be hard, but if a prostitute had a known case of AIDS yet was still "serving" the community, such a law would be appropriate. Let's face it. If you know you have AIDS and sexually active you are far more dangerous than some guy with a BB gun holding a kid.

 

[nehalem256]

Many states already have "knowingly" in their laws about this, but they remain difficult to prosecute because how do you prove someone actually knew if they say they didn't know? HIV tests are usually anonymous.

Don't people with HIV normally take prescription drugs? :hmm:

 

[zsdersw]

Don't people with HIV normally take prescription drugs? :hmm:

Sometimes... some know they have it but cannot afford them or are otherwise ineligible for them. Aside from that, prescriptions are usually confidential.

 

[nehalem256]

Sometimes... some know they have it but cannot afford them or are otherwise ineligible for them. Aside from that, prescriptions are usually confidential.

So you get a court order to look at the medical records.

Honestly I don't know if you currently can do this. But I think you certainly should be able to. "Privacy" should not extend to infecting people with diseases.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sometimes... some know they have it but cannot afford them or are otherwise ineligible for them. Aside from that, prescriptions are usually confidential.

HIPAA does not protect criminal intent. If someone contracts AIDS from another then it is legal to examine medical records if there is a reason for suspicion.

 

[zsdersw]

So you get a court order to look at the medical records.

Honestly I don't know if you currently can do this. But I think you certainly should be able to. "Privacy" should not extend to infecting people with diseases.

That won't help if the person being prosecuted is, like most people who are recently HIV+, unaware they have HIV or another STD and has nothing about it in their medical records.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Seems like a reasonable law, knowingly infecting someone is basically giving them a death sentence.

 

[zsdersw]

HIPAA does not protect criminal intent. If someone contracts AIDS from another then it is legal to examine medical records if there is a reason for suspicion.

Yup, but that also depends on being able to precisely identify the person who exposed you to HIV. All of this depends on being able to do that, actually.

I doubt you can go to the authorities and say, "I think it was this person" then, after finding out it wasn't, go "no wait, I think it was this other person"... etc.

 

[nehalem256]

That won't help if the person being prosecuted is, like most people who are recently HIV+, unaware they have HIV or another STD and has nothing about it in their medical records.

Well if they are unaware that they have HIV then they would not be knowingly or intentionally spreading it now would they?

 

[zsdersw]

Seems like a reasonable law, knowingly infecting someone is basically giving them a death sentence.

No, but it does make the rest of their life very difficult and painful... which is still a criminal act, but medically it is not a "death sentence".

 

[zsdersw]

Well if they are unaware that they have HIV then they would not be knowingly or intentionally spreading it now would they?

Obviously, which.. combined with the lack of any medical records.. makes all of this very difficult to prosecute, which is the point I was making in the first place.

You keep mentioning things that supposedly make it easier to determine intent/knowing and prosecute when those things are either uncommon or difficult to verify... the end result being no different than what I originally stated: it's very difficult to prosecute. Try to keep up.

 

[Nintendesert]

I agree with the OP, while I can understand the intent behind the proposed law all I see it adding is more cost and burden to an already burdened criminal/justice system with no real way of giving any tangible benefits.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yup, but that also depends on being able to precisely identify the person who exposed you to HIV. All of this depends on being able to do that, actually.

I doubt you can go to the authorities and say, "I think it was this person" then, after finding out it wasn't, go "no wait, I think it was this other person"... etc.

The ability to determine in all cases what happened and who is responsible is no doubt difficult, nevertheless if it were found that someone were guilty of such actions it's not unreasonable to have a penalty. I'm not advocating the use of any law to create a witch hunt, but if my son were having a fun weekend at a brothel and contracted AIDS from a prostitute who knew it, I'd not be happy he did that, but I'd be outraged if the response from the authorities, was "yeah that's too bad, but there's nothing to be done."

 

[nehalem256]

Obviously, which.. combined with the lack of any medical records.. makes all of this very difficult to prosecute, which is the point I was making in the first place.

You keep mentioning things that supposedly make it easier to determine intent/knowing and prosecute when those things are either uncommon or difficult to verify... the end result being no different than what I originally stated: it's very difficult to prosecute. Try to keep up.

There are 2 issues.

(1) Are people knowingly spreading HIV?

(2) If they are knowingly spreading HIV how would you prove it.

You seem to be trying to combine them into 1 issue.

 

[PokerGuy]

I agree with the OP, while I can understand the intent behind the proposed law all I see it adding is more cost and burden to an already burdened criminal/justice system with no real way of giving any tangible benefits.

Pretty much this.

Intent is pretty hard to prove in such cases. "knowledge" is sometimes easier to prove, but even then it doesn't solve a whole lot.

The main point is really that people need to take accountability for their own actions. Unless there's rape involved, the problem could have been easily avoided by a) not having sex with the person, and b) using protection. Your health and safety are primarily up to you.

 

[zsdersw]

The ability to determine in all cases what happened and who is responsible is no doubt difficult, nevertheless if it were found that someone were guilty of such actions it's not unreasonable to have a penalty. I'm not advocating the use of any law to create a witch hunt, but if my son were having a fun weekend at a brothel and contracted AIDS from a prostitute who knew it, I'd not be happy he did that, but I'd be outraged if the response from the authorities, was "yeah that's too bad, but there's nothing to be done."

Yeah, understand the feeling, but the difficulty in proving the intent or knowledge of having HIV is something there is no easy or, more importantly, constitutional solution for.

 

[zsdersw]

There are 2 issues.

(1) Are people knowingly spreading HIV?

(2) If they are knowingly spreading HIV how would you prove it.

You seem to be trying to combine them into 1 issue.

The issue is how can you prosecute someone for you unwittingly becoming HIV/STD+.

 

[nehalem256]

Yeah, understand the feeling, but the difficulty in proving the intent or knowledge of having HIV is something there is no easy or, more importantly, constitutional solution for.

If only someone would keep a record of medical data :hmm:

The issue is how can you prosecute someone for you unwittingly becoming HIV/STD+.

If someone is knowingly spreading HIV/STDs they should be prosecuted.

 

[BoberFett]

If they can prove intention and call something a hate crime with harsher penalties, then they can prove intentional infection.

 

[zsdersw]

If only someone would keep a record of medical data :hmm:

If only everyone with HIV/STDs had medical records showing such infections. :hmm:

If someone is knowingly spreading HIV/STDs they should be prosecuted.

Good luck with that.