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

a reply to: Phageyes its a virus but so is smallpox and i am pretty sure there smallpox weapons out there. you can weaponize most thinks phage. if i struck someone in head with a frying pan and cracked there head open i should get off charges because a skillet is n't a weapon.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

I remember hearing that around world war two era, spitting was illegal due to the spread of tuberculosis. Fast forward 70 years and aids is allowable? Whose making these laws, some crackhead it would seem.

BRILLIANT ...THAT should thin out resistance.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

So your political opposition is people with AIDS?

.

a reply to: DisinfoEqualsTerrorism

I 'd have to care about politics AND trust some people first,I don't ,ANYONE at all.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Neither do I

a reply to: Phage

I'll leave it at anyone who would knowingly expose someone to HIV without telling them and do so on purpose deserves extremely harsh punishment. It's not logical to say otherwise IMO.

Comparing it to drug use is in my honest opinion a logical fallacy. People who use Heroin do so knowingly and do it to themselves and it simply does not make sense comparing it to giving someone an expensive to treat, potentially fatal disease on purpose.

Because it may or may not change behavior does not mean it does not deserve punishment and the public does not deserve to be protected from a sociopath who would do that. Remember, we are talking about someone who does it on purpose and would likely do it again. A genuine danger to society.

a reply to: Blaine91555

I'll leave it at anyone who would knowingly expose someone to HIV without telling them and do so on purpose deserves extremely harsh punishment. It's not logical to say otherwise IMO.

Posted previously:

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...

Comparing it to drug use is in my honest opinion a logical fallacy. People who use Heroin do so knowingly and do it to themselves and it simply does not make sense comparing it to giving someone an expensive to treat, potentially fatal disease on purpose.

Public health workers disagree with you.

Of course, their concern is public health, not retribution for something which might, but very probably won't, happen. That something being an HIV infection.

Their concern is that such laws could well be counterproductive.

originally posted by: PillarOfFire
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Whose making these laws, some crackhead it would seem.

Liberals.

good i say, the less Californians we have the better. they are like walking hiv.

a reply to: JourneymanWelder
Alabama too? Pretty much the same as California's new to be, law.

Under Alabama’s communicable disease exposure statute, any person with a sexually transmitted disease, including HIV, may be imprisoned for up to three months and/or fined up to $500 if they “knowingly” transmit the disease, assume the risk of transmitting disease, or perform any act that will probably or likely transmit such disease to another person. Neither the intent to transmit the disease nor actual transmission is required for prosecution.

Alaska?

Alaska has no statute explicitly criminalizing HIV transmission or exposure, but enhanced sentencing may be applied based on a defendant’s HIV status if they are found guilty of one of several specified sex offenses.

You can work your way through the alphabet.


Source

a reply to: Phage

You're just chock full of logical fallacies lately, aren't you Phage?

OK, let's look at Alabama's Criminal Code:

Section 13A-6-20
Assault in the first degree.

(a) A person commits the crime of assault in the first degree if:

(1) With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he or she causes serious physical injury to any person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument; or

(2) With intent to disfigure another person seriously and permanently, or to destroy, amputate, or disable permanently a member or organ of the body of another person, he or she causes such an injury to any person; or

(3) Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, he or she recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes serious physical injury to any person; or

(4) In the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempted commission of arson in the first degree, burglary in the first or second degree, escape in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree, rape in the first degree, robbery in any degree, sodomy in the first degree or any other felony clearly dangerous to human life, or of immediate flight therefrom, he or she causes a serious physical injury to another person; or

(5) While driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance or any combination thereof in violation of Section 32-5A-191 or 32-5A-191.3, he or she causes serious physical injury to the person of another with a vehicle or vessel.

(b) Assault in the first degree is a Class B felony.

I believe a lawyer worth his salt could easily argue that purposely failing to disclose a potentially fatal sexually transmitted disease to a potential sex partner would constitute "extreme indifference to the value of human life" and "reckless conduct" which "creates a grave risk of death to another person." 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.

TheRedneck

You have unprotected sex with strangers your taking a risk, it's not that complicated, Get used to the reality that bad people are out there and will be happy to hurt you... FFS personal responsibility must be a thing of the past.

Now I understand why warnings go out at thanksgiving for people not to deep fry their frozen turkeys and kill themselves.

a reply to: Phage

So using your logic you'd be against forced vaccinations? I mean one must be consistent after all...

Couldn't read all 9 pages. Just wanted to ask, has anyone discussed risk of transmission? Because it is relevant. Aids is not like other stds. Herpes, hepatitis, etc generally have pretty reliable transmission, on the order of 25% risk of infection for men (straight). Yes, it's higher for women, and for gay men. Hiv, on the other hand, has a 1 in 1000 chance for transmission to a male (straight) partner without using protection.

This is why 1/4 of the people you know have herpes, most everyone has had some sti, whether it's chlamydia, gonorrhea etc, but few if any of our close friends generally have aids. It's not because we are safer with sex, or more educated....all other stds continue to spread quickly, hiv rates have generally stayed the same or close, percentage wise, since the 80s.

So, no, it's not a terribly real threat....one could (and I do) look at hepatitis as a more serious threat.... generally leads to cirrhosis, elevated risk of liver cancer (90%, I believe, if you don't die of something else first), and much more contagious, and here in the U.S. only the rich can afford the cure at 80-90k.

Actually, looking on the cdc right now, it lists the risk of infection to straight male intercourse as 1 in 2500, with women being 1 in 1250. Gay male receptive anal is a bit higher at 138 in 10000, but not by a huge amount, though they do tend to be more promiscuous and have more partners.

Intentionally giving someone a potentially fatal disease, technically that would be attempted murder would it not.

This could be a loop hole to actually kill people with biological weapons. Totally crazy on many levels.

The key word here is intentional. If a person is intentionally infecting other people with any serious disease, I think most people would consider that a very serious matter. A disease which is potentially fatal and can reduce life expectancy considerably, whatever the disease, is a serious matter and not some small thing.

a reply to: JimTSpock

Well, according to the statistic, a man would have to have sex with a woman over 1000x to give her aids. That's not a one night stand with intent to kill, that's a 2-4 year relationship.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Lolliek

How about herpes. No cure. Right?

Is Herpes Fatal? Sheesh man....

Guess you must already have AIDS and would be one of the people supporting this....Why else would you be ok with this??

Not very smart for a supposed smart person.