xanadude said Why did these other men not take responsibility for their own sexual health? They weren't being held at gunpoint or drugged and then assaulted. They willing had unprotected with someone they barely knew, apparently taking his word that he was negative (assuming they even asked him). In circumstances like these, these men have a certain amount of culpability here. HIV has been around over 30 years, and the knowledge of how to prevent spreading it (aka safer sex) has been around almost as long. As such, if you don't take precautions, you can't come away shocked that you have caught something.
^ I agree with this 100%.
I think the laws should require everyone to talk about HIV before they engage in sex. Don't just leave it up to the person with HIV+ to disclose his or her status. Require that everyone discuss the topic before they engage in sex. It won't be a foolproof method to completely eradicate the type of sociopathic behavior exhibited by Guerra but I think it would force people to be take more accountability for themselves. I believe it would create a notable decrease in HIV infections.
People typically won't talk about crucial matters such as HIV before they engage in the most intimate and vulnerable act that two people can partake in with one another. They won't because it's not considered sexy or to them it ruins the moment. This approach needs to change and people should be open to discussion.
MMTM, I have to disagree with you here. "Prosecutors say Guerra claimed to be HIV-negative and urged his boyfriend to have unprotected sex. The other man tested positive for HIV in May of 2013."
We aren't talking about a POZ man who is on ART or using condoms, or just having oral sex. We have too many POZ men in prison who have NOT transmitted HIV, even though they are protecting their partner through legitimate risk reductions.
From the DOJ
"Generally, the best practice would be for states to reform these laws to eliminate HIV-specific criminal penalties except in two distinct circumstances. First, states may wish to retain criminal liability when a person who knows he/she is HIV positive commits a (non-HIV specific) sex crime where there is a risk of transmission (e.g., rape or other sexual assault). The second circumstance is where the individual knows he/she is HIV positive and the evidence clearly demonstrates that individual’s intent was to transmit the virus and that the behavior engaged in had a significant risk of transmission, whether or not transmission actually occurred.
For states that choose to retain HIV-specific criminal laws or penalty enhancements beyond these two limited circumstances, the best practice would be to reform and modernize them so that they accurately reflect the current science of risk and modes of transmission, the quality of life and life span of individuals who are living with HIV, account for circumstances where the failure to disclose is directly related to intimate partner violence, and ensure they are the desired vehicle to achieve the states’ intended purpose in enacting them initially or retaining them in modernized form." https://aids.gov/federal-resources/national-hiv-aids-strategy/doj-hiv-criminal-law-best-practices-guide.pdf