Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California

a reply to: TheRedneck

Ergo, the conduct we are discussing can be a felony in Alabama, one which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years and/or a $30,000 fine.

Then you agree that a law specific to HIV is unnecessary. As well as being ineffective as a public health effort and possibly counterproductive toward that end.


You probably missed both times I posted this:

It should be noted that all states have general criminal laws—such as assault and battery, reckless endangerment, and attempted murder—that can and have been used to prosecute individuals for any of the above-mentioned behaviors.

www.cdc.gov...
Posted here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So the retribution you seek can indeed be meted, even in your home state. But it don't do crap as far as the public health issue goes.


You may have missed this as well.

Burris' findings here are consistent with other completed studies, all of which, to date, have failed to find any evidence that criminal law has an influence on sexual risk behavior. Given concerns about possible negative effects of criminal law, including increased stigma and reluctance to cooperate with health authorities, the findings suggest caution in using criminal law as a behavior change intervention for people who are HIV positive.

www.hivlawandpolicy.org...
digitalcommons.law.yale.edu...

a reply to: pexx421

Blood transfusion is much higher risk, 9,250/10,000. If a nutter was intentionally trying to give it it's pretty bad.

www.cdc.gov...

The measure comes just as an HIV-positive man in Scotland is being prosecuted for purposefully infecting a number of his Grindr dates with the virus

facing charges of “infecting four men with the virus and attempting to infect a further six,” a crime considered “Grievous Bodily Harm” in the United Kingdom, carrying a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Senate bill 239 (SB 239), which will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2018, does not only apply to those who engage in consensual sex, but also covers those who give blood without telling the blood bank that they are HIV-positive, even when they do so with the specific intent of infecting patients with the contagious virus.

www.breitbart.com...

a reply to: JimTSpock

You know that there is testing of everyone who donates blood, right?
www.redcrossblood.org... 1999_


You know that there still are laws against assault and stuff, right?

a reply to: Phage

I'd hope so. Not sure if it's 100% in every hospital...

a reply to: JimTSpock

"Sir, are you HIV positive?"
"I don't know. I don't think so."
"Ok, have a seat. Thank you for donating."

Is that how it goes? Pretty silly, huh?

a reply to: Mandroid7

I am just callus enough to think this could turn out to be a good thing for some of those in the future. After all these perverts die out, maybe the price of housing and the cost of living will go down enough for "regular" people to live there. I am pretty sure this will take out a lot of those in the movie and entertainment industry; but it is largely moving out anyway.
Yep! A lot of nice houses with great views may become available, but it will take about twenty years for them to really start to add up.

a reply to: Phage

The risks in the US are very small but in other parts of the world there are risks from contaminated blood.

Anyway notice how no one is agreeing with you.

I suppose in prison they can spread it aswell... not so funny.

Actually why was the law changed were there a lot of convictions?

a reply to: JimTSpock

The risks in the US are very small but in other parts of the world there are risks from contaminated blood.

Is this thread about the rest of the world, or California?

Anyway notice how no one is agreeing with you.

Yes. Now ask me if I'm surprised. Fear and ignorance are powerful. Case in point: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Actually why was the law changed were there a lot of convictions?

No. Not a lot of convictions. As to why it's being changed, as has been pointed out more than once; there is no indication that it has any effect from a public health standpoint and some that it is counterproductive. Alabama has a law similar to California's new law. Alaska has no such law at all. Why no hue and cry about that?

If there's not many convictions then why the fuss? Looks like LGBT activists at work... Getting aids is worse than armed robbery, one is over in 2 mins the other lasts a lifetime.

LGBT activists also praised the new law, alleging that the former legislation unfairly disfavored specific groups.

In 2015, an HIV-positive California landscape architect who boasted of intentionally infecting others with the virus was sentenced to six months in jail after pleading no contest to a misdemeanor health code violation.

The San Diego judge who sentenced Guerra couldn’t hide her anger over the case. “I think that’s a tremendous oversight in the law if this is just a misdemeanor,” said Judge Katherine Lewis, calling the light sentence a “travesty” while insisting the offense should be changed to a felony.

In 2011, a 51-year-old HIV-positive man who said he had intentionally infected “thousands” of partners turned himself in to Michigan police.

A detective investigating the case said that Smith “intentionally attempted to spread the disease to kill people.

www.breitbart.com...

It's clearly a criminal issue in some cases, Alabama I never knew about that, I just saw it on ATS and some other news and though that it is dumb that's my opinoin.

a reply to: JimTSpock

Breitbart. The home of fear and ignorance.

Sounds like another charge would have been more appropriate in that case though.

It should be noted that all states have general criminal laws—such as assault and battery, reckless endangerment, and attempted murder—that can and have been used to prosecute individuals for any of the above-mentioned behaviors.

www.cdc.gov...

Alabama has a law similar to California's new law. Alaska has no such law at all. Why no hue and cry about that?

a reply to: Phage

Breitbart LOL some of it is actually quite good. It's not really much worse than a lot of so called mainstream media, guardian bbc nyt etc they are all full of crap at times.

Yes that's all people on the threa dare saying criminal charges, not being let off or getting a slap on the wrist.

So are you know admitting that in some cases criminal charges should be brought for serious criminal behaviour? Was that your position all along I don't remember seeing that.


California has downgraded such an act... which is what people are saying is stupid.

Intentionally Infecting Others with HIV No Longer a Felony in California

The new law makes the intentional transmission of the HIV virus a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 6 months, if the perpetrator acts with the specific intent to transmit the disease to another person. It also makes it a misdemeanor “to attempt to intentionally transmit an infectious and communicable disease,” punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 90 days.

www.breitbart.com...

aids 6 months others 90 days max. Fair I doubt it. You keep aids for life. You get more jial time for robbery or theft or whatever. Seems dumb.

originally posted by: ConscienceZombie
HIV aside...if I had small pox...I could just start rubbing my infectious skin on any and everyone only get a slap on the wrist in Cal...

Yeah that makes sense.

That's just a thought and I would never.

Ummm...sure...


Kindly keep your skin and it's associated infections...to yourself...good Sir/Mam/?



YouSir

a reply to: JimTSpock

aids 6 months others 90 days max.

Confusing AIDS with HIV? Typical of the ignorance and fear involved.

Intentionally Infecting Others with HIV No Longer a Felony in California

Good thing there are other laws against intentionally causing harm.

originally posted by: JimTSpock
a reply to: Phage

Breitbart LOL some of it is actually quite good. It's not really much worse than a lot of so called mainstream media, guardian bbc nyt etc they are all full of crap at times.

Have to agree with you on that. I know, I know, this is off topic but who can forget this absolute masterpiece of fear mongering and ignorance from CNN?




Hahahaha!

a reply to: Phage

OK hiv then happy. It makes little difference for this discussion. And no I'm not an expert on aids as you seem to be, we all know it's a fubar disease with no cure.

Ignorance and fear please. Could be any bad disease makes no difference.


And in california other charges such as assault are not applied as the judge above compalined about, max 6 months so your second point is wrong.


Basically I just think the punishment should fit the crime, which it doesn't seem to in this case, not the first time won't be the last time. There are a lot of stupid laws. That's my 2c don't agree fine.

a reply to: Phageok them phage suppose i give a girl a drink that i have put ketamine in and didn't tell her she then goes into a coma wakes a week later with massive brain damage i should get a ticket for 50 bucks and 50 hrs community service right .i didn't think so. i feel if you go and deliberately spread a deadly disease then a felony charge is definitely warranted. the problem here is the people in the pc culture trying to label this a gay disease.last i read cdc only experiments and store hiv in its bio hazard 4 labs with ebola and smallpox.

a reply to: JimTSpock

Could be any bad disease makes no difference.

HIV will now be handled like "any bad disease."

And in california other charges such as assault are not applied as the judge above compalined about, max 6 months so your second point is wrong

Blame the prosecutor. In 2015 he could have been charged with a felony based on his his actions.

a reply to: proteus33

suppose i give a girl a drink that i have put ketamine in and didn't tell her she then goes into a coma wakes a week later with massive brain damage i should get a ticket for 50 bucks and 50 hrs community service right

Wrong.

a reply to: Phage

I suspect if someone intentionally gave the child of one of those public health workers a costly, potentially fatal disease, they would agree it's not the same as if their child took a drug to get high. I'd still call that argument a red herring.

Other laws are meant to punish people for crimes where the damage to the victim is immediately apparent. HIV/AIDS can have it's impact many years in the future and kill the victim late in life long after the trial is over. It stands to reason that special laws are needed to take that into account.

a reply to: Mandroid7

But calling a person by the wrong gender could lead to imprisonment up to a year!

JAIL TIME FOR USING WRONG GENDER