Deliberatly infecting others is deplorable, 10 years seems like an appropriate sentence. It is worth noting that jurisdictions such as California no longer view deliberate infection as a criminal matter. The decision to repeal the laws, just is based on an admirable 'aspirational concept', to reduce stigma toward HIV Positive people, of which on the concept level I strongly agree.
Problem is, the justification is based on floored research, reliance on assumptions and anacdotal evidence and a lack of the recognition of the cost of HIV both in monetary and lifestyle remains even with viral suppression. Most AIDS Counci.s now advocate complete removal of HIV Infecftion from criminal codes, of which the explanation provided is that HIV is no longer a death sentence. This assumes capacity to access ongoing medication and other medical costs to the infected person. The other most commonly cited co-factor is that Criminal sanctions for deliberate infection acts as a deterent for some people, particularly those at risk, from accessing regular testing services and treatment options. The evidence has not been established in any reputible study, additionally, if you consider the concept that attempts to suggest that people who may be HIV Positive, conciously avoid Sexual health testing, so that they are able to continue to engage in high risk sexual activity without fear of legal consequences, provided they don't get tested so they could claim they didnt know. This ignores all the bariers to testing and treatment that need to be addressed and as a logical conclusion, knowledgable HIV Negative people see these claims and are immediately suspicious, which has the effect of unfortunately casting doubt regarding the trust in Public Health messages that are based on scientific (as opposed to anacdotal) which is detrimental to all.
I suspect a reply will be made to what I have posted which will attempt to include legal requirement, of disclosure of HIV Status related law, in order to envoke sympathy and support for their campaign to De-Criminalise deliberate HIV Infection. I would support any well reasoned changes which reduces discrimination of HIV Positive people, however the removal of criminal sanctions, does not have any known impact on rates of engagement with sexual health services, nor any verifiable effect on rates of treatment. There is a large body of evidence which is discussed regularly by the same AIDS Councils covering the limited rates of engagement of ethnic minorities in particular, despite the long established evidence of their risk.
The other thing that de-criminalising deliberate infection does, is reducing confidence of the accuracy of sexual health messages for the vast majority who are at moderate risk of HIV, particularly regarding emerging concepts and medical treatment options. Ironically a campaign claiming a goal of reducing stigma, effectlvely does the opposite. Most important to remember, is criminal law is ,made with community protection, which would include aspects of risk to members of the public. Also very important to note that deliberate infecftion requires a choice to engage in unprotected sexual acts, with prior knowledge of the risk or effects. Therefore, Undetectable Positive people are NOT these laws target, nor is there a neccessity for laws requiring disclosure to be affected as they are related but seperate issues.
Last of all, most AIDS Councils have been pushing the message that sex with persons who have an Undetectable Viral load provides eliminates transmission risk. As persons who have a current Undetectable Viral Load do not transmit HIV, deliberate infection is not relavent. The prevailing stigma around HIV is that people who are HIV Positive are reckless and potentially all an extreme risk of HIV Tranmission, therefore, the existance of criminal sanctions being applied to deliberate infection, provides a basis of increased confidence in TasP treatment as prevention (UVL OR PreP), removal of those measures, increases suspicion and re-enforces stereotypes, achieving nothing toward the 2020 HIV elimination goals. There are versions of criminal law governing deliberate infection which require review and alteration, such as those which do not require actual infection, which is ludicruse. Happy to discuss any of these points above as long as it's civil and preferably fact based