DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB239
I found the webpage incredibly difficult to read and didn't want to fuck up any other page settings, so I downloaded the pdf, "10/6/2017 - Chaptered" (most recent) version. I assume it's the same as the webpage.
quote:
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 239, Wiener. Infectious and communicable diseases: HIV and AIDS:
criminal penalties.
(1) Existing law makes it a felony punishable by imprisonment for 3, 5,
or 8 years in the state prison to expose another person to the human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by engaging in unprotected sexual activity
when the infected person knows at the time of the unprotected sex that he
or she is infected with HIV, has not disclosed his or her HIV-positive status,
and acts with the specific intent to infect the other person with HIV. Existing
law makes it a felony punishable by imprisonment for 2, 4, or 6 years for
any person to donate blood, tissue, or, under specified circumstances, semen
or breast milk, if the person knows that he or she has acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), or that he or she has tested reactive
to HIV. Existing law provides that a person who is afflicted with a
contagious, infectious, or communicable disease who willfully exposes
himself or herself to another person, or any person who willfully exposes
another person afflicted with the disease to someone else, is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
This bill would repeal those provisions. The bill would instead make the
intentional transmission of an infectious or communicable disease, as
defined, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for
not more than 6 months if certain circumstances apply, including that the
defendant knows he or she or a 3rd party is afflicted with the disease, that
the defendant acts with the specific intent to transmit or cause an afflicted
3rd party to transmit the disease to another person, that the defendant or the
afflicted 3rd party engages in conduct that poses a substantial risk of
transmission, as defined, that the defendant or the afflicted 3rd party
transmits the disease to the other person, and if the exposure occurs through
interaction with the defendant and not a 3rd party, that the person exposed
to the disease during voluntary interaction with the defendant did not know
that the defendant was afflicted with the disease. The bill would also make
it a misdemeanor to attempt to intentionally transmit an infectious and
communicable disease, as specified, punishable by imprisonment in a county
jail for not more than 90 days. This bill would make willful exposure to an
infectious or communicable disease, as defined, a misdemeanor punishable
by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 6 months, and would
prohibit a health officer, or a health officer’s designee, from issuing a
maximum of 2 instructions to a defendant that would result in a violation
of this provision. The bill would impose various requirements upon the
court in order to prevent the public disclosure of the identifying
characteristics, as defined, of the complaining witness and the defendant.
By creating new crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local
program(2) Under existing law, if a defendant has been previously convicted of
prostitution or of another specified sexual offense, and in connection with
the conviction a blood test was administered, as specified, with positive test
results for AIDS, of which the defendant was informed, the previous
conviction and positive blood test results are to be charged in any subsequent
accusatory pleading charging a violation of prostitution. Existing law makes
the defendant guilty of a felony if the previous conviction and informed test
results are found to be true by the trier of fact or are admitted by the
defendant.
This bill would delete that provision. The bill would also vacate any
conviction, dismiss any charge, and legally deem that an arrest under the
deleted provision never occurred. The bill would also authorize a person
serving a sentence as a result of a violation of the deleted provision to
petition for a recall or dismissal of sentence before the trial court that entered
the judgment of conviction in his or her case. The bill would require a court
to vacate the conviction and resentence the person to any remaining counts
while giving credit for any time already served.
(3) Existing law requires the court to order a defendant convicted for a
violation of soliciting or engaging in prostitution for the first time to
complete instruction in the causes and consequences of acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and to submit to testing for AIDS.
Existing law requires such a defendant, as a condition of either probation
or participating in a drug diversion program, to participate in an AIDS
education program, as specified.
This bill would repeal those provisions.
(4) The bill would also make other conforming changes.
(5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory
provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no
reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the
Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so
mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant
to the statutory provisions noted above
My issue with the legislation is the reduction of the criminalizing of knowingly putting someone else at risk without their consent. That's the part that gets me. JstAnotherSub's link in Post#10 brings up the point that "all states have general criminal laws—such as assault and battery, reckless endangerment, and attempted murder—that can and have been used to prosecute individuals for any of the above-mentioned behaviors."
Criminalizing knowingly exposing someone to HIV, without a requirement that HIV status wasn't shared, should be wrong. A woman I know was infected with HIV from a blood transfusion. Had she not shared her status with future intimate partners, I could see her being in the wrong, but if she did share her HIV status with future intimate partners prior to their being intimate partners, then there should be no criminalization.
I understand that HIV status shouldn't be criminalized, but I wouldn't agree that exposure without consent shouldn't be criminalized.
As HB put it (my emphasis): "Passing a bill isn't going to eliminate that stigma in people who still don't understand, and aside from potential medical costs (assuming you catch it early), the stigma around HIV is absolutely enormous. "
The part that I think is most important, is that when you catch HIV+ status early, treatment options are good and control of the virus is pretty good. But, if you're exposed without your knowledge and consent, what are the odds that finding out you're HIV+ will be early?
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing part... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread