Sex Crimes That Shouldn’t Be

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2014 12:04 AM GMT
    NYT: Should we be able to prosecute sexual partners who don’t disclose their marital status, sex offender status, fertility status or gender? If the answer is no, then H.I.V. disclosure laws are not just unfair, they no longer serve any practical purpose.

    Most adults especially value their privacy in sphere of sexual activity and intimacy. We now have several Supreme Court rulings protecting our privacy in this domain, but there is one group of people to whom not all those protections extend: those who are H.I.V.-positive. In many jurisdictions, people who know they are H.I.V.-positive are legally required to disclose this status to potential sexual partners, even when they intend to engage in relatively safe and protected sex. Why do our disclosure policies single out this group, and not, for example, people with other incurable, or possibly fatal, infectious diseases? Why do most policies demand transparency between sexual partners in regard to their H.I.V.-status, but not in regard to past behaviors that may have caused a yet undetected H.I.V. infection, such as intravenous drug use or unprotected sex with partners who do not regularly get tested for sexually transmitted diseases? Switzerland may be the only country whose H.I.V.-disclosure laws mandate the latter kind of information.

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/sex-crimes-that-shouldnt-be/?hp&rref=opinion
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2014 12:53 AM GMT
    I can see the arguments for and against and I think if people were more safety conscious (latex lovers) there would be no need for a full disclosure because you would play safe regardless. However the first (and only) time I had sex it was with a stranger and we didn't use a condom because he wouldn't wear one and fortunately I didn't get HIV (so I'm assuming he didn't have it either) but if he did and didn't tell me and I became HIV+ I think that would be a harsh pill to swallow after my first time.

    I think out of common courtesy a guy should tell his sexual partner(s) if he does have HIV but at the same time people shouldn't just assume someone doesn't have it either and should use protection. Whether full disclosure needs to be in the law I'm really torn.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Jun 03, 2014 12:57 AM GMT
    Any STD not disclosed should be a criminal act, imo.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jun 03, 2014 12:57 AM GMT
    Woodsmen:

    As a lawyer, I can see why HIV is singled out among all other incurable diseases. Because HIV is the ONLY disease with a clinical 100% kill rate. Sure, over the ensuing decades medications now extend life by decades when taken by a responsible person on a healthy diet. But HIV is still an inevitable precursor to AIDs. For what it's worth, you can make the same "criminalization" argument for other STDs (Hepatitis strains come to mind). But, alas, lest a person develop neurosyphillus because they don't take antibiotics for another disease within a decade, those are the ONLY two STDs that can kill, and HIV is the only disease that inevitably leads to a death sentence. Of course, if you're old enough, then it's negligible. Not to mention people who die early because of accidents, irrespective of HIV status. But no matter what we say, HIV=AIDs=Death. We're just tinkering with the time period.

    From a civil standpoint, it doesn't matter if it's criminal or not. If you contract a disease, ANY disease, from a sexual partner AND they knew or should have known they had it, then you can establish CIVIL liability and you will forever own their bank account, paycheck by 20%, houses and cars. In fact, many GAY ADVOCATES and DEMOCRATS pushed for the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure because so many gays were suing gays who knew they had HIV, and bankrupting them civilly. It was thought that increased awareness that, oh I don't know, you should do the moral thing and disclose deadly diseases, would prevent also the civil repercussions.

    At the end of the day, the law changes. It can be criminal or not, but you'll still on the line for CIVIL liability. If any person has sex with me, and fails to disclose their known disease, then I will own their assets until they die. Juries do not play nice to people who knowingly put others at risk.

    The most interesting quesiton is the person who is a whore, sleeps around a lot (with or without condoms) and FAILS to get STD tests. That, however, is what the law calls "willful ignorance" which constitutes "recklessness" which is a form of "knowingly." As such, you can't turn a blind eye and a deaf ear, put yourself and people at risk, spread disease, death and pain, and then say "sorry, I didn't know," or "sorry, it's private, I shouldn't have to share." It's not private unless you're masterbating, and you "should have" known.

    That's just how the law is, and I quite frankly don't see a problem with it. We need to stop thinking of HIV as some inconvenience. It's a death sentence, complete with nasty pills that thankfully extend your life, but cause nausea and other (some yet unknown) side effects. My generation (those born in the 80s and 90s) haven't gotten this lesson drilled into their heads, and it's time to take the kid gloves off. Don't stigmatize those with HIV, but requiring a disclosure is the LEAST any person with an STD can and should do morally. The law requires it legally. Push for change if you want, but I don't think that'll have ANY traction.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2014 1:31 AM GMT
    Aids-Free World reports on the global scope of the laws:

    Laws written ostensibly to deter people living with H.I.V. from intentionally infecting others are over-broadly applied, often along racial lines. H.I.V.-specific regulations defy the rest of a country’s jurisprudence. Over 60 countries criminalize the transmission of H.I.V., or the failure to disclose one’s H.I.V. status to sex partners, or both. Such comprehensive pronouncements have made it possible to convict hundreds of H.I.V.-positive people for non-criminal behavior ranging from sexual relations that did not transmit H.I.V. to spitting, which cannot transmit H.I.V. Even in some countries that uphold the universally agreed goal of providing antiretroviral drugs to all who need them, prison sentences loom for people whose adherence to treatment has all but erased the likelihood that they will infect others.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jun 03, 2014 1:41 AM GMT
    woodsmen saidThe article questions: Why do our disclosure policies single out [HIV] group, and not, for example, people with other incurable, or possibly fatal, infectious diseases?


    I would speculate, and I think most would agree, that the law (if not initially, then now since meds keep people alive for a decade, two or longer) is CURRENTLY the way it is because of persistent stigmatization of persons with HIV or AIDS. That is wrong, and there are laws against that. I had a client for a month who suffered such discrimination, and the company paid him handsomely. As it should have. Hate is wrong.

    But so is causing harm. And I still go back to, gun to my head, I have to contract HIV, Hepatitis (A, B or C), Syphillus, etc., then I'm going to say ANYTHING but HIV. Now, that doesn't mean I'm right. And it doesn't mean the law should single out HIV positive persons. It also doesn't mean the law shouldn't broaden to criminalize (as opposed to civil liability) non-disclosures for Hepatitis, syphillus, etc. But all laws are simultaneously OVER and UNDER inclusive. Meaning the law will hurt people who it shouldn't by ensnaring them, and exclude people who should be ensnared, but got lucky under the law. That's the fundamental dilemma we're in as humans, the human condition. I don't know the answer, but I know a person should disclouse ANY STD. Even such, scientifically at least, flippant STDs as "crabs." Crabs take 1 day and a bottle of cream to get rid of. But the law, civilly says that's wrong, and will award damages (cost of cream, time of work, small emotional damages, etc.). And I think that's right. Look, sometimes bad things happen. That's not criminal or actionable civilly. But sometimes a person should take ownership of the knowledge they know, or should know, and fess up.

    Having said that, I think HIV stigmatization is a real problem in the USA and we all collectively, including myself, need to be more sensitive to that issue of drawing "us vs. them" groups.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jun 03, 2014 1:57 AM GMT
    woodsmen saidAids-Free World reports on the global scope of the laws:

    Laws written ostensibly to deter people living with H.I.V. from intentionally infecting others are over-broadly applied, often along racial lines. H.I.V.-specific regulations defy the rest of a country’s jurisprudence. Over 60 countries criminalize the transmission of H.I.V., or the failure to disclose one’s H.I.V. status to sex partners, or both. Such comprehensive pronouncements have made it possible to convict hundreds of H.I.V.-positive people for non-criminal behavior ranging from sexual relations that did not transmit H.I.V. to spitting, which cannot transmit H.I.V. Even in some countries that uphold the universally agreed goal of providing antiretroviral drugs to all who need them, prison sentences loom for people whose adherence to treatment has all but erased the likelihood that they will infect others.


    If a person is facing a prison sentence (i.e., "time") then they have been criminally convicted by the state/sovereign. That is a bad thing if the person never, actually and in fact, transmitted HIV/AIDS.

    In the USA, a person cannot be convicted criminally for that if the person, actually and in fact, never transmitted HIV/AIDS. You could simply argue a mistake of fact in the USA, and, again though civil liability would apply, a criminal conviction and time could not, because of our particular jurisprudence. As an aside, and "assault" is the imminent apprehension of harm, even if not harm results. If I raise my fist at you in a bar in a threatening manner, or swerve my car toward you as a pedestrian, and you think that I'm going to hit you, then I have assaulted you. Though in both hypotheticals I never ACTUALLY touched you, I'm liable civilly, but not criminally.

    At the end of the day, I am unfamiliar with the laws and jurisprudence of other countries, but I would speculate that these laws are used to, over-broadly, ensnare LGBT individuals. That unequal and disparate treatment of people based on LGBT and HIV status makes me sad and mad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2014 2:19 AM GMT
    Timbales saidAny STD not disclosed should be a criminal act, imo.


    +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2014 3:24 AM GMT
    We should be realistic here. There are cases where a gay VIRGIN can not donate blood simply for being gay... There's a stigma attached to HIV...

    Through a great organization in NY, that helps prevent STDs (via testing and promotion of safe sex), I never looked at the word clean in the same light -- in reference to STDs. I learned the term CLEAN implies someone else is dirty -- which isn't accurate.

    Nobody wants an STD and yes any known active STDs IMO should be disclosed with someone your going to do things with.

    We don't need to shun those that have STDs, but rather become more educated on the subject -- so more people get tested.

    I know this isn't always "practical" for humans BUT there's nothing like sharing your results via paper. If you care about your health and have nothing to hide -- it should be a requirement in a relationship prior to having sex. Plus the things someone thinks they need to hide -- they shouldn't have to feel that way in the first place.

    NOW lord knows I'm not perfect and in the heat of the moment -- you ask their status and use protection/common sense.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2014 3:36 AM GMT
    Svnw688 saidWoodsmen:

    As a lawyer, I can see why HIV is singled out among all other incurable diseases. Because HIV is the ONLY disease with a clinical 100% kill rate. Sure, over the ensuing decades medications now extend life by decades when taken by a responsible person on a healthy diet. But HIV is still an inevitable precursor to AIDs. For what it's worth, you can make the same "criminalization" argument for other STDs (Hepatitis strains come to mind). But, alas, lest a person develop neurosyphillus because they don't take antibiotics for another disease within a decade, those are the ONLY two STDs that can kill, and HIV is the only disease that inevitably leads to a death sentence. Of course, if you're old enough, then it's negligible. Not to mention people who die early because of accidents, irrespective of HIV status. But no matter what we say, HIV=AIDs=Death. We're just tinkering with the time period.

    From a civil standpoint, it doesn't matter if it's criminal or not. If you contract a disease, ANY disease, from a sexual partner AND they knew or should have known they had it, then you can establish CIVIL liability and you will forever own their bank account, paycheck by 20%, houses and cars. In fact, many GAY ADVOCATES and DEMOCRATS pushed for the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure because so many gays were suing gays who knew they had HIV, and bankrupting them civilly. It was thought that increased awareness that, oh I don't know, you should do the moral thing and disclose deadly diseases, would prevent also the civil repercussions.

    At the end of the day, the law changes. It can be criminal or not, but you'll still on the line for CIVIL liability. If any person has sex with me, and fails to disclose their known disease, then I will own their assets until they die. Juries do not play nice to people who knowingly put others at risk.

    The most interesting quesiton is the person who is a whore, sleeps around a lot (with or without condoms) and FAILS to get STD tests. That, however, is what the law calls "willful ignorance" which constitutes "recklessness" which is a form of "knowingly." As such, you can't turn a blind eye and a deaf ear, put yourself and people at risk, spread disease, death and pain, and then say "sorry, I didn't know," or "sorry, it's private, I shouldn't have to share." It's not private unless you're masterbating, and you "should have" known.

    That's just how the law is, and I quite frankly don't see a problem with it. We need to stop thinking of HIV as some inconvenience. It's a death sentence, complete with nasty pills that thankfully extend your life, but cause nausea and other (some yet unknown) side effects. My generation (those born in the 80s and 90s) haven't gotten this lesson drilled into their heads, and it's time to take the kid gloves off. Don't stigmatize those with HIV, but requiring a disclosure is the LEAST any person with an STD can and should do morally. The law requires it legally. Push for change if you want, but I don't think that'll have ANY traction.


    Soon we will need Pre-BeforeYouGetItUp agreements/contracts.

    The reality is things like contracts, prenups, and agreements on writing are necessary, because there are too many shady people. You'd like to think everyone would do the right thing and is a standup gentleman or lady BUT it's not reality.

    Other random thought:

    I support the right to bear arms, but I think before allowing a minor into your home you should have to disclose the fact you own a gun to their guardian via a notarized agreement -- too many children die by their friend's parents guns. AND there should be hell to pay if a child, who is not yours, dies by a gun that wasn't secured (lazy stupid deadly mistake).
  • Bunjamon

    Posts: 3161

    Jun 03, 2014 4:19 AM GMT
    AnOriginal saidWe should be realistic here. There are cases where a gay VIRGIN can not donate blood simply for being gay... There's a stigma attached to HIV...


    That's not exactly true. In the US, if you've never had sex with a man and yet you are gay-identified, you can donate blood. If you're straight-identified and you have had sex with a man, you cannot donate blood. Blood donation bans are based on sexual behavior, not sexual orientation. That being said, I don't agree with the bans and think they should be lifted. I also think that disclosure laws don't do what they intended to, which was protect people from contracting a deadly disease. Instead, they punish good-faith men and women who practice safe sex because they didn't disclose their status.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jun 03, 2014 4:19 AM GMT
    any known infectious disease should be disclosed prior to having sex, STD or not

    it's just the decent thing to do, otherwise you're committing bodily harm to someone
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2014 4:26 AM GMT
    Svnw688 saidWoodsmen:

    As a lawyer, I can see why HIV is singled out among all other incurable diseases. Because HIV is the ONLY disease with a clinical 100% kill rate. Sure, over the ensuing decades medications now extend life by decades when taken by a responsible person on a healthy diet. But HIV is still an inevitable precursor to AIDs. For what it's worth, you can make the same "criminalization" argument for other STDs (Hepatitis strains come to mind). But, alas, lest a person develop neurosyphillus because they don't take antibiotics for another disease within a decade, those are the ONLY two STDs that can kill, and HIV is the only disease that inevitably leads to a death sentence. Of course, if you're old enough, then it's negligible. Not to mention people who die early because of accidents, irrespective of HIV status. But no matter what we say, HIV=AIDs=Death. We're just tinkering with the time period.




    Your are obviously not an HIV doctor!
    You are misinformed to the nth degree.
    As a person with HIV (not AIDS as you deem, inevitably) I would NOT want you for my lawyer.
    Do you not think that is offensive, you sentenced me to an early death! (Nothing new, I heard that BS in 1986.) Where have you been since 2000?
    Life expectancy now considerably exceeds the average in some people with HIV in the US.
    http://www.aidsmap.com/Life-expectancy-now-considerably-exceeds-the-average-in-some-people-with-HIV-in-the-US/page/2816267/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2014 5:05 AM GMT
    Svnw688 said



    In the USA, a person cannot be convicted criminally for that if the person, actually and in fact, never transmitted HIV/AIDS.



    False.

    In the recent Iowa case a man who was on Anti-viral meds, but not zero viral load, was in fact sentenced to HIV transmission when he didn't transmit HIV!


    "Rhoades, 39, had a sexual encounter with a man he met in an online chat room in 2008. Rhoades drove from his home in Waverly to the man’s home in Cedar Falls, where he received oral sex without wearing protection but put on a condom before having sex.

    Within days, the man learned from a friend that Rhoades had HIV and contacted police. He eventually tested negative for HIV, but he supported Rhoades’ prosecution.


    Rhoades eventually pleaded guilty to criminally transmitting HIV, a class B felony. A judge sentenced him to the maximum 25 years in prison."

    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/03/iowa-supreme-court-hears-appeal-of-man-convicted-of-hiv-notification-law/


    I get the feeling the police and DA railroaded Rhodes to a guilty plea...and then gave him 25 years. But an outcry made the judge reduce it to time served 18 mos.


    The Iowa legislature has since reviewed the law, but it's still murky to me.
    Iowa Legislature updates HIV transmission law with ‘lesser penalties’
    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/05/iowa-legislature-updates-hiv-transmission-law-with-lesser-penalties/


    Rhoades’ is not an isolated case. Over the last decade, there have been at least 541 cases in which people were convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, criminal charges for not disclosing that they were HIV-positive, according to a ProPublica analysis of records from 19 states. The national tally is surely higher, because at least 35 states have laws that specifically criminalize exposing another person to HIV. In 29 states, it is a felony. None of the laws require transmission to occur.

    Defendants in these cases were often sentenced to years — sometimes decades — in prison, even when they used a condom or took other precautions against infecting their partners. In 60 cases for which extensive documentation could be obtained, ProPublica found just four involving complainants who actually became infected with HIV. Even in such cases, it can be hard to prove who transmitted the virus without genetic tests matching the accused’s HIV strain to their accuser’s.

    No surprise here:
    "Even many people with HIV support the laws. In a recent survey of HIV-positive people in New Jersey, 90 percent said that people with the virus bore most of the responsibility to protect their partners. More than half approved of the kind of laws that resulted in Rhoades’ sentence."

    But I think if Gay people, HIV- AND HIV+, realized how prejudicially and unfairly these sentences are meted out....there should be indignation.


    http://www.propublica.org/article/hiv-criminal-transmission


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2014 6:17 AM GMT
    Svnw688 saidWoodsmen:

    As a lawyer, I can see why HIV is singled out among all other incurable diseases. Because HIV is the ONLY disease with a clinical 100% kill rate. Sure, over the ensuing decades medications now extend life by decades when taken by a responsible person on a healthy diet. But HIV is still an inevitable precursor to AIDs. For what it's worth, you can make the same "criminalization" argument for other STDs (Hepatitis strains come to mind). But, alas, lest a person develop neurosyphillus because they don't take antibiotics for another disease within a decade, those are the ONLY two STDs that can kill, and HIV is the only disease that inevitably leads to a death sentence. Of course, if you're old enough, then it's negligible. Not to mention people who die early because of accidents, irrespective of HIV status. But no matter what we say, HIV=AIDs=Death. We're just tinkering with the time period.
    ...


    As a non lawyer, I'm uncomfortable about bending the truth to make a case.

    "HIV is the ONLY disease with a clinical 100% kill rate"
    You can't say that, it's incorrect on too many account.
    Statistical : there is a lot of people HIV+, under treatment for decade. If none of them die from old age, but from HIV or other premature death, then you will be able to say that. Right now, it's incorrect, on both logical, medical and statistical account.
    Counter example : some people with HIV never develop AIDS, even without treatment, out of rare genetic protection.
    Rhetoric fallacy : It's not because AIDS leads to 100% death and HIV leads to AIDS than HIV lead to 100 %death. For that, you would need to prove HIV leads to 100% AIDS, and it's not true under treatment.

    I admit I'm not an expert on the science and studies about HIV, but you can't make bold claims without backing them up.

    The 100% part is taken out of your hat. You can't use that number until you prove it.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2014 6:57 AM GMT
    [quote][cite]Svnw688 said
    As an aside, and "assault" is the imminent apprehension of harm, even if not harm results. If I raise my fist at you in a bar in a threatening manner, or swerve my car toward you as a pedestrian, and you think that I'm going to hit you, then I have assaulted you. Though in both hypotheticals I never ACTUALLY touched you, I'm liable civilly, but not criminally.

    [/quote]

    Some states still have laws that criminalize HIV+/Undetectable as the same as HIV+ WITH A VIRAL LOAD. Even if no transmission of HIV resulted.


    "An analysis by CDC and Department of Justice researchers found that, by 2011, a total of 67 laws explicitly focused on persons living with HIV had been enacted in 33 states.3 These laws vary as to what behaviors are criminalized or result in additional penalties. In 24 states, laws require persons who are aware that they have HIV to disclose their status to sexual partners and 14 states require disclosure to needle-sharing partners. Twenty-five states criminalize one or more behaviors that pose a low or negligible risk for HIV transmission.

    The majority of laws identified for the analysis were passed before studies showed that antiretroviral therapy (ART) reduces HIV transmission risk and most do not account for HIV prevention measures that reduce transmission risk, such as condom use, ART, or pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). The analysis encouraged states with HIV-specific criminal laws to use its findings to re-examine state laws, assess the laws' alignment with current evidence regarding HIV transmission risk, and consider whether the laws are the best vehicle by which to achieve their intended purposes.

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2014 7:05 AM GMT
    minox said
    Svnw688 saidWoodsmen:

    As a lawyer, I can see why HIV is singled out among all other incurable diseases. Because HIV is the ONLY disease with a clinical 100% kill rate. Sure, over the ensuing decades medications now extend life by decades when taken by a responsible person on a healthy diet. But HIV is still an inevitable precursor to AIDs. For what it's worth, you can make the same "criminalization" argument for other STDs (Hepatitis strains come to mind). But, alas, lest a person develop neurosyphillus because they don't take antibiotics for another disease within a decade, those are the ONLY two STDs that can kill, and HIV is the only disease that inevitably leads to a death sentence. Of course, if you're old enough, then it's negligible. Not to mention people who die early because of accidents, irrespective of HIV status. But no matter what we say, HIV=AIDs=Death. We're just tinkering with the time period.
    ...


    As a non lawyer, I'm uncomfortable about bending the truth to make a case.

    "HIV is the ONLY disease with a clinical 100% kill rate"
    You can't say that, it's incorrect on too many account.
    Statistical : there is a lot of people HIV+, under treatment for decade. If none of them die from old age, but from HIV or other premature death, then you will be able to say that. Right now, it's incorrect, on both logical, medical and statistical account.
    Counter example : some people with HIV never develop AIDS, even without treatment, out of rare genetic protection.
    Rhetoric fallacy : It's not because AIDS leads to 100% death and HIV leads to AIDS than HIV lead to 100 %death. For that, you would need to prove HIV leads to 100% AIDS, and it's not true under treatment.

    I admit I'm not an expert on the science and studies about HIV, but you can't make bold claims without backing them up.

    The 100% part is taken out of your hat. You can't use that number until you prove it.



    Exactly. I was just talking to one of the 10%ers (no progression from HIV). I was a "slow progressor" but we are both on antivirals now. His was a decision he and his doctor made so he wouldn't pass on the virus. He isn't doing ART for his health, but for anyone he is in contact with.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2014 7:34 AM GMT
    "But some health and legal experts say using criminal penalties to curtail the epidemic could backfire and fuel the spread of HIV. According to the CDC, 1.1 million Americans are currently living with HIV, but one-fifth of them don’t know it. And studies show that about half of newly infected people got the virus from those who didn’t know they had HIV. So relying on a partner to know, let alone disclose, their HIV status is a risky proposition."

    That IMHO is exactly what is happening! If the HIV rates are still 40-50K every year.....

    "The laws, these experts say, could exacerbate this problem: If people can be imprisoned for knowingly exposing others to HIV, their best defense may be ignorance. Such laws, then, provide a powerful disincentive for citizens to get tested and learn if they carry the virus."

    To all you JR's who castigated me for posting the Rhodes case earlier, especially someone who said "Do you think it's ok for someone to knowingly expose someone to an incurable infectious disease without their knowledge?"(and NO I don't beat my wife) (because I think the laws are unfair if no transmission occurs).....:
    "Even Plendl, the man Rhoades had sex with, thinks the law is too harsh. “Do I think he needs to be locked up forever?” Plendl asked. “No. Do I think these laws need to be revisited? Yes.”

    http://www.propublica.org/article/hiv-criminal-transmission
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jun 04, 2014 2:39 AM GMT
    Unckabasa:

    You are correct and I stand corrected. As a legal matter, it appears that actual transmission is not, in fact, required.

    Having said that, in 50% of cases lawyers are WRONG and 50% are right, since only one side can win. As a legal matter I believe there is a hidden constitutional issue in how those laws are drafted. I believe, literally, there is a federal case and constitutional question in convicting a person when no actual transmission occurred. While the laws interpretation, and as written, deems me wrong now, I think I could make a winning case that a criminal conviction without actual transmission is a violation of the 5th Amendment, as applied to the states via the 14th Amendment, for both procedural and substantive due process grounds.

    An interesting case indeed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2014 6:34 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidUnckabasa:

    You are correct and I stand corrected. As a legal matter, it appears that actual transmission is not, in fact, required.

    Having said that, in 50% of cases lawyers are WRONG and 50% are right, since only one side can win. As a legal matter I believe there is a hidden constitutional issue in how those laws are drafted. I believe, literally, there is a federal case and constitutional question in convicting a person when no actual transmission occurred. While the laws interpretation, and as written, deems me wrong now, I think I could make a winning case that a criminal conviction without actual transmission is a violation of the 5th Amendment, as applied to the states via the 14th Amendment, for both procedural and substantive due process grounds.

    An interesting case indeed.


    It could and should be done!

    It seems that it is a law in transition. The Swiss Study mentions the incongruity. The CDC recommends change. The Iowas case has resulted in a modest change.

    Unfortunately in one case it swung too far in the other direction. A man who DID transmit the HIV virus in NY got a reduced sentence, because both lawyers and the victim (who was already n ART Therapy) said it was not a death sentence anymore! The judge was compelled to reduce the sentence.

    The victim has been diagnosed as HIV positive. But the judge cited the victim's own grand jury testimony in making his ruling against the reckless endangerment prosecution.

    " "Mr. Doe related what he has been told by doctors concerning life expectancy: 'Basically I can live basically like a normal life. The medication they have me on are getting better and better. A long time ago, I could only live like another 15 years, like, but the medication now I could be expected to live another thirty to ninety years, even better,'" the judge wrote."

    http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/07/judge_rules_expert_testimony_n.html

    I don't agree with that decision. But the judge, or specifically BOTH lawyers and the victim, don't agree with your "inevitable" AIDS diagnosis either. Being a lawyer you need to back your claim up. Or clarify. There are a lot of younger naive and impressionable people on here, that sort of misinformation is damaging. If one of the newly POZ members here saw your comment, it would be disheartening. I don't have to tell you what the suicide rate of Gay POZ men are do I?
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jun 04, 2014 9:40 PM GMT
    Unckabasa:

    From my review of peer reviewed literature, HIV still inevitably leads to AIDS.

    (1). If ART is taken, scientists think a monoantiviral treatment extends life by 1 year, but a multi-antiviral combination extends life by two decades when combined with other health therapies. TRANSLATION: If you're wealthy and can afford the drugs, best doctors, and to eat premium salmon and filets every night, then you'll be alright like Magic Johnson, at least for a few decades. If you eat Mac n Cheese and miss your pills regularly, you're hosed.

    (2). If you take ART, mono or combined therapies, all studies show serious adverse medical consequences as "long term toxicities," and include: athero-sclerosis, lipodystrophy, hepatic failure, and cardiac failure. And those side effects are for the lucky ones.

    (3). Many US gay men cannot obtain the ART drugs. The cost is approximately 28K per year according to the CDC per patient. That's a lot of money to many gay men, especially those earning just above minimum wage. Obamacare is doing wonders in expanding drug coverage, but that is a recent innovation and protocols still might not get the medically necessary medicine to all people when they need it. "Wait to start is best," "this drug is better but this drug will do the trick too," etc. That's not to mention that class and race issues underlying access to medical care. It's very presumptive to think everyone who needs/wants ART gets them.

    (4). Let's not even get into the issues of drug resistant strains, double or multiple infection, and mental issues/stigma.

    I cannot tell you how many people my age and younger think of HIV as a mere inconvenience. It's more than that. While well-heeled gay men with nice jobs, insurance and access to a top doctor might fare well for decades, that cannot be said for all or even most gay men with HIV in the U.S. Without stigmatizing those with HIV, we collectively need to stop sugar coating the problem and start spreading awareness that popping a pill doesn't solve the problem of HIV/AIDS.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2014 10:49 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidUnckabasa:

    From my review of peer reviewed literature, HIV still inevitably leads to AIDS.

    (1). If ART is taken, scientists think a monoantiviral treatment extends life by 1 year, but a multi-antiviral combination extends life by two decades when combined with other health therapies. TRANSLATION: If you're wealthy and can afford the drugs, best doctors, and to eat premium salmon and filets every night, then you'll be alright like Magic Johnson, at least for a few decades. If you eat Mac n Cheese and miss your pills regularly, you're hosed.

    (2). If you take ART, mono or combined therapies, all studies show serious adverse medical consequences as "long term toxicities," and include: athero-sclerosis, lipodystrophy, hepatic failure, and cardiac failure. And those side effects are for the lucky ones.

    (3). Many US gay men cannot obtain the ART drugs. The cost is approximately 28K per year according to the CDC per patient. That's a lot of money to many gay men, especially those earning just above minimum wage. Obamacare is doing wonders in expanding drug coverage, but that is a recent innovation and protocols still might not get the medically necessary medicine to all people when they need it. "Wait to start is best," "this drug is better but this drug will do the trick too," etc. That's not to mention that class and race issues underlying access to medical care. It's very presumptive to think everyone who needs/wants ART gets them.

    (4). Let's not even get into the issues of drug resistant strains, double or multiple infection, and mental issues/stigma.

    I cannot tell you how many people my age and younger think of HIV as a mere inconvenience. It's more than that. While well-heeled gay men with nice jobs, insurance and access to a top doctor might fare well for decades, that cannot be said for all or even most gay men with HIV in the U.S. Without stigmatizing those with HIV, we collectively need to stop sugar coating the problem and start spreading awareness that popping a pill doesn't solve the problem of HIV/AIDS.



    You have failed to post your citations. From what I can tell your information is at least a decade old.

    1) No I'm not wealthy. Actually I'm poor. There are MANY programs especially for the poor. I'm on a Ryan White Program.
    By perpetuating that myth (you must be rich for ART Therapy) some people won't even try to get on anti-virals. That's wrong and subversive.
    Premium Salmon? I eat crap all the time. Big Mac and Mac N Cheese on occasion. It will not kill you. Missing a dose once or twice a months is OK. Meth users typically miss them 2, 3, 4 times a week. Again not true and a scare tactic to win your "case". Which, in the NY case wouldn't the prosecution have brought your contention up for the victim's benefit?

    2) Causes of Lipodystrophy (which I don't have)

    These are possible causes of lipodystrophy:

    Antiretroviral therapy. There are conflicting ideas about this. The older protease inhibitors (PIs) and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) have been implicated in causing lipodystrophy. It is less common in the newer medications.
    www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/guide/lipodystrophy_and_hiv
    Again your Medical information is not current. Citations please.


    "HIV infection, not antiretroviral therapy (ART), is associated with risk for atherosclerosis in patients with no history of smoking, particularly those infected for eight years or more."
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131030142913.htm

    3) When I read that "Wait to start is best," I knew how old your information was. That is NOT advised anymore.
    "The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provides guidelines on the use of HIV medicines to treat HIV infection. The HHS guidelines recommend ART for everyone infected with HIV, but the recommendation is strongest for those with CD4 counts less than 350 cells/mm3."
    http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/education-materials/fact-sheets/21/52/when-to-start-antiretroviral-therapy
    As I mentioned before, a friend of mine is a 10% non progressor. He was never sick at all, nothing. Ever. His t cells (1000+)were normal. But his viral load was high. But he was HIV+ and communicable. He is on ART therapy as "treatment as prevention"...so he is very VERY unlikely to pass on HIV even accidentally. Now it's ART therapy immediately after exposure.

    It is "presumptive to think everyone who needs/wants ART gets them" and I've not made that claim. More people need to be on ART (25% of HIV people are) and there are programs made just for this purpose.

    4) You are stigmatizing HIV+ people! "....we collectively need to stop sugar coating the problem and start spreading awareness that popping a pill doesn't solve the problem of HIV/AIDS."

    Actually for many "popping pills" has, if not solved the problem, made life normal. ART has saved millions of lives! And PrEP can save millions more.

    At this point I have to ask "what is the problem?" If you don't want people to take pills MILLIONS will die....again. There is no logic there. I'm trying RAISE awareness of current medications, and what do you propose? To "spreading awareness" to stop popping those pills?

    Actually the model the CDC is basically saying: If all HIV+ were on ART, and all HIV- were on PrEP.....there would be so few transmissions that AIDS would effectively be stopped.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2014 11:05 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidUnckabasa:

    From my review of peer reviewed literature, HIV still inevitably leads to AIDS.



    So what is your source again???

    "If left untreated, HIV infection eventually progresses until the immune system is too weak to defend against life-threatening infections and cancers. This stage is called AIDS.

    However, the course of HIV infection is not a one-way street. In addition to preventing life-threatening illnesses from developing, anti-HIV drugs can halt the progress of disease and allow the immune system to rebuild itself, even in people who have very serious disease."
    http://www.catie.ca/en/practical-guides/hiv-drug-treatment/2-hiv-and-aids-basics/2-2

    If you test positive for HIV, you will inevitably die from AIDS.
    FALSE.
    In the early years, an HIV diagnosis often meant the infected person would develop AIDS and die from complications of the disease within a matter of years, but this is no longer true. Medications, combined with lifestyle changes and complementary therapies that support the body’s ability to keep the virus in check, can keep an HIV-infected person from developing AIDS or the fatal complications associated with it for many years, or even a lifetime.

    http://www.everydayhealth.com/hiv-aids/hiv-facts-and-myths-quiz.aspx

    There. I've provided two articles that say ART therapy extends life for the foreseeable future.

    Perpetuating that HIV always leads to AIDS IS a stigma.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2014 11:47 PM GMT
    You got hepatic failure wrong too. (BTW my liver functions are normal) It's already common in HIV+ patients. ART (or ARV) doesn't cause it.

    http://www.hiv.va.gov/provider/manual-primary-care/liver-disease.asp

    "Chronic liver disease is common among HIV-infected patients, and is increasingly a cause of mortality and morbidity as effective ART allows persons with HIV to live longer.
    HIV infection may accelerate liver damage caused by HCV or HBV infection. HCV infection is particularly common among HIV-infected patients, especially those who acquired HIV through injection drug use (IDU).
    Long-term complications of HBV and HCV infection include cirrhosis, end-stage liver disease (ESLD), and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
    It is essential that providers working with HIV patients be able to identify liver disease and determine whether cirrhosis has developed.
    Long-term management of cirrhosis is important to providing optimal prevention and treatment of complications.
    Some ARVs may cause liver toxicity (hepatotoxicity) but most can be used safely by patients with liver disease, with proper monitoring. Patients should not be undertreated for HIV because of concurrent liver disease."

    http://www.aidsbeacon.com/news/2011/03/11/hiv-infection-increases-the-risk-of-heart-disease-in-people-with-hiv-aids-croi-2011/
    "Results from two recent studies indicate that HIV infection increases the risk for coronary heart disease. However, people with HIV on antiretroviral therapy and with high CD4 (white blood) cell counts are at a lower risk compared to HIV patients with low CD4 cell counts.


    HIV Patients With Higher CD4 Counts Are At A Lower Risk for Coronary Heart Disease

    A second study presented by Dr. Daniel Klein from Kaiser Permanente Northern California also found that HIV infection increases the risk of coronary heart disease. However, the researchers also found that antiretroviral therapy and higher CD4 counts significantly reduced this risk.

    Based on their results, Dr. Klein recommended that patients start antiretroviral therapy early to prevent heart disease."

  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jun 05, 2014 1:16 AM GMT
    You win. HIV isn't a big deal. Everyone in the U.S. can simply ask for and obtain ART medications at no cost to them. ART has no side effects. And HIV does not lead to AIDS when medications are taken, and the days of HIV/AIDS deaths in the U.S. are over. And the poor and minorities have equal access to state of the art health care. Anyone who points out that HIV is something that is almost 100% preventable and a person should take, in this day of information, responsibility for themselves and society at large is a person perpetuating stigma. And when did I ever say an HIV person shouldn't take ART ASAP, and that PrEP is a bad thing? I'm simply saying that while it's a nice stop-gap, HIV is still a huge emotional, financial and physical BURDEN. You honestly sound like a commercial for big pharma, which while it's doing wonders, is not "the answer." There is no cure to date.

    I wish I saw the world through your rose shaded lenses.