POZ Community Forums
Main Forums => Living With HIV => Topic started by: tommyga on January 04, 2010, 09:56:58 am
-
I'd like to just throw it out there that I find this story on the homepage to be really disheartening. I know this is a sensitive issue, and we all have our own thoughts on it. I just can't reconcile in my own head that this 18 yo kid deserves 15 years in prison. I'm not condoning any actions by the guy, my heart just goes out to him and his family. That's a really tough sentence for someone so young, or older I guess.
I did see it was five felony counts, I guess it was 5 different women? I'm a little unsure how to feel about the story.
-
You wouldn't happen to have a link to the article would you?
-
This one I think
http://www.poz.com/articles/arkansas_christopher_gray_1_17803.shtml
Arkansas Man Gets 15 Years in Prison for HIV Felony
An 18-year-old Arkansas man born with HIV plead guilty December 21 to five counts of exposing another person to HIV, a class A felony in the state, NWAonline.com reports.
According to 4029tv.com, Christopher Gray was sentenced to 15 years in prison. He was arrested in April after police learned of the allegations from one of the women involved.
Court documents state that Gray told authorities he is HIV positive and had unprotected sex with the woman.
Prosecutors said none of the women involved tested positive for the virus.
-
You wouldn't happen to have a link to the article would you?
When Tommy said "homepage", he meant the POZ.com homepage.
http://www.poz.com/articles/arkansas_christopher_gray_1_17803.shtml
(Newt beat me to it I see....)
This is one of those cases where a draconian sentence was handed down when none of the other people involved tested positive.
And of course, once again, no mention of the personal responsibility of the negative people to protect themselves by insisting on condoms. ::)
Ann
-
Once again this LAZY ASS reporting - once again no mention of his treatment and viral status.... HIV/AIDS/ TYPHOID-MARY - its all the same thing to too many people
-
And of course, once again, no mention of the personal responsibility of the negative people to protect themselves by insisting on condoms. ::)
They all tested negative according to the arti... uh paragraph. I am not so sure using protection would have made any difference towards his conviction. I believe in Arkansas one must disclose their status if they know it, which he did not do.
-
Well I really do not know what to say about this? but, I think the women who had unprotected sex should be also held accounted for their stupidity... by not practicing safe sex... also at his age even if these women were not infected... he knew of his own infection of HIV ... if by chance should one of these women have been tested and were tested positive to the virus should he have been given the death penalty? I read where some people made comments of his ethinicity? african american (black) I really do not think it would make a difference whether he would have been caucasion (white) asian (yellow) but, I do think 15 years without one of these women testing positive is a harsh penalty... but, It all comes to the FACT (What was his INTENT?) and this maybe the basis where the judge made his verdict and sentenced him... Did he INTEND to spread the virus? I do not know? all the FACTS are not reported in this article...
-
We have this conversation over and over again in these threads.
Remember in some states the particularities of the HIV+/HIV- contact make NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER.
The HIV+ person could be on treatment and nondetectable - and the HIV- person could consent - still a crime.
The HIV+ person could not know his/her status - still a crime.
The HIV+ person could have sex, use protection, the HIV- person could affirm that protection was used - safe sex was had, but no disclosure beforehand - still a crime.
If we need to go on and on expressing our opinions about different permutations of the act, and the punishments, then we need to specify in each case the exact particulars.
And of course journalists don't know this, nor do small town newspaper editors, or even big town editors. Just get the same old shitty reporting and scare tactics and reprehensible prison sentences.
I guess the lift of the HIV travel ban will open some eyebrows - as to why its not a cause for alarm.
I'm surprised today their are not HIV- tea-partiers holding demonstrations at major ports and airports about the Typhoid Mary's now entering our country "to take advantage of the best medical care in the world" (which of course they can't afford) and to "spread their evil disease" (which is the farthest thing from people's minds...)
-
I'm not sure why potentially exposing somebody to HIV (on meds and undetectable, with consent, etc) is thought to be the same as actually infecting them. Waving a gun at a person, pointing a gun at a person, shooting a gun at a person, actually shooting a person, and killing a person with a gun are NOT the same and are not treated the same legally. We still have a LONG way to go.
-
The HIV+ person could not know his/her status - still a crime.
Where? I do not believe this is true anywhere. Please show us some proof.
-
Here's something from USA:
It seems to me similar cases have come up in Switzerland and Sweden - you're supposed to anticipate that you might have HIV by your history and its a civil crime of negligence if you don't know. It would appear to require transmission however, in the USA.
http://www.frontierspublishing.com/IN_archive/911/community_news/index.html
People Who Unknowingly Transmit HIV Can Be Sued
On July 3 the California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that people can sue the sexual partner who infected them with HIV, even if that partner did so unknowingly. It is a felony to knowingly expose or infect an unaware partner.
The ruling involved a heterosexual couple identified as Bridget B. and John B. Prior to their marriage in July 2000, John said he was healthy and monogamous and insisted they have unprotected sex, according to the Los Angeles Times. After Bridget tested HIV positive in October 2000, John admitted he had sex with men before their marriage but said he tested negative that August and blamed Bridget for infecting him.
In 2002 Bridget sued John for allegedly negligently or intentionally infecting her with HIV and in pretrial motions demanded John’s sexual history, according to Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report. The state Supreme Court ruled that she was entitled to information for the six months before he tested negative in August.
In the majority opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that "negligent transmission of HIV does not depend solely on actual knowledge of HIV infection," but also if the person "has reason to know" he or she might be living with the virus, according to Kaiser. "If only those who have been tested [for HIV] are subject to suit, there may be an incentive for some persons to avoid diagnosis.”
In a dissent, Justice Carlos Moreno wrote that the ruling "potentially licenses invasions into sexual privacy of all sexually active Californians and may even invite abuse of the judicial process" through “vengeance lawsuits.”
“I'm not sure what to think” about the ruling, said Michael Weinstein, president of AIDS Healthcare Foundation. “In the specifics of this case he seems culpable but the broader implications could get very messy and don't seem to be the right approach.”
-
Waving a gun at a person, pointing a gun at a person, shooting a gun at a person, actually shooting a person, and killing a person with a gun are NOT the same and are not treated the same legally.
While they are not all treated the same legally; if done so recklessly, or in commission of a felony , each of those circumstances will involve jail time. Respectfully, David this is a poor analogy in line with what I gather your stance is on this issue. I like the analogy myself though, because if I have a gun I must act responsibly with it and if I choose not to it is not the victims fault what so ever.
If everything in the article is factual: he knew he was positive, he did not disclose his status, and he did not use protection.. then I think he deserves to rethink his actions when he wants to have sex with other women in 15 years.
-
wonder how the story would have ended if he had been a girl with HIV...and the men would have all tested negative....would it still be the girls fault for not making the men wear a condom.....i think the punishment was far to much for this 18yr old boy...who was born with something so many of us got for our our stupid decisions....needless to say....i think the story would have been different had he been a girl...
-
wonder how the story would have ended if he had been a girl with HIV...and the men would have all tested negative....would it still be the girls fault for not making the men wear a condom.....i think the punishment was far to much for this 18yr old boy...who was born with something so many of us got for our our stupid decisions....needless to say....i think the story would have been different had he been a girl...
Actually there was a white woman who was sent away for supposedly infecting a slew of men on one of the Caribbean islands a while back... He gets my sympathy for being born with the dreaded virus, however that doesn't give him a free pass in life as many of us here have already experienced.
We really do not know all the facts here anyways. We are talking about Arkansas here and he's a black male.... it wouldn't be a longshot to guess this young man did not receive a fair trial and could possibly be innocent of the charges to begin with.
I googled it yesterday and could not find anything about it...
-
Waving a gun at a person, pointing a gun at a person, shooting a gun at a person, actually shooting a person, and killing a person with a gun are NOT the same and are not treated the same legally.
Though I agree that not all the laws treating the HIV/sexual intercourse issue are uniform or correct, I too disagree with using guns as the analogy. While all though the incidents you mention do have varied sentences and accountablity attached to each, they are however all crimes. Using the gun analogy in this case seems to imply that you believe what he did was illegal and potentially dangerous, it's just the degree and sentence that you take issue with.
I'm not sure why potentially exposing somebody to HIV (on meds and undetectable, with consent, etc) is thought to be the same as actually infecting them.
because exposure is the first step to being infected. ;)
Just like all those girls that claim they can't get pregnant because it hasn't happened to them yet. Each exposure potentially leads to the pregnancy (or the STD infection). Also if the negative person can't depend on the pozzie disclosing or not lying when disclosing, then how can they take the word about the pozzie's VL count.
I would imagine that someday the laws will have to determine that unless condoms were used, BOTH parties are liable are in these cases, and probably with the cavaet of only when infection occurs.
-
Though I agree that not all the laws treating the HIV/sexual intercourse issue are uniform or correct, I too disagree with using guns as the analogy. While all though the incidents you mention do have varied sentences and accountablity attached to each, they are however all crimes. Using the gun analogy in this case seems to imply that you believe what he did was illegal and potentially dangerous, it's just the degree and sentence that you take issue with.
because exposure is the first step to being infected. ;)
Just like all those girls that claim they can't get pregnant because it hasn't happened to them yet. Each exposure potentially leads to the pregnancy (or the STD infection). Also if the negative person can't depend on the pozzie disclosing or not lying when disclosing, then how can they take the word about the pozzie's VL count.
I would imagine that someday the laws will have to determine that unless condoms were used, BOTH parties are liable are in these cases, and probably with the cavaet of only when infection occurs.
And so is undisclosed HIV exposure... at least in Arkansas. I don't think that anybody, including you, can make a one-size-fits-all argument for or against his actions being 100% legal / right or illegal / wrong. For one thing, we don't know the particulars. Do I think it's right for an HIV+ person, undetectable or not, to go around having unprotected sex without disclosing... especially as a top? Absolutely not. Being heterosexual sex, I assume he was a top. Although not without any risks, an HIV+ bottom (woman or man) is less likely to infect. Adding to all of this is the fact that some states require disclosure for any sexual contact (oral, vaginal, or anal). Failure to disclose is punishable.
What I attempted to demonstrate is that while most of us understand the varying degrees of 'severity' in the gun (as a potentially deadly weapon) analogy, most still don't seem to understand the risks or non-risks of HIV transmission - eating or drinking after an HIV+ person, kissing, oral sex, vaginal sex, anal sex, the reduced likelihood of transmission when one is undetectable, etc. That's why I said:
Waving a gun at a person, pointing a gun at a person, shooting a gun at a person, actually shooting a person, and killing a person with a gun are NOT the same and are not treated the same legally.
None are considered OK (obvious exceptions excluded), and laws reflect the differences. None of the girls were infected, I don't gather that he intended to infect them, etc.
-
I would imagine that someday the laws will have to determine that unless condoms were used, BOTH parties are liable are in these cases, and probably with the cavaet of only when infection occurs.
I wish they would do this, because as it stands right now we have no other choice but to accept full responsibility in the courtroom.
And so is undisclosed HIV exposure... at least in Arkansas. I don't think that anybody, including you, can make a one-size-fits-all argument for or against his actions being 100% legal / right or illegal / wrong. For one thing, we don't know the particulars. Do I think it's right for an HIV+ person, undetectable or not, to go around having unprotected sex without disclosing... especially as a top? Absolutely not. Being heterosexual sex, I assume he was a top. Although not without any risks, an HIV+ bottom (woman or man) is less likely to infect. Adding to all of this is the fact that some states require disclosure for any sexual contact (oral, vaginal, or anal). Failure to disclose is punishable.
What I attempted to demonstrate is that while most of us understand the varying degrees of 'severity' in the gun (as a potentially deadly weapon) analogy, most still don't seem to understand the risks or non-risks of HIV transmission - eating or drinking after an HIV+ person, kissing, oral sex, vaginal sex, anal sex, the reduced likelihood of transmission when one is undetectable, etc. That's why I said:None are considered OK (obvious exceptions excluded), and laws reflect the differences. None of the girls were infected, I don't gather that he intended to infect them, etc.
I understood what you meant, I was just saying regardless of situation if you act irresponsibly with your weapon it will land you in the clink.
-
I wish they would do this, because as it stands right now we have no other choice but to accept full responsibility in the courtroom.
I understood what you meant, I was just saying regardless of situation if you act irresponsibly with your weapon it will land you in the clink.
Bingo! And that's what I meant with 'We still have a LONG way to go."
-
Personally I think the gun analogy is a good one legally speaking, in that you can own a gun and not tell anyone or cause them any harm when they are exposed to it. Of course it is different, cos gun owners are the heart of American and people with HIV are not.
Exposure being a criminal or even a civil offence (except perhaps in very few public health circumstances), is to my mind is plain wrong even if it is the law. The law should be changed. Period.
Harm is the basis of assault, and exposure does not equal harm. As for non-disclosure, it may be morally wrong (in most circumstances), but criminal? Nah! There are many things that should be criminal not to disclose in sexual encounters if that is the case.
Plus, sweeties, if you belong to or hang with someone from a high risk group, which in the US includes all African Americans, get real, protect yourself. This ain't no nanny state eh?
The guy was a kid when he committed the first "offence". Exactly what support do African American kids HIV-positive from birth get in Arkansas?
This is an injustice and everyone here should be filling Obama's inbox telling him so.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/
- matt
-
Personally I think the gun analogy is a good one legally speaking, in that you can own a gun and not tell anyone or cause them any harm when they are exposed to it. Of course it is different, cos gun owners are the heart of American and people with HIV are not.
What I meant when I said it was a poor analogy is that if he(and you) support the kid not disclosing his status and having unprotected sex then comparing it to any kind of gun usage means you actually support him going to jail.
Wave a gun at a traffic light and guess what? If caught you go to jail. Is that wrong?
Exposure does not equal harm? That's a new one to me... of course you must be of the thinking that HIV is one of those manageable diseases all of us here usually hate it to be labeled as.
Exposure and infection equals harm. Does not matter what the kids intent was, point is he knew he was positive and had unprotected sex.
In the eyes of the negative population the world does not revolve around those who are positive. Besides, what would be his motivation for not disclosing? Why hide it? Could it be perhaps his little sexual conquest will reject him? So he gets to empty his nuts and that should just be OK... no matter how many times or who with?
-
all this conjecture and we dont have the details of his actions nor his body.
if he was born with HIV, good chance he is on HAART and undetectable so maybe he took it upon himself to decide what was a risk or not for other people.
-
But if i go to your house or get in your car and the gun's on the wall or in your glove pocket I don't. Even if I go hunting n shoot you by accident I don't (often).
Exposure to HIV without transmission...and the harm is....?
No it don't wash, exposure, with me, I don't see how, I don't see how unless everyone with a sneeze during the swine flu pandemic who travelled on public transport/went to an office also got 3 years or everyone who gets in car also.
Exposure to potential dangers being criminal in this way is just bad law, and perhaps reinforced by a certain guilt in some people maybe. HIV specific exposure laws, like HIV biting laws, are just a way to hammer people in the margins. We need to get over them and stand up as people.
I am not even concerned about the actual risk of transmission, more the principle.
- matt
-
Personally I think the gun analogy is a good one legally speaking, in that you can own a gun and not tell anyone or cause them any harm when they are exposed to it.
But if i go to your house or get in your car and the gun's on the wall or in your glove pocket I don't. Even if I go hunting n shoot you by accident I don't (often).
if we're going to continue the analogy of gun to HIV infection (shudder), then just owning a gun is like the HIV-infected person staying celibate, not an HIV person having sex and possibly transmitting the disease. Of course there's no crime there. Showing off your gun to someone in your home is still celibacy. BUT the minute you start brandishing that gun around in public, then it is a criminal offense. I doubt we're talking about celibacy, so I still don't like the analogy that equates HIV-pos sex to wielding a gun. I would think most of us really don't want out HIV pos image equated to gun usage either, it's not a good public image at all; but on the other hand, untreated HIV is nearly as deadly as a gun.
Harm is the basis of assault, and exposure does not equal harm.
Exposure to HIV without transmission...and the harm is....?
I would argue that your innocuous term of "exposure" is not correct term to use for what is in many cases an injection of infected sperm into another person. Although I will agree that "Exposure doesn't equal harm" - until that "omigod I'm pregnant" or "you've tested poz for HIV" moment. Without a guarantee of non-transmission then each exposure is potentially harmful. Going back to the gun analogy, then it's like playing Russian Roulette. Of coursing providing the gun and bullets will make you guilty of manslaughter when that other person has their last bout of bad luck and dies.
I don't see how unless everyone with a sneeze during the swine flu pandemic who travelled on public transport/went to an office also got 3 years or everyone who gets in car also.
Though swine flu can be deadly, it is not as deadly as HIV and that comparison isn't the best to use. You'd be better on the mark if you talked about jailing the parents of the infected child who sneezed and gave it to his classmate who the flu killed, since it killed mostly children this time around.
Hmm. good idea though. If we passed some laws like that, think of the health benefits when fewer people were infected. In offices around the world, we often know exactly who brought the bug and spread it around. Won't it be great to jail them to teach them a lesson, and keep us healthier?
Exposure being a criminal or even a civil offence (except perhaps in very few public health circumstances), is to my mind is plain wrong even if it is the law. The law should be changed. Period.
Harm is the basis of assault, and exposure does not equal harm. As for non-disclosure, it may be morally wrong (in most circumstances), but criminal? Nah! There are many things that should be criminal not to disclose in sexual encounters if that is the case.
So you've established that "exposure" can BE an offense in some cases; now we just have to determine where to draw that line.
You've even established that it's morally wrong to not disclose (though you did leave an out for that statement), but it's a little hard to get everyone to behave morally. Since there's no way to regulate people's morality then, all that can be done is to criminally deal with the aftermath.
Personally, as one who believes that I am my brother's keeper, when I hear someone say that they are not going to disclose but silently potentially pass along a terminal illness with no warning just to satisfy their own selfish sexual desires, morally I find that quite abhorrent. I think that's why I'm always going to be on one side of this disclosure/criminal issue with some of you on the other side. I just can't advocate that HIV-infected people should be allowed to potentially pass this terrible disease along and suffer no consequences. I'm trying to stop the spread of HIV by not spreading it. I wish some of you weren't so adamant about having the right to potentially continue this pandemic while possibly causing someone's death. We'll definitely have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Exactly what support do African American kids HIV-positive from birth get in Arkansas?
but back to the actual topic at hand:
since we don't know much about this kid, that's an awful racist elitist assumption on your part. I believe the implied comment that you're making against that state could be made against any other state in the Union.
as to the support he might have received, I would imagine his doctors, along with several social workers, and hopefully some health/sex education have told him some about the transmission of HIV. Of course, not assuming anything since the article tells us so little about the actual case, even both his parents should have talked to him about transmission risks. If not them, then all those great PSA spots on MTV did - just like they did for me back in the 1990s. And if none of that worked, then all of the HIV-prevention money in America has obviously been wasted as you also seem to be implying that none of the current prevention programs would be geared towards reaching this target group.
However, if we follow along with what I think your implied opinion of AK is, then there have been plenty of racist and/or homophobic haters that have informed him that he's a carrier of a deadly disease.
-
Well, I reckon, in English law at least, a weapon is a weapon.
Showing off your gun is boasting not celibacy and beside the point. Brandishing that gun around in public, that's where tha analogy falls down. That's intimidating the public. Sex between two people, stupid or no, when it's consensual and in private is a different scneario.
The law was framed in the first place to demonise HIV-positive people.
-
Somehow, some of you guys have missed my point with the gun analogy. I'll try to explain, with much detail, to avoid any further confusion. Here goes... we all understand the various examples of how one can get into legal trouble with a gun. The laws are pretty easy to understand, and punishments are more severe when there's actual injury or death. I think most people won't have a hard time understanding the basis behind most gun laws. HIV laws, on the other hand, are not always based on facts. What if the gun was intentionally empty when it was aimed at another individual's head? That would make a difference in the charge and sentence. What if the HIV+ partner was on meds, undetectable, and no fluids were exchanged (and thus no infection)? According to some state's laws, that's of no concern; the law was broken. We (the public in general) need to change laws based on early 80's fears of HIV that were not based on science.
-
when it's consensual and in private is a different scneario.
Would that sex be consensual if the positive party disclosed though? Why not disclose? Like I asked before is it purely because of the rejection aspect of it? You and I both know that's what it is and with that knowledge, how can we say it's right?
-
that fucking sucks. the dude was poz from birth, right? and he had consensual sex but did not disclose? that part is def wrong but not worth imprisonment. adding insult to injury? he didnt even infect the broads. like ann said...those chicks needed to engage in dialogue with dude about his status.
now...if ive got something wrong don't attack me. i didnt read the article thoroughly. have a good day.
-
I'm with Anne, OK he should have disclosed (and who's to say the women didn't lie about him not), but what about their responsibility to themselves in insisting protection was used.
The laws essentially labelling them victims when they weren't, OK he was wrong having sex without a condom, but it not All his fault, sounds like the legal system is getting screwier than ever