RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV

RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

JVoV -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/14/2017 1:35:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV With proper treatment, meaning the patient is fully cooperative and takes the prescribed medications, HIV can be made completely undetectable in the bloodstream. No, that's not a total cure yet, but it's a serious medical advancement to what was possible even a decade ago. I love how everyone thinks that the world is rainbows and puppies, and that everyone tells the truth about everything all the time. And I really hope that works out for you. But that hasn't been my life. And you know, if it ever were to happen, it would never be the guy that lies and infects me that has to face my mother, to tell her that I'm poz. Never him that watches her heart break, and the panic attack consume her. So I'll continue being vigilant about my own health, no different than I am about the risk for diabetes (which is likely much higher). So, why should YOU have to face your mother because some @sshole had such a disregard, nay, INTENT to inflict you? You obviously haven't met my mother. quote: Puppies and rainbows? Seriously? She (Greta) isn't entirely wrong, here. Rather than blowing smoke up people's bums about how people who don' know their status or trying to push this facade about temporary insanity after getting their test results, look at the actual issue. I have pretty much covered every angle of this issue, aside from conspiracy theories. It's an antiquated law that did not work in containing the virus. It likely dramatically increased the rate of infection at prisons, as well as total healthcare costs at prisons. Let's add that it now likely violates HEPPA laws, and the Right to Privacy, though for the sake of public health, so may balance out. quote: There really are people HATEFUL enough to intentionally infect other people. That's why the laws have been on the books for the last ~25/30 years. Don't you remember how people used to SPIT at other people in the hopes that they would get it? I remember May, yeah. http://abc27.com/2017/05/25/police-hiv-positive-man-spit-in-officers-face/ The virus can't be found in saliva that does not contain blood or sex fluids. Yet 11 States still have penalties for people infected with HIV if they spit on others. And you're still missing my point completely, or ignoring it. Now for the conspiracy theory: So the homos are dying off real good, but how do we get it to the negroes? Well, put the fruitloops in prison with 'em. They'll either beat the shit out of the fruits, or they'll fuck em. Either way, that's one more down.

LadyPact -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/14/2017 8:31:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV You obviously haven't met my mother. OK. Credit where it's due. That was funny. quote: I have pretty much covered every angle of this issue, aside from conspiracy theories. It's an antiquated law that did not work in containing the virus. It likely dramatically increased the rate of infection at prisons, as well as total healthcare costs at prisons. Let's add that it now likely violates HEPPA laws, and the Right to Privacy, though for the sake of public health, so may balance out. The blood donation part of it, I've already agreed with you about that. I'm even with you that an eight year incarceration is obviously more expensive than a six month one, and yes, Califwiornia's prison system is broke as a joke. I think at least one of the obstacles we're having (referring to you and I) is that I still see this as the perpetrator having a willful disregard for the health and life of the victim. That alone makes it more serious than a misdemeanor with a sentence that's parallel to somebody who's hit their third strike for shoplifting. quote: I remember May, yeah. http://abc27.com/2017/05/25/police-hiv-positive-man-spit-in-officers-face/ The virus can't be found in saliva that does not contain blood or sex fluids. Yet 11 States still have penalties for people infected with HIV if they spit on others. And you're still missing my point completely, or ignoring it. Good grief! Ya know, you'd think by my age, it wouldn't still surprise me about the things some people will do. Yet, it still does. I'm not intentionally trying to miss your point. Some of your posts (and I will apologize if I'm wrong) do come across that you might think this is about persecuting gay men and that's honestly not my angle. Heck, I'll even give you that it might be some people's angle. I do want to assure you that it's not mine. If it's about cost, I do happen to agree with what DS said several posts back. If California's got anybody in prison for a weed conviction, they could be saving money there by cutting them loose. They could also be saving some money with more early releases for other non-violent offenders and victimless crime convictions. Yes, bureaucratic costs would go up in evaluating cases, but that's still cheaper than keeping people incarcerated. If it's about stigma as mentioned in the article, I don't have a lot of faith that this change is going to accomplish that. I also have doubts that it's going to encourage more people to get tested regularly, etc. (I did want to commend you for your very responsible stance about your own health. It's a personal opinion, but I'd like to see more people on kink sites openly discuss that.) It would be nice if it turned out that way but I'd have to see it to believe it. If I'm still missing it, I'm willing to listen. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean I don't want to hear your perspective. quote: Now for the conspiracy theory: So the homos are dying off real good, but how do we get it to the negroes? Well, put the fruitloops in prison with 'em. They'll either beat the shit out of the fruits, or they'll fuck em. Either way, that's one more down. In the words of Stan Marsh, "Holy sh^t, dude."

JVoV -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/14/2017 1:14:07 PM)
I haven't said that I think the new penalties are enough. No punishment is enough when it's you or a loved one violated at this level. And I'm totally lost how this isn't a sex crime. I'm not disregarding any of the possible impact on the newly infected. I've been their hand to hold, shoulder to cry on. Whether as their friend or as a volunteer at the LGBT Center in Orlando through the years. I'm wondering how many have pressed charges through the years, how many convictions there have been. What sort of ordeal is it for the victim? I'd imagine not much different than a victim of rape. Maybe this change will make things easier for the victims, by making prosecution easier and getting more guilty or no contest pleas than an 8 year prison sentence, coming out as a felon. How many STD's are incurable and potentially fatal? If there is no equivalent law for exposing any of those STD's knowingly, without warning, then the bias against gay & bisexual men, the most disproportionately effected segment of the population living with HIV/AIDS in the US, is fairly obvious, whether you see it or not. Add to that any personal bias against gays held by the cops, prosecutors, or anyone else involved with the case, and reporting can turn into victim shaming & blaming to a whole new level. Prop 47 made most minor drug offenses misdemeanors a few years back. So a minor weed offense isn't gonna land you in prison anymore in California. Yet future prison numbers still have to be kept under control, to avoid overcrowding. The stigma associated with HIV/AIDS has already changed so much since the disease first struck, in the West at least. So much fear and panic, ignorance and hate in the 80's when we had helpless, innocent children being pushed out of their community, burned out of their homes, for trying to go to school after being infected via blood transfusions. I think sexual health is an important conversation. Prescriptions for PReP can be obtained from most primary doctors, as well as Planned Parenthood and many LGBTQ+ Community Centers. It's one more layer of protection, like birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Neither one mean you completely forego condoms, but both mean that if you do forego condoms or a condom rips, you're still better protected than not being on them. And both help lessen the possible trauma of a sexual assault, by helping to prevent life-changing side effects (at least HIV infection/pregnancy).

JVoV -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/14/2017 2:00:28 PM)
Gonna leave this here, in case anyone wants to compare laws in different states, and see how they've been changed in recent years. Criminal transmission of HIV in the US (wiki) quote: Prosecutions Edit Prosecutions at the state level have included: Nick Rhoades, an HIV-positive man living in Iowa, who had an undetectable viral load, was sentenced to 25 years after a single sexual encounter during which he used a condom but did not disclose his HIV status (Rhoades v. State of Iowa).[34] An HIV-positive man was sentenced to 10 years in prison for aggravated assault after biting a police officer. His saliva was considered to be the dangerous instrument for the purpose of the "aggravated" portion of the charge (People v. Plunkett, New York Court of Appeals).[35] A man in Oregon was convicted of ten counts of attempted murder and ten counts of attempted assault based on allegations that he engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse without disclosing his medical condition (State of Oregon v. Hinkhouse).[36] An HIV-positive 25-year-old serving in the U.S. Army, was ordered in November 2006 to inform any sexual partner of his HIV status. After he had sex with a 17-year-old male who became infected, he was charged in June 2007 with "crimes against nature, assault and assault with a deadly weapon".[37] He pleaded guilty in November to 3 counts of "aggravated assault by means likely to cause grievous bodily harm or death" and other charges. He was sentenced to serve 40 months in military prison, a reduction in rank to private, and a dishonorable discharge.[38] An HIV-positive U.S. Navy officer and Catholic priest pleaded guilty in December 2007 to several crimes committed against U.S. Naval Academy midshipmen he was counseling, including forcible sodomy and indecent assault. Charges of assault were changed to aggravated assault because of his HIV status.[39] The Center for HIV Law and Policy has documented 168 cases of prosecution between January 2008 and June 2013. Oh, and there's also this: quote: National HIV/AIDS strategy Edit In July 2010, the White House announced a major change in its HIV/AIDS policy; the "National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States" stated that "the continued existence and enforcement of these types of laws [that criminalize HIV infection] run counter to scientific evidence about routes of HIV transmission and may undermine the public health goals of promoting HIV screening and treatment."[2] The administration's strategy cited a 2008 paper by Scott Burris and Edwin Cameron, a South African judge: "The use of criminal law to address HIV infection is inappropriate except in rare cases in which a person acts with conscious intent to transmit HIV and does so."[3]

LadyPact -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/14/2017 4:41:22 PM)
If nothing else, on my end, it's been an enjoyable conversation, so I do want to thank you for that. quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV I haven't said that I think the new penalties are enough. No punishment is enough when it's you or a loved one violated at this level. And I'm totally lost how this isn't a sex crime. The thought has crossed my mind as well. I'm not sure how it could be worded in legal terms unless it was verbiage similar to sexual assault, though that could also be considered too harsh. I don't really have a determination in my head about should such a thing land a person on the sexual offender's registry. I'd be more likely to say yes if the whole intent thing could be proven. It would have to be a case by case thing. Kind of murky, isn't it? quote: I'm not disregarding any of the possible impact on the newly infected. I've been their hand to hold, shoulder to cry on. Whether as their friend or as a volunteer at the LGBT Center in Orlando through the years. That's a very compassionate thing for you to do. quote: I'm wondering how many have pressed charges through the years, how many convictions there have been. What sort of ordeal is it for the victim? I'd imagine not much different than a victim of rape. Maybe this change will make things easier for the victims, by making prosecution easier and getting more guilty or no contest pleas than an 8 year prison sentence, coming out as a felon. Yes, I wondered about the first part as well, especially since we talked about cost. It's odd for me to think that there are so many people in the prison system for this very specific thing, that anybody dealing with the budget is looking at this as a huge way to trim it. I'm with you about thoughts of the victim as it relates to therapy. I can't imagine that it wouldn't be a trauma, just the same as any other life changing diagnosis would be. (Think diabetes or cancer.) It's isn't really all about it being manageable via medications. It's also about the new person being in the same boat, too. Having to inform partners they might have/currently have/or might have had and all that goes with that. That might be a part of why I feel so fiercely on the subject. As a closed poly female who is fluid bonded with two people, if one of them brought home any 'gift that keeps on giving,' I'm the link that would infect the other one. I wouldn't know but I'd still feel responsible. quote: How many STD's are incurable and potentially fatal? If there is no equivalent law for exposing any of those STD's knowingly, without warning, then the bias against gay & bisexual men, the most disproportionately effected segment of the population living with HIV/AIDS in the US, is fairly obvious, whether you see it or not. Add to that any personal bias against gays held by the cops, prosecutors, or anyone else involved with the case, and reporting can turn into victim shaming & blaming to a whole new level. You'll probably laugh, but my mind went straight to syphilis because of the complications when left untreated. Not to mention the bag of tricks (other issues besides death) that it can come with. One of the more recent buzz words has been HPV because of it's link to increased risk of cervical cancer. (Cut me a break. I'm female and any woman my age has to think about that.) I did a quick google-fu and you are right about gay and bisexual men still being the greatest group as far as infected, though I'm looking at data from 2010-2014. The rates do seem to be decreasing for all categories, which I'm hoping has some relation to better education. Much different than the way this all was put out to the general public in the '80's. I'm still rather convinced that the worst thing they ever did back then was that period where they were calling it GRID. That's where some of that bias comes from, even thirty years later. Not to mention Jerry Falwell proclaiming on live television that AIDS was a plague from God on live broadcast. Some of that stuff set the tone. quote: Prop 47 made most minor drug offenses misdemeanors a few years back. So a minor weed offense isn't gonna land you in prison anymore in California. Yet future prison numbers still have to be kept under control, to avoid overcrowding. Well, at least that part is good. You'll have to forgive me for thinking anybody in prison for a prior charge when it was illegal should still be locked up when it's legal now. To me, that would just seem dumb. quote: The stigma associated with HIV/AIDS has already changed so much since the disease first struck, in the West at least. So much fear and panic, ignorance and hate in the 80's when we had helpless, innocent children being pushed out of their community, burned out of their homes, for trying to go to school after being infected via blood transfusions. As a generalization, I think a lot of people fear what they don't understand, so if we talk about the 80's when nobody knew what we were dealing with, of course it was fear. And, I get it. Most het people didn't think it could touch them until it was realized that it was a blood pathogen. quote: I think sexual health is an important conversation. Prescriptions for PReP can be obtained from most primary doctors, as well as Planned Parenthood and many LGBTQ+ Community Centers. It's one more layer of protection, like birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Neither one mean you completely forego condoms, but both mean that if you do forego condoms or a condom rips, you're still better protected than not being on them. And both help lessen the possible trauma of a sexual assault, by helping to prevent life-changing side effects (at least HIV infection/pregnancy). I think it's an important conversation as well. As I mentioned before, I sincerely wish we had more conversations about the subject on this site, just as we should be talking about things like pap smears, mammograms, colonoscopies, and just about any other thing. I'm not exactly perfect about doing some of this myself, but I think good examples should be discussed. I see it more on Fet than CM, though I attribute that to this forum being rather hetero-normative. I've already quoted you darn near to death, so I won't add the other post. I appreciated the examples in the follow up. I'm not sure how to phrase it, so I'll go with this: Prior to 2013, Uncle Sam and the UCMJ didn't do a stellar job with this kind of thing. Some people wouldn't know what's criminal or not under it. (I did a huge eye roll about the term 'crimes against nature' bit.) Other stuff that falls in there are things like oral sex, anal sex, poly, swinging, and who knows how many other subjects that a bunch of forum posters are doing (at least one) on the regular. I've got some experience with the UCMJ, but it is, and pretty much always has been way behind when considered to civilian law. Not exactly what I'd consider the pristine example.

Wayward5oul -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/14/2017 4:56:25 PM)
FR Since the thread involves discussion of California's efforts to reduce prison populations, I thought I would share this. I thought it was interesting. http://mashable.com/2017/10/14/california-wildfires-prison-inmates/

JVoV -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/14/2017 5:28:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul FR Since the thread involves discussion of California's efforts to reduce prison populations, I thought I would share this. I thought it was interesting. http://mashable.com/2017/10/14/california-wildfires-prison-inmates/ I saw that, but I think it's much more meaningful work than making license plates. $1 an hour is a horrible wage, but they're able to serve 1/3 of their sentence, so they can get back to real world wages that much faster.

Wayward5oul -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/14/2017 7:08:28 PM)
I think it's a cool program. I agree, the wages suck. But the environment they live in seems to be better and they are serving society at the same time.

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 9 [10]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875