Knowingly infecting someone with HIV is now a misdemeanor in California

  • metta

    Posts: 43487

    Oct 07, 2017 6:27 AM GMT
    Knowingly infecting someone with HIV is now a misdemeanor in California

    Governor Brown announced that he has signed SB 239. The bill changes the punishment for intentionally infecting a person with HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor.

    http://kmph.com/news/local/knowingly-infecting-someone-with-hiv-is-now-a-misdemeanor-in-california
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 07, 2017 12:54 PM GMT
    Progressive Liberalism at its worst.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2017 12:28 AM GMT
    The worst law around HIV ever
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2017 1:47 AM GMT
    I recall back in the 80's, bitter gays carelessly and recklessly endangering lives.
    By deliberately infecting others with the HIV Virus. A gun to the head would've been kinder.
    I myself, have survived such cruel, and sociopathic acts, to cut my life short.
    But back then, no one gave a rats arse, that us homos were killing each other off.
  • Muscmasmat

    Posts: 135

    Oct 08, 2017 5:33 PM GMT
    On it's face, this new law does seem to be astonishing. But the thing is it corrects an injustice to responsible people with HIV. If I have sex with a guy in California now without disclosing that I am HIV+, even though we use a condom and even though I take my HIV meds and have no detectable virus and thus have an almost impossible chance to pass the virus to the other person, I can be prosecuted under the existing law, even though I don't pass the virus to the other person. A felony and 8 year prison term is not proportionate to this "crime".

    Under the new law people who are intentionally and knowingly trying to pass the HIV virus to others, because they are not taking HIV meds and are not using a condom, can be more forcefully prosecuted using other laws.

    Also, this asks all the partners who are in sexual situations to take responsibility. If you have sex with someone and are concerned, then ask about their HIV status. If you don't and have unprotected sex, then you bear some responsibility for becoming HIV+, however misfortunate this is.

    I see unprotected (no condom) sex between gay men who are strangers all the time. I won't do it with a partner myself, even though I have 0 detectable virus in my blood. I have had many instances of guys not asking about my HIV status and not asking for a condom. Sometimes guys do ask, and I think they are smart for doing so, but this is usually the exception.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2017 7:33 PM GMT
    Yes, what the Right Wing trolls here want us to misunderstand is the Draconian law this one replaces. And if a poz person should actually be deliberately infecting others, existing laws are sufficient to stop them and provide truly appropriate punishment.

    This is a change California gays wanted. The former law convicting many innocent people. But hey, that doesn't support the anti-gay, anti-Democratic narrative the trolls here want to promote. After all, Republicans are our friends, Democrats our enemies. The trolls here assure us this is true - any contrary evidence is fake news. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2017 4:44 PM GMT
    mx5guynj saidProgressive Liberalism at its worst.

    Dumb people are almost always funny. You’re hysterical.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2017 9:11 PM GMT
    And BTW, both guys gotta take some responsibility. Safe sex (or if you prefer, SAFER sex, since no sex is 100% safe) means assuming every guy is poz, and can potentially have an STD of some sort. If that's too intimidating for you, and some good arguments why it should be avoided, then casual gay sex is not for you.

    To me it comes under the heading of risk management. something I know about. You weigh the risks, you make your choice. More than 23 years after coming out, and a wild coming out it was icon_redface.gif , I'm still negative. And never had any STD in my life.

    But I had a wonderful gay "mentor". Who wrote a column on gay health in the SGN (Seattle Gay News) newspaper. He pounded into my head the importance of safe sex. My good sexual health today is his continuing gift to me.

    If some guy had infected me along the way, because he told me he was negative, or said nothting at all, and I had unsafe sex, I'd blame myself for stupidty. The guy might not know himself that he's poz. Or be lying to get into my pants.

    You take care of yourself. And consider every trick you meet to be poz, taking precautions. And if you don't, then you're just stupid, or gullible, or so irresponsibly drunk you lose your sense of judgment. And it happens.

    But don't blame him alone, unless you're forcibly raped against your will. Some responsibility rests with you.
  • timmm55

    Posts: 13

    Jan 23, 2018 7:48 PM GMT
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 saidThe worst law around HIV ever


    Around?

    Anyway it removes HIV as a mitigating factor. Instead other matters can determine if a crime occurred. Intentional infection is very rare, chances are they did something else to determine a crime. Rape or battery for example. Most state HIV laws do not require HIV infection, just exposure, even if undetectable. (Rhoades vs Iowa).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2018 9:45 PM GMT
    I wonder what happens if the "giver" lies and simply says "I told him!". It then pushes the onus on the "receiver" to prove that was untrue.

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

    Jan 23, 2018 9:50 PM GMT
    Ok, so upon closer reading it's clear the 6-month Max penalty applies if the "giver" intentionally passes the disease. For such a serious and non-curable disease that punishment is insanely lenient for an intentional act to harm.

    Wow.
  • timmm55

    Posts: 13

    Jan 24, 2018 3:42 AM GMT
    YVRguy saidOk, so upon closer reading it's clear the 6-month Max penalty applies if the "giver" intentionally passes the disease. For such a serious and non-curable disease that punishment is insanely lenient for an intentional act to harm.

    Wow.


    Except that's not how the law was used. They prosecuted HIV exposure, not infection. See Rhoades vs Iowa https://law.justia.com/cases/iowa/supreme-court/2016/151169.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2018 5:16 AM GMT
    ^ in that case the defendant pled guilty to the charge! He lied about his status according to the judgement summary. He won his case because the appeals court agreed (not unanimously) that the State was unable to prove the offence occurred.

    From page29/30:
    "In our decision...we did not declare Rhoades innocent; we only determined there was not sufficient evidence to support his guilty pleas."

    He said they used a condom for anal, had oral sex and was undetectable. The other guy said no condom was used. The Appeals court said they couldn't be certain that bodily fluids exchanged. Because the guy originally pled guilty it was not demonstrated in court (I believe) that he was undetectable.

    In Canada the courts have treated this as sexual assault under the premise that informed consent was not given, which normally is grounds for a sexual assault charge. If someone lies about their HIV status I think they get tripped up unless they were undetectable and used a condom for anal sex. In Ontario prosecutors have been told not to prosecute if the person was undetectable for at least six months before the sex act occurred.

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

    Jan 26, 2018 10:52 PM GMT
    timmm55 said
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 saidThe worst law around HIV ever


    Around?

    Anyway it removes HIV as a mitigating factor. Instead other matters can determine if a crime occurred. Intentional infection is very rare, chances are they did something else to determine a crime. Rape or battery for example.

    "Most state HIV laws do not require HIV infection, just exposure, even if undetectable" (Rhoades vs Iowa).


    By states you are referring only to US states. In NSW Australia, a recent law change no longer requires disclosure. The other aspect is that any Silverstein infection of another person with HIV is a crime. Also interestingly, deliberate infection of persons with a number of other STI's carries the same weight of criminal responsibility. NSW has always required an infection to occur for a prosecution to be considered by the DPP. Clearly the laws on simple potential exposure are overly discriminatory but to water then down to a minor crime is somewhat disingenuous.
    The thing you don't seem to get Timmm55, is that men have a right to decide what happens to their bodies. HIV Positive UVL men will gain trust by looking after their health and once a partner who is HIV negative has got to know them and is confident that the person claiming to have a UVL can share their records or be seen consistently confirming with their medication, if the HIV negative guy wish to insist on condoms or doesn't want to have anal sex, lecturing HIV negative guys with emotive language will not change peoples perceptions. There are plenty of Prep users and some guys willling to trust that their new partner is actually Undetectable, which is their choice. I am merely pointing out ridiculous conclusions such as 'if asked to use condoms and not being willing to have BB on a new partner who claims to have a UVL but in fact is really a person of whom the HIV risk status is unknown. That is a fact
  • timmm55

    Posts: 13

    Jan 27, 2018 4:54 PM GMT
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 said
    timmm55 said
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 saidThe worst law around HIV ever


    Around?

    Anyway it removes HIV as a mitigating factor. Instead other matters can determine if a crime occurred. Intentional infection is very rare, chances are they did something else to determine a crime. Rape or battery for example.

    "Most state HIV laws do not require HIV infection, just exposure, even if undetectable" (Rhoades vs Iowa).


    By states you are referring only to US states. In NSW Australia, a recent law change no longer requires disclosure. The other aspect is that any Silverstein infection of another person with HIV is a crime. Also interestingly, deliberate infection of persons with a number of other STI's carries the same weight of criminal responsibility. NSW has always required an infection to occur for a prosecution to be considered by the DPP. Clearly the laws on simple potential exposure are overly discriminatory but to water then down to a minor crime is somewhat disingenuous.
    The thing you don't seem to get Timmm55, is that men have a right to decide what happens to their bodies. HIV Positive UVL men will gain trust by looking after their health and once a partner who is HIV negative has got to know them and is confident that the person claiming to have a UVL can share their records or be seen consistently confirming with their medication, if the HIV negative guy wish to insist on condoms or doesn't want to have anal sex, lecturing HIV negative guys with emotive language will not change peoples perceptions. There are plenty of Prep users and some guys willling to trust that their new partner is actually Undetectable, which is their choice. I am merely pointing out ridiculous conclusions such as 'if asked to use condoms and not being willing to have BB on a new partner who claims to have a UVL but in fact is really a person of whom the HIV risk status is unknown. That is a fact


    Now you are making up ridiculous conclusion! Is (") a half quote/half lie?
    " lecturing HIV negative guys with emotive language" Please reread my previous comment. Nothing of the sort. You are the one who is sanctimoniously telling me about HIV Positive UVL men!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2018 2:36 PM GMT
    Pls check these links out as your still not getting it. I for one am all for reducing ignorance around HIV Positive men but since you have been Poz for so long you have no perspective of what it's like to be HIV negative anymore. This is why your approach is so counterproductive to what you so vehmitly state your trying to achieve.

    http://www.catie.ca/en/resonance/info/trust-deception

    https://youtu.be/Z7WDr9_mphU

    In The You tube clip you need to pay attention to the comments made by the blonde guy who is very supportive of U=U and trusting of the science but agrees with what I am trying to tell you which is, that discrimination born of fear & ignorance is not overcome by reversing who is subject to emotive posturing. You and other militants think if someone doesn't trust a guy even when just met just because he says he has a UVL. Don't you remember posting what a young guy said to you online when you said you where Poz UVL and he said but don't you still use condoms? Your militant distainful response was to ridicule him. That kind of attitude is what keeps discrimination against Poz men slow to change.

    Also note that a very prominent Organisational Psychologist to some of the largest corporations in the US, Europe and the Asia Pacific, who himself has been undectable for 20 plus years, is a personal friend & during a discussion with me about the trend of using the term 'stigma'.

    He agrees there are examples but he himself finds the current use of the term as intellectually retarded.

    The term stigma which you wear as your personal stigmata is used with the intention to distort the proper context of the terms proper application in describing social phenomena.

    Another useful link is from ACON

    https://youtu.be/ptIpzFIC8r8
    https://youtu.be/5EcuId0oMME

    My apologies for not converting them to URL links but I am currently interstate and using my phone and it is not interacting with the options above the comments box which I will fix later but you can copy and paste in a browser.


  • Triggerman

    Posts: 611

    Jan 30, 2018 6:14 PM GMT
    Former City Councilman now state representative. On his path to a very lucrative pension. Guy could not hack it in the real world so he jumped into the world of government where you do nothing but get paid a big pension. He will retire with so many taxpayer dollars supporting him. He tries to say he is the next Harvey Milk.. Working hard for the little guy. Lol He voted for end of nudity in SF, a city famous for it, and a soda tax. Thanks, Scott. Your life has made the world a much better place
  • timmm55

    Posts: 13

    Feb 14, 2018 6:22 PM GMT
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 said
    ...............intellectually retarded.

    The term stigma which you wear as your personal stigmata is used with the intention to distort the proper context of the terms proper application in describing social phenomena.




    That's one twisted and retarded sentence! As if YOU know what the "proper context" is.