Knowingly transmitting HIV no longer felony in California

[rpggal 332]

8 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

 

I think we are all aware of how HIV treatment has improved but knowingly infecting someone is ****ed up regardless. And now they are penalized less.

Can’t wrap my head around it. 

Lots of things are ****ed up that should not be criminal. Think about it this way, we give the government the authority to take away one of the most basic human rights there is, the right to move about freely, the right to not be confined to a cage, i.e. the right to not be imprisoned. This needs to be done with extreme judicious precaution, you are fundamentally violating a human right, and there needs to be suffient justification to do so, i.e. the crime must be sufficiently harmful and egregious that the defendant's fundamental human right to move about freely can be sacrificed in the interest of public safety. You just can't make that justification about, in this day and age, with modern medicine, the transmission of HIV. Putting a person in prison for several years for transmitting a communicable disease that is no longer under proper treatment a death sentence, when the other party had the option to prevent the transmission using a condom, cannot by a reasonable person be called justice. 

[Morphine Prince 109,986]

2 minutes ago, rpggal said:

Lots of things are ****ed up that should not be criminal. Think about it this way, we give the government the authority to take away one of the most basic human rights there is, the right to move about freely, the right to not be confined to a cage, i.e. the right to not be imprisoned. This needs to be done with extreme judicious precaution, you are fundamentally violating a human right, and there needs to be suffient justification to do so, i.e. the crime must be sufficiently harmful and egregious that the defendant's fundamental human right to move about freely can be sacrificed in the interest of public safety. You just can't make that justification about, in this day and age, with modern medicine, the transmission of HIV. Putting a person in prison for several years for transmitting a communicable disease that is no longer under proper treatment a death sentence, when the other party had the option to prevent the transmission using a condom, cannot by a reasonable person be called justice. 

Ok, that sounds more reasonable in the sense that HIV is no longer the death sentence it was and the punishment should be congruent with that fact. However, there are still troubling details with this law like the blood donation aspect of it. 

I guess many of us still hold the sentiment about HIV as it was when it was first making rounds. The perception of the disease is still that it's absolutely horrible and many of us will still find it especially evil to infect someone on purpose. It's sick imo. 

[rpggal 332]

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

Ok, that sounds more reasonable in the sense that HIV is no longer the death sentence it was and the punishment should be congruent with that fact. However, there are still troubling details with this law like the blood donation aspect of it. 

I guess many of us still hold the sentiment about HIV as it was when it was first making rounds. The perception of the disease is still that it's absolutely horrible and many of us will still find it especially evil to infect someone on purpose. It's sick imo. 

They check donated blood prior to giving it to any patient. They don't use the honor system for such a serious matter. It is impossible to contract HIV from a blood transfusion since the 80's.

[Morphine Prince 109,986]

Just now, rpggal said:

They check donated blood prior to giving it to any patient. They don't use the honor system for such a serious matter. It is impossible to contract HIV from a blood transfusion since the 80's.

Yes but intentionally donating your blood knowing you have HIV should be punished imo. 

All it takes is a mistake and that blood could end up where it shouldn't. It's all about the intent. 

 

[babs 5,093]

35 minutes ago, River said:

And if you choose to do it without a condom with an unknown person, the fault is only on you!

When I was young and stupid I used to have unprotected sex with a guy I was seeing. You feel alright telling an underage person that it is their fault if they have a deadly disease because they were not conscious enough?

[Morphine Prince 109,986]

@rpggal Your post really made me re-think about this because I wasn't looking at it from a more logical standpoint and more emotional. 

I'm still not in support of this law but I understand why it was passed. 

Always nice to have someone challenge your views and eloquently explain a position. 

[River 128,820]

10 minutes ago, babs said:

When I was young and stupid I used to have unprotected sex with a guy I was seeing. You feel alright telling an underage person that it is their fault if they have a deadly disease because they were not conscious enough?

Underage is different because it's illegal as a whole, so it's not concerning this topic.

A person who knowingly transmitting the virus to a 14 years old kid, is a criminal because as you said, the knowledge is very minimal and also the education at school about HIV is minimal to none and very "scary".

But to a 25 years old guy who likes to do it bareback with every guy they meet while knowing the risks and then when they finally get HIV they look surprised and looking for someone else to blame, I say, it's their fault and I don't think someone else needs to be in jail because of the irresponsible behavior.

[YeehawKylie 7,817]

3 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

“Today California took a major step toward treating HIV as a public health issue, instead of treating people living with HIV as criminals," Wiener said in a statement to the Times, adding that under current law, some people might avoid being tested for HIV in order to avoid prosecution.” 

1. If you willingly INFECT someone you ARE a criminal 

2. Yes, they will avoid testing to hide their CRIME 

I’m very disturbed at this news. Maybe I’m missing something. Someone who supports this move please explain. 

Exactly. HIV is a life-long disease that requires on-going medication, when one discovers they have it. Knowingly exposing someone is a) dangerous and b) life-changing. This isn't about stigmas, it's about the reality of living with HIV and the possibility of it spreading. If you knowingly withhold your status and pass it on to a partner, they could in turn transmit it to more people. This is far from progressive, the fact that they have tried to label it as such is a disgrace to any modern progressive movement.

[Lion Heart 15,041]

5 minutes ago, IndieKylie said:

Exactly. HIV is a life-long disease that requires on-going medication, when one discovers they have it. Knowingly exposing someone is a) dangerous and b) life-changing. This isn't about stigmas, it's about the reality of living with HIV and the possibility of it spreading. If you knowingly withhold your status and pass it on to a partner, they could in turn transmit it to more people. This is far from progressive, the fact that they have tried to label it as such is a disgrace to any modern progressive movement.

VERY WELL SAID. 

 

And also, not everyone has access to PREP, and it's not the victim's fault that the guy they trusted tampered with the condoms and lied about his HIV status.

[Evan Peters 10,796]

i seriously can't at some of ya'll saying that people being upset by this is because of a stigma around HIV+ people. if you have sex with someone and don't tell them you're HIV+ then you a musty ass bitch. **** outta here with that "you should know the risk bullshit"  literally what the ****. 

[rpggal 332]

37 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

@rpggal Your post really made me re-think about this because I wasn't looking at it from a more logical standpoint and more emotional. 

I'm still not in support of this law but I understand why it was passed. 

Always nice to have someone challenge your views and eloquently explain a position. 

Thanks I'm always happy to have an intelligent discussion on legal /moral issues. 

[Morphine Prince 109,986]

27 minutes ago, IndieKylie said:

Exactly. HIV is a life-long disease that requires on-going medication, when one discovers they have it. Knowingly exposing someone is a) dangerous and b) life-changing. This isn't about stigmas, it's about the reality of living with HIV and the possibility of it spreading. If you knowingly withhold your status and pass it on to a partner, they could in turn transmit it to more people. This is far from progressive, the fact that they have tried to label it as such is a disgrace to any modern progressive movement.

Yes, this is also a point. The disease is not a death sentence but it is lifelong and access to medication due to cost, etc. must be considered. 

[Goosey 3,017]

Such an awful state  

 

To the folks supporting this horrific change:

1. Just because it's no longer "a death sentence" doesn't mean it's not life-altering.
2. My health is more important than your "fee-fees".

[Seeka 12,372]

5 hours ago, River said:

You clearly made a choice to fck without a condom, you could say no but you didn't, you are responsible for your health, not your one night stand partner.. it doesn't matter if they told you or no, it's not changing the fact that you were irresponsible.

 

No. No. No. No.

When there are two people in a situation, like sex, the blame is split evenly, 50-50.

Yes. You yourself, are in charge of what you do. They are in charge of what they do. A person who knows they have AIDs can so no to a situation where a person wants to go bareback.

And it is their job to disclose whether or not the have something that will ruin your life forever. It's not just aids that's permanent ya know.

You make it sound like a people are a bunch of animals and it's black and white. There is one person on both sides and they both have to take responsibility for their actions. 

[River 128,820]

21 minutes ago, Seeka said:

No. No. No. No.

When there are two people in a situation, like sex, the blame is split evenly, 50-50.

Yes. You yourself, are in charge of what you do. They are in charge of what they do. A person who knows they have AIDs can so no to a situation where a person wants to go bareback.

And it is their job to disclose whether or not the have something that will ruin your life forever. It's not just aids that's permanent ya know.

You make it sound like a people are a bunch of animals and it's black and white. There is one person on both sides and they both have to take responsibility for their actions. 

1. They have HIV and not AIDS.

2. You know the risks, you are not a child, if you do bareback and fully aware of the risks and the options to prevent it but still do it, it’s your fault.

it’s kinda tiring to hear those who do bareback but blaming the rest of the world but not themselves, we are not at the 80s when the knowledge about HIV was minimal and the treatment was bad.

 It’s takes 2 or more for sex, but it’s only you who made the decision to say yes to bareback, you can always take control and think with your brain and not your penis and say no and go home.