Knowingly giving someone HIV could now become only a misdemeanor in California

[madoka]

Squeeze an 11th bullet in a magazine, you're a despicable felon.

Knowingly giving someone HIV potentially killing them, you get a slap on the wrist.

Thank you liberal politicians.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...osing-others-to-hiv-1496281754-htmlstory.html

The state Senate on Wednesday voted to no longer make it a felony for someone infected with HIV to knowingly expose others to the disease by having unprotected sex without telling his or her partner about the infection.

The crime would be downgraded to a misdemeanor, and the bill would also apply to people who donate blood or semen without telling the blood or semen bank that they have acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, or AIDS, or have tested positive for human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, the precursor to AIDS.

The measure, which next goes to the Assembly for consideration, was introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who said it is unfair to make HIV/AIDS the only communicable disease given such harsh treatment by prosecutors.

“These laws are irrational and discriminatory,” Wiener told the Senate, adding that the current felony status is “creating an incentive not to be tested, because if you don’t know your status you can’t be guilty of a felony.”

The measure was widely opposed by Republican lawmakers including Sen. Joel Anderson of San Diego. "If you intentionally transmit something that is fundamentally life-threatening to the victim, you should be charged and go to jail," he said.

Sen. Jeff Stone (R-Murrieta) said, “My friends, it’s not a gay issue. It’s a public health issue. We shouldn’t allow someone to play Russian roulette with other people’s lives.”

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Squeeze an 11th bullet in a magazine, you're a despicable felon.

Knowingly giving someone HIV potentially killing them, you get a slap on the wrist.

Thank you liberal politicians.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...osing-others-to-hiv-1496281754-htmlstory.html

Yeah, I disagree completely with Sen. Wiener on this one. It might be given harsh treatment, because it's a fatal (not to mention life changing) disease, very easily spread through a (relatively) common occurrence.

 

[madoka]

Why would they actually change the law to encourage people with AIDs not to inform blood banks that they have the disease when the donate!?!?!!

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Why would they actually change the law to encourage people with AIDs not to inform blood banks that they have the disease when the donate!?!?!!

I don't think 'encourage' is the right term here, more like 'reduce penalty for'.. Not even sure why anyone other than a sociopath would willingly donate blood if they knew they had HIV though, and for them any punishment probably won't matter.

 

[Amused]

Maybe because HIV is the first and only criminalized disease in history? Maybe because this criminalization has a clearly documented adverse effect on testing and treatment and drives people into denial and secrecy?

Or maybe, just maybe, the criminalization has done nothing to stop the spread anymore than the criminalization of drugs stopped drug abuse?

Education and treatment are the only real solutions to this. People who are on antiretroviral drugs and undetectable have a 0% chance of infecting others.

Criminalization is all about revenge. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[theeedude]

How are other diseases like Hepatitis C treated?

 

[madoka]

Not even sure why anyone other than a sociopath would willingly donate blood if they knew they had HIV though, and for them any punishment probably won't matter.

People with HIV/AIDS are often broke and desperate enough to sell their blood. They get $20-$50 per blood donation.

 

[abj13]

Knowingly giving someone HIV potentially killing them, you get a slap on the wrist.

HIV infection is no longer a fatal infection. If a HIV infected person takes their antiretrovirals, they will now have the same life expectancy as an HIV uninfected patient. Yes it sucks having to take medications, but HIV is not like HIV of the 80's/90's.

 

[madoka]

Maybe because HIV is the first and only criminalized disease in history? Maybe because this criminalization has a clearly documented adverse effect on testing and treatment and drives people into denial and secrecy?

Or maybe, just maybe, the criminalization has done nothing to stop the spread anymore than the criminalization of drugs stopped drug abuse?

Education and treatment are the only real solutions to this. People who are on antiretroviral drugs and undetectable have a 0% chance of infecting others.

Criminalization is all about revenge. Nothing more, nothing less.

Here's this gun dealer who was forced to close his business and his inventory was seized for mental health issues.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/article142606639.html#storylink=cpy

Coleman said targeting those seeking mental health care is “going to result in people refusing to seek mental health treatment” because they do not want to be in a database, causing “an incredible chilling effect.”

So you would agree that the government acted inappropriately in this case?

 

[madoka]

HIV infection is no longer a fatal infection. If a HIV infected person takes their antiretrovirals, they will now have the same life expectancy as an HIV uninfected patient. Yes it sucks having to take medications, but HIV is not like HIV of the 80's/90's.

Getting HIV means your life is f'ed even if you live.

 

[UNCjigga]

The measure, which next goes to the Assembly for consideration, was introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who said it is unfair to make HIV/AIDS the only communicable disease given such harsh treatment by prosecutors.

Umm, ok...but wouldn't it be important to compare other diseases' mortality or cost of treatment vs. HIV? I get what he's saying though--Hep C is far more widespread of a killer vs. HIV/AIDS (in the US) but nobody's going to jail for that one.

“These laws are irrational and discriminatory,” Wiener told the Senate, adding that the current felony status is “creating an incentive not to be tested, because if you don’t know your status you can’t be guilty of a felony.”

It might help their argument if they had statistics to back it up.

 

[interchange]

HIV is largely in chronic disease territory right now. It's not my area of expertise, so I'll speak a bit more generally. We haven't had enough time where people have been given multiple agents from multiple classes (HAART) as is the norm now to really know how things may be in the future, and there are a lot of special circumstances (poor adherence, IRIS, HIV-associated illnesses which do not require progression to AIDS, patients diagnosed during an opportunistic infection resulting in death or sequelae before effective treatment could be initiated, etc.). However, treatment is really pretty good overall. I'd much rather have HIV than a lot of things out there that are much more common. It is certainly no death sentence.

But I recognize that recklessly infecting people is terrible, and in abstract I think it should be criminal and even a felony. But, from a public health standpoint, data demonstrates that such things have negative results, and I think the public health argument is more compelling than the moral one.

 

[Amused]

Here's this gun dealer who was forced to close his business and his inventory was seized for mental health issues.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/article142606639.html#storylink=cpy



So you would agree that the government acted inappropriately in this case?

Would you like to take a minute to realize being ruled incompetent and merely having your right to access weapons limited is vastly different than having your condition itself criminalized and thrown in jail for extended periods of time?

But yes, making lists and limiting people because of medical conditions has a negative effect on those seeking treatment.

 

[Homerboy]

Getting HIV means your life is f'ed even if you live.

You can say that about dozens and dozens of communicable diseases.
Why should we put HIV in a class all by itself? As previously stated, HIV is not the death sentence it was 30 years ago.

 

[interchange]

But yes, making lists and limiting people because of medical conditions has a negative effect on those seeking treatment.

Reminds me of when the discussion about people with mental illness having their access to firearms restricted came up. You would have to have a very compelling interest for me to support criminalizing/restricting rights based on illness. Same thing with the war on drugs. Plenty of data to show lack of effect or even harm in criminalizing non-violent drug users. And to show positive outcomes with harm reduction strategies that would seem to even encourage drug use (e.g. needle exchanges).

 

[Amused]

It might help their argument if they had statistics to back it up.

Why would you assume they don't? You don't think numerous studies have not been done on the effect criminalization has on testing rates and treatment?

 

[JSt0rm]

Why would you assume they don't? You don't think numerous studies have not been done on the effect criminalization has on testing rates and treatment?

There has been a raft of research into this topic and that is why we are seeing the change. Ignore these ignorant fools who have no idea whats going on.

 

[JSt0rm]

i love how we get these knee jerk reactions by conservatives. Its like they only care to see the boiler plate topic title and then go with whatever is in their gut and throw some gun nutter shit on top just for more rage and persecution.

 

[Zorba]

Would you like to take a minute to realize being ruled incompetent and merely having your right to access weapons limited is vastly different than having your condition itself criminalized and thrown in jail for extended periods of time?

But yes, making lists and limiting people because of medical conditions has a negative effect on those seeking treatment.

Having the condition isn't illegal, using it as a weapon to harm someone is though.

 

[JSt0rm]

Having the condition isn't illegal, using it as a weapon to harm someone is though.

So someone who has no viral load because of modern medicine should be put in prison?

 

[brycejones]

Imagine that the OP somehow taking a health issue and whining about guns in the very first post.

OP do you sleep with your guns and lovingly polish them?

 

[JSt0rm]

Surprised the op never had a thread about the 18 states who don't have any criminal laws about this.

I guess the op is mad he can't take random dick anymore with the knowledge the person giving it to him doesn't know they have hiv or not.

 

[mect]

So someone who has no viral load because of modern medicine should be put in prison?

So why not just modernize the language to account for this rather than diminishing the severity of the crime for intentional endangerment of another's health. Seems like a more appropriate change would be to simply add language that this law does not apply to someone properly taking their medicine.

 

[woolfe9998]

So why not just modernize the language to account for this rather than diminishing the severity of the crime for intentional endangerment of another's health. Seems like a more appropriate change would be to simply add language that this law does not apply to someone properly taking their medicine.

Point of clarification: this law does not require an intent to kill or even to transmit HIV. It requires that you 1) knew you had it, then 2) engaged in unprotected sex, 3) without telling your partner you had it. It's more akin to being negligent/reckless than it is to intent. So a person who, for example, wants to have sex with someone so badly that they don't tell the person they have HIV for fear that they'll be turned down, is the same under this law as someone who, with intent and premeditation, purposefully infects someone with the disease.

I'm on the fence with this one. I was somewhat agreeing with the OP, but Amused has a point that we seem to have singled out this one disease, among all the communicable diseases, to apply a criminal penalty for reckless transmission of it. Maybe it should be a felony if here is actual proof of intent, while the reckless/negligent version can be a misdemeanor.

 

[edcoolio]

Concealing a deadly communicable disease, then knowingly and purposefully engaging in behavior to spread it is, by definition, criminal.

Furthermore, since these types of situations are clearly a public health hazard (spread of AIDS, Hep C., etc), the laws should be federal.