Deliberately infecting others with HIV will no longer be a felony in California

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

(CNN)Starting January 1, 2018, it will no longer be a major crime in California to knowingly expose a sexual partner to HIV without disclosing the infection. Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation on Friday that lowers the offense from a felony to a misdemeanor.

The California legislature passed SB 239 on September 11.
The law previously punished people who knowingly exposed or infected others with HIV by up to eight years in prison. This new legislation will lower jail time to a maximum of six months.
The new law also reduces the penalty for knowingly donating HIV-infected blood from a felony to a misdemeanor.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/07/health/california-hiv-bill-signed/index.html

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this is another regressive idea that sounds workable in theory but will be horrendous in practice.

Do you think it should be a crime to deliberately infect someone with a potentially fatal disease?

2Mad2BeMad

Well Americans know best.

Donal55

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/07/health/california-hiv-bill-signed/index.html

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this is another regressive idea that sounds workable in theory but will be horrendous in practice.

Do you think it should be a crime to deliberately infect someone with a potentially fatal disease?

Or ...maybe know who you're sleeping with.

justshane

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/07/health/california-hiv-bill-signed/index.html

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this is another regressive idea that sounds workable in theory but will be horrendous in practice.

Do you think it should be a crime to deliberately infect someone with a potentially fatal disease?

I don't even know how you think it sounds workable in theory. It's just so wrong on many levels.

Roger Hassenforder

It still is a crime

A Little Pony

It's California, a place with no morals on anything.

greencap

Gad damn latrine.



hoccck ...ping.

Tenigate

Liberals are sick people.

One eyed Jack

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/07/health/california-hiv-bill-signed/index.html

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this is another regressive idea that sounds workable in theory but will be horrendous in practice.

Do you think it should be a crime to deliberately infect someone with a potentially fatal disease?

Absolutely, and I'd go further and say it should be a crime to deliberately and intentionally infect people with any STI.

retro:electro

Why are they lowering the offence for this? This is honestly one of the sickest things I've ever heard

Obvious Otter

California is a major example of political correctness gone absolutely insanse. This has been brought in on the back of discrimination against people with HIV and to show that living with HIV is no longer a death sentence. Intentionally infecting someone with HIV should carry a life sentence. Absolutely crazy politics.

PeterParker957

anna080 wrote: »

Why are they lowering the offence for this? This is honestly one of the sickest things I've ever heard

Just as health care is becoming less available and affordable they open the doors to more illnesses.

A Little Pony

Obvious Otter wrote: »

California is a major example of political correctness gone absolutely insanse. This has been brought in on the back of discrimination against people with HIV and to show that living with HIV is no longer a death sentence. Intentionally infecting someone with HIV should carry a life sentence. Absolutely crazy politics.

And they cry and moan on how it is possible Trump could possibly get elected. Because of those same asshole asking the question.

tonycascarino

Obvious Otter wrote: »

California is a major example of political correctness gone absolutely insane. This has been brought in on the back of discrimination against people with HIV and to show that living with HIV is no longer a death sentence. Intentionally infecting someone with HIV should carry a life sentence. Absolutely crazy politics.

Those liberal freaks are a sick shower of individuals. Disgusting.

retro:electro

Surely you shouldn't let a personal crusade or agenda dictate your law making? By decrimilasing and destigmatizing, they've essentially made the intentional infection of another person a victimless crime. Repercussions act as deterrents for immoral and illicit behaviour, and they're lowering it in order to socially destigmatize- that shouldn't be the sole motivation behind reducing a penalty.

One eyed Jack

anna080 wrote: »

Surely you shouldn't let a personal crusade or agenda dictate your law making? By decrimilasing and destigmatizing, they've essentially made the intentional infection of another person a victimless crime. Repercussions act as deterrents for immoral and illicit behaviour, and they're lowering it in order to socially destigmatize- that shouldn't be the sole motivation behind reducing a penalty.

Unfortunately that's exactly what dictates law making -

Criminal transmission of HIV

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

justshane wrote: »

I don't even know how you think it sounds workable in theory. It's just so wrong on many levels.

You know, the more I think about it, you are right.

I had misinterpreted the decision to change the law and assumed that there was a law whereby maybe someone could be prosecuted for inadvertently infecting someone else with HIV.


But this isn't true.

So yes, the decision is utterly bizarre and astonishing.

I'm starting to believe that you can get liberals to literally believe ANYTHING as long as you frame it as a diversity/discrimination issue. They'll swallow any new age political junk science that has that magic label attached. And I do mean anything.
I thought the US religious right had the monopoly on that sort of thinking, how wrong I was.

This is an ideology, society, and culture that is in full meltdown.

uck51js9zml2yt

Read the thread and we must understand one very important thing...this is America and they do very stupid things in America as we have all seen.

Winner of the Darwin award

Donal55

Donal55 wrote: »

Or ...maybe know who you're sleeping with.

I've seen and made a lot of stupid comments over the last 15 years on the internet but this tops them all.

Hector Savage

Jesus the regressive lunatic mentally ill left have hit a new low.

suicide_circus

Ah sure they can just self identify as HIV negative. Facts are no longer the deciding factor when determining truth in this brave new world.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Myra Gigantic Self-importance wrote: »

Read the thread and we must understand one very important thing...this is America and they do very stupid things in America as we have all seen.

Winner of the Darwin award

This wasn't a purely American decision though, it was a Californian decision only. A bastion of liberal regressive left fanaticism.

Funny how the usual leftie cheerleaders on boards.ie are conspicuous by their absence on this matter...

irishproduce

Donal55 wrote: »

Or ...maybe know who you're sleeping with.

That is fine Donal, but the offence for knowingly donating infected blood has also had the punishment reduced.
To reduce the punishment for something sends an important message to those who consider it.
Imagine you received a blood donation after an accident and woke up to find you had been treated.
Then you are told that you received transfusion of blood from some jackass who knowlingly donated their infected blood.
Your life is now forever affected by this, presumably for the worst.
Should the perpetrator not be punished accordingly for what they have done to you?

Richard Hillman

The sentence is dropping from 8 years to a maximum of 6months. 6 months maximum for ruining somebody's life.

It is also applicable for people who knowingly donate blood infected with HIV.

Maybe California really are better off just leaving the U.S and going it alone. It will be a wasteland in no time.

The previous law didn't take account of those who were receiving therapy for HIV infection, even though they have a negligible chance of exposing a sexual partner to HIV.

If it were up to me, I'd have abolished any legal penalty for those undergoing HIV treatment, and would have simply lowered the maximum penalty for those not receiving therapy, instead of making it a misdemeanour. This would bring the laws of California better in-line with developments in modern medicine, and hopefully encourage engagement with healthcare services by those living with HIV.

Having said that, as far as I can see, nothing in this legislation impedes a person who has contracted HIV from taking a civil suit against a sexual partner.

Bottom line, I think the new legal situation is an improvement on the previous legislation, but I think the legislators have gone slightly too far in respect of those who are not undergoing treatment for HIV exposure.

Annasopra

justshane wrote: »

I don't even know how you think it sounds workable in theory. It's just so wrong on many levels.

If you assume everyone you sleep with has HIV and accordingly take precautions then yes it is workable.

Grayson

I've read articles recently which said that people who are undergoing treatment don't even need to wear condoms. If you've undergoing the correct treatment it's next to impossible to infect someone. And if you get infected it won't kill you. Treatments are at a stage where it is a big inconvenience to your life but it's not a death sentence.

that's why they lowered the severity of the crime.

However there is one thing I'd take issue with. The cost of those treatments can be quite high. That means that for people without health insurance it's a lot more sever than for those with health insurance. And we all know what US health insurance is like.

bear1

So.. it is now considered as strong a penalty as parking illegally in California.
I must say, what a complete and utter **** box mentality they have to even come up with this.
You essentially condone someone to death or a life time of medical treatment and it's no longer a crime?
Fcuk right off but then again the Americans aren't known for their brightness.

bear1

bear1 wrote: »

You essentially condone someone to death or a life time of medical treatment and it's no longer a crime?
.

Ah here, you're not doing your case any favours by exaggerating.

HIV is not a death sentence. You're more likely to die with it, than die of it, if you engage with treatment.

For the vast majority, the treatment consists of a daily tablet with your breakfast, and a check-up once a year or so.

bear1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Ah here, you're not doing your case any favours by exaggerating.

HIV is not a death sentence. You're more likely to die with it, than die of it, if you engage with treatment.

For the vast majority, the treatment consists of a daily tablet with your breakfast, and a check-up once a year or so.

Granted, I somewhat went over the top.
But, if you have a healthy immune system and you start treatment early then yes you've got high chances of making it to the end.
But what if your immune system isn't good?
This is still a stupid argument, if my immune system is weak and someone knowingly gives me HIV I'm effectively sentenced to death while the person who did this gets away with it.
It's a sick law.

bear1

bear1 wrote: »

This is still a stupid argument, if my immune system is weak and someone knowingly gives me HIV I'm effectively sentenced to death.

Really? Like what condition?

If your immune system is that weak, your life expectancy is probably seriously diminished in the first place. For the vast, vast majority of people, they should enjoy a normal life expectancy.

professore

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Absolutely, and I'd go further and say it should be a crime to deliberately and intentionally infect people with any STI.

Agreed, but HIV (OK syphillis too) is clearly worse than any of the others.

bear1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Really? Like what condition?

If your immune system is that weak, your life expectancy is probably seriously diminished in the first place. For the vast, vast majority of people, they should enjoy a normal life expectancy.

So you're saying that just because someone immune system is weak then they are going to die anyway so getting HIV is no biggie?
What do you mean what condition? Aren't we discussing the same thing?

professore

What about all those HIV positive people who don't have medical insurance? If they get infected it will destroy their life completely?

professore

professore wrote: »

Agreed, but HIV (OK syphillis too) is clearly worse than any of the others.

Hepatitis B?

bear1 wrote: »

So you're saying that just because someone immune system is weak then they are going to die anyway so getting HIV is no biggie?

I'm saying that a pre-existing condition that has severely compromised the person's immune system would appear, in that case, to be the underlying problem.

What pre-existing condition are you thinking of?

bear1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Hepatitis B?


I'm saying that a pre-existing condition that has severely compromised the person's immune system would appear, in that case, to be the underlying problem.

What pre-existing condition are you thinking of?

I never mentioned about a pre-existing condition, but just because you've a condition which causes your immune system to be weak does not give anyone a single right to knowingly infect you with a virus which will destroy even further your immune system that then kills you.
Arguing that it was the immune system condition that was your downfall is idiotic at best.
So, are you saying that just because your immune system was weak to begin with means it's not that a big of deal that HIV is now entered into the mix as it's ultimately your weak immune system that would have killed you off?

seamus

Liberals! Lefties! Grrr!

(Am I doing this right?)

bear1

bear1 wrote: »

I never mentioned about a pre-existing condition, but just because you've a condition which causes your immune system to be weak does not give anyone a single right to knowingly infect you with a virus which will destroy even further your immune system that then kills you.
Arguing that it was the immune system condition that was your downfall is idiotic at best.
So, are you saying that just because your immune system was weak to begin with means it's not that a big of deal that HIV is now entered into the mix as it's ultimately your weak immune system that would have killed you off?

But you can't seriously believe that someone with a 'weak' immune system, with no specific illness, will be killed by HIV?

I assume you have some specific, fairly dramatic, pre-existing condition in mind?

Otherwise you're just wasting time here, tbf.

Deleted User

I wrote the below about Donal55 and would like to retract it and apologise.

Deleted User wrote: »

I've seen and made a lot of stupid comments over the last 15 years on the internet but this tops them all.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! has easily taken that spot with his utter nonsense in here.

bear1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But you can't seriously believe that someone with a 'weak' immune system, with no specific illness, will be killed by HIV?

I assume you have some specific, fairly dramatic, pre-existing condition in mind?

Otherwise you're just wasting time here, tbf.

I think you're just talking ****e at this stage.
Do you even know what HIV is? What it does? If you have a strong healthy immune system and you realise damn quick you've got HIV then you will be able to treat it.
If you don't realise you have it then HIV will kill your immune system to the point where you die.
It isn't rocket science but if me trying to talk to you about this is a waste of time then we can simply ignore each other.

bear1

bear1 wrote: »

If you don't realise you have it then HIV will kill your immune system to the point where you die.

..and that eventuality is pretty much unheard-of, by now.

Honestly, some people here seem to think it's still 1985. HIV therapy is a victim of its own success: its increasing prevalence seems to be linked to the fact that individuals living with HIV should now enjoy normal lives. The law should change to reflect that.

The stigma clearly remains, however.

bear1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

..and that eventuality is pretty much unheard-of, by now.

Honestly, some people here seem to think it's still 1985.

Really? So does HIV develop into AIDS if not treated? What happens when the disease starts killing off the body's ability to defend itself?

bear1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

..and that eventuality is pretty much unheard-of, by now.

Honestly, some people here seem to think it's still 1985. HIV therapy is a victim of its own success: its increasing prevalence seems to be linked to the fact that individuals living with HIV should now enjoy normal lives. The law should change to reflect that.

The stigma clearly remains, however.

No, I just think you're deliberately being obtuse and therefore pointless debating with you.

bear1

bear1 wrote: »

Really? So does HIV develop into AIDS if not treated?

It typically does, yeah, as everyone knows ... but if someone is having unprotected sex with various partners and not bothering to have an STI check over a number of years, I don't see they can be blameless... they are arguably guilty themselves, by omission.

Again, I'm not saying that those who deliberately pass on HIV should be blameless. I'm saying they should be sanctioned.

I'm merely supporting one arm of the Californian legislators' position, that those who are receiving therapy for HIV should no longer be prosecuted as felons, considering their chance of transmitting the virus is negligible.

seamus

bear1 wrote: »

Really? So does HIV develop into AIDS if not treated? What happens when the disease starts killing off the body's ability to defend itself?

Quite a few STDs will kill you if left untreated.

Where's the penalty for knowingly exposing a partner to syphilis?

This is a pretty sensible measure to be fair. The thread title is deliberately inflammatory and misleading. It implies malice and intent.

I'm sure "deliberately infecting others with HIV" could be tried as a few other different crimes, but that's not what the bill is about.

It's about simply not disclosing one's HIV+ status to a sexual partner.

I'm not sure if eight years is any more of a deterrent than six months and a misdemeanour is much easier to try than a felony. So this seems like a good move to make the law more effective at achieving its goal.

Bigger penalties and punishments don't automatically make for better compliance.

bear1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It typically does, yeah, as everyone knows ... but if someone is having unprotected sex with various partners and not bothering to have an STI check over a number of years, I don't see they can be blameless... they are arguably guilty themselves, by omission.

Again, I'm not saying that those who deliberately pass on HIV should be blameless. I'm saying they should be sanctioned.

I'm merely supporting one arm of the Californian legislators' position, that those who are receiving therapy for HIV should no longer be prosecuted as felons, considering their chance of transmitting the virus is negligible.

This is nonsense.
If you are receiving therapy for HIV then the burden of this is on the person to disclose it to the partner beforehand or at the very least use protection.
If you have gone into a sexual relationship knowing damn well you have the disease but choosing not to tell the person and in turn giving this person the disease then you should be prosecuted as such.

bear1

seamus wrote: »

Quite a few STDs will kill you if left untreated.

Where's the penalty for knowingly exposing a partner to syphilis?

This is a pretty sensible measure to be fair. The thread title is deliberately inflammatory and misleading. It implies malice and intent.

I'm sure "deliberately infecting others with HIV" could be tried as a few other different crimes, but that's not what the bill is about.

It's about simply not disclosing one's HIV+ status to a sexual partner.

I'm not sure if eight years is any more of a deterrent than six months and a misdemeanour is much easier to try than a felony. So this seems like a good move to make the law more effective at achieving its goal.

Bigger penalties and punishments don't automatically make for better compliance.

It isn't moral.
Maybe this is just me but giving someone HIV/AIDS should be punishable.
It's easy for us here to say this is wrong or this is good as we (maybe) aren't effected by this situation but if it did effect you.. how would you react?
And yes, maybe knowingly giving partners other sexual diseases should punishable too.

bear1

bear1 wrote: »

If you are receiving therapy for HIV then the burden of this is on the person to disclose it to the partner beforehand or at the very least use protection.

Seriously?

You're more likely to pass on HIV without knowing you have HIV, than you are to pass on HIV when receiving HIV therapy.

The risk of passing on HIV when taking the anti-retroviral medication is about zero.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/25/health/hiv-zero-transmission-prevention-vaccine-study/index.html

Pac1Man

The hivvy is not what it used to be. The heppy is where the real trouble is.

seamus

bear1 wrote: »

It isn't moral.

Non-disclosure? Sure. What is immoral isn't always illegal though.

Maybe this is just me but giving someone HIV/AIDS should be punishable.

There's the "giving" word again. "Giving" someone a disease and exposing someone to potential infection are two entirely different things.

One is an act of intent. The other is an act of negligence.

In the latter case, the act remains (effectively) criminal negligence, but there are far less hurdles to securing a conviction.

It's easy for us here to say this is wrong or this is good as we (maybe) aren't effected by this situation but if it did effect you.. how would you react?

Each story would have its own context tbh. The number of people who've gone around deliberately attempting to infect others is tiny. Compared to those who didn't even know they were infected or who were careless/in denial, the number of deliberate infections is negligible.

And yes, maybe knowingly giving partners other sexual diseases should punishable too.

Certainly should be actionable under tort, and chargeable with criminal negligence where it is a lifelong or life-limiting illness.

If I knocked someone over and broke their spine, leaving them in a wheelchair, I could expect a criminal charge. Why not the same for a permanent/long-term STD?

astrofool

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Ah here, you're not doing your case any favours by exaggerating.

HIV is not a death sentence. You're more likely to die with it, than die of it, if you engage with treatment.

For the vast majority, the treatment consists of a daily tablet with your breakfast, and a check-up once a year or so.

The punishment is for people who "knowingly" pass it on, what sort of inhuman monster does that? If people want to take the small risk after knowing, fine, but not to tell your partner at all? And to give blood knowing your blood would be rejected if you told them?

I can't give blood as I grew up in the 80's in England, and Ireland doesn't take it due to the risk of CJD. I don't feel oppressed because I can't give blood, I don't feel peer pressure due to blood giving friends being able to do so. I just don't do it, and go on with my life.

We're moving to a society where people want to take whatever risk they want and not take responsibility for it. Leave my car unlocked in town, not my fault if it gets stolen, get drunk and pass out, not my fault if I get arrested or get hurt while I'm flat out somewhere. Jump off a bridge due to someone daring me, not my fault that I'm dead, I'll sue!