Indiana Man Sentenced To 3 Years, Awaits Jury Trial

[tednlou2]

I drove up to central Indiana today for my mom's b-day.  I always turn on WISH-TV, a station where I interned, to see what they're covering.  This was the story playing when I turned it on. 

I admit I'm a huge flip-flopper on this issue.  On the one hand, I hate the criminalization of HIV.  On the other hand, I have a hard time saying there should be zero repercussions for someone who knowingly puts one person after the next at risk without telling them, regardless of their responsibility to protect themselves.  We've had these discussions here several times.  Even while watching the story, I would think it is so wrong to put him in prison and would roll my eyes when the "victim" says she's been through so much hell.  I said aloud, "What hell have they been through?  They're neg!"  My best friend has been told by 3 guys after sex that they are poz.  He got tested and moved on.  He knew he made the decision to have sex with them without knowing their status and without protecting himself.  Then, I switch to this guy knew exactly what he was doing and this wasn't an isolated mistake and that I'm sure the women did go through a lot of stress and fear waiting for those results.  He wanted sex with multiple partners without the inconvenience of having to disclose.  So, I don't know what the answer is. 

He was sentenced to 3 years for some of the charges.  He will have a jury trial early next year for the rest.  There is something I hadn't heard before in this case.  Child porn was allegedly found in his home.  So, that will be a charge as well.

http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/south_central/suspected-hiv-predator-gets-3-years-awaits-jury-trial?ref=scroller&categoryId=10001&status=true 

[spacebarsux]

I just read the words “HIV predator” on that link and refused to click on it.

Criminalization of HIV transmission is justifiable if, and only if, a who person knows his or her own HIV status, acts with the intention to transmit it, and does in fact transmit it.

In any other instance, as there is no malicious thought or “mens rea” nor is someone hurt as a result, the mere thought of criminalization smacks of inhumanity. Moreover, it just drives stigma by labelling people with an already stigmatized illness as ‘predators’, which only frightens people into from getting tested and this not only exacerbates the spread of the epidemic but also severely hardens 'wholly misplaced prejudices' in the eyes of the HIV-negative majority population. 

It serves no useful purpose other than the media getting their rocks off in hyperbolic and twisted coverage. 

I also find HIV specific laws, very draconian and absurd. Why don’t they enact statutes for transmission of Hepatitis, HPV and other pathogens?

I don’t see why general criminal provisions can’t be applied to cases of intentional transmission (if at all such cases occur  ), if courts in whichever jurisdiction, are so determined in venturing down what I see as a vile and slippery slope.

[mecch]

In any other instance, as there is no malicious thought or “mens rea” nor is someone hurt as a result, the mere thought of criminalization smacks of inhumanity. Moreover, it just drives stigma by labelling people with an already stigmatized illness as ‘predators’, which only frightens people into getting tested and this not only exacerbates the spread of the epidemic but also severely hardens 'wholly misplaced prejudices' in the eyes of the HIV-negative majority population. 

Do you mean frightens people away from getting tested?

[RapidRod]

We just had one in Cincinnati and he has not been tried in Warren and Butler counties for non disclosure and his sentencing will be over 108 years.

[spacebarsux]

Do you mean frightens people away from getting tested?

Sorry, my mistake.

Yes, I meant that it's also awful public health policy as it only frightens people from getting tested and thus furthers the spread of the epidemic rather than curtail it.

[buginme2]

1.  Ted, the subject of this thread is off.  One cannot be sentenced to any time in jail without having a jury trial.  The subject makes it sound like he was sentenced before his trial. 

2.  All criminalization based on someones HIV status is wrong IMHO

3.  There is information regarding pending legislation to end the criminialization of HIV below my posting underneath my CD4/VL stats etc.  Everyone in the States should read it and contact their representative/senator and tell them to support it.

[buginme2]

So apparently with the new system the forums is using its cutting that link off and its not working, here is the correct link, anyone know how I can fix it?

http://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/view/650

[Ann]

1.  Ted, the subject of this thread is off.  One cannot be sentenced to any time in jail without having a jury trial.  The subject makes it sound like he was sentenced before his trial. 

He's been sentenced for two charges to which he already plead guilty. He waiting trial for other, additional charges. Did you read the article, or just comment on what you thought it was about? 

GREENWOOD, Ind. (WISH) - A Greenwood man accused of not telling his sexual partners he was infected with HIV was sentenced Tuesday to three years in prison for two of his charges.

Tony Perkins had pleaded guilty to the two charges of failure to warn. He was sentenced for a year and a half for each charge, and they’ll be served consecutively. Perkins will be credited for 546 days he’s been in jail.

Perkins faces 15 additional charges — 14 for failure to warm, and one for possessing child pornography. For those charges, he’ll face a jury trial preliminarily set for Feb. 21.

Perkins had tried to change his guilty plea on the two charges, but a judge denied it.

So apparently with the new system the forums is using its cutting that link off and its not working, here is the correct link, anyone know how I can fix it?

http://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/view/650

There's nothing wrong with the link in your sig line or the link in your post. I don't get it?

[Since2005]

HIV criminalization should be banned period!! There is no if or buts about it! It takes TWO people to have unprotected sex. By any means, I am not encouraging anyone NOT to disclose. Neggies are as responsible as pozzies. Use the damn protection (pointing at negs ALSO), ridiculous to blame someone else ONLY for your own mistake. I am not saying pozzies don't have any responsibilities. All I am saying, both parties should equally  be responsible ( meaning both at no fault).

I got HIV from someone and he didn't tell me. We were both drunk. Was I mad, sure, but I was more upset at me than him. It was me who has made the decision to have unprotected sex. I think I was equally responsible for the incident.

I hope the law makers will realize soon that HIV criminalization encourages stigma and discourages people to NOT get tested. HIV criminalization (via reckless behavior/ sex) should be banned in the States. I gotta say some European countries  are far ahead on this issue.

Edited to add:
Since2005 (who is NOT encouraging to lie about the status, all for disclosures- gotta spell this one out!! And who takes a huge stand banning HIV criminalization not because he is poz but because that's Right)

[RapidRod]

There is no excuse for a positive person to lie and not disclose about there status and put someone else at risk.

[buginme2]

There is no excuse for a positive person to lie and not disclose about there status and put someone else at risk.

No, but the person shouldnt spend time in prison for it.  We don't imprison people who smoke near other people (when we know that second hand smoke causes cancer), we dont put parents in prison for smoking when their children are around.  We don't even put mothers who smoke crack while their pregnant and end up with crack babies in prison. 

HIV criminalization just doesnt even make sense.  Especially since half the time the person is being prosecuted when transmission isnt even a possibility.

@Ann, I changed my link..the one before didnt work, I can only assume it was too long and when it wrapped around it stopped working.  Yes I read the article.

[Since2005]

And, the other side of the HIV criminalization is that, even after full disclosure, someone can harass the poz person saying pozzie lied even if he/she didn't. Even if a neg person can't prove that, still can put the poz person through tough times (reputation, time, money, etc.).  That's not fair!  Both should be hold responsible (at no fault), just not the pozzie!

Until HIV criminalization is banned, we can't expect that stigma will go away.

[spacebarsux]

I think there is a difference between a negligent/ reckless poz person who exposes someone else due to slipping up in an inebriated stupor where his/her raging hormones prevent him/her from thinking rationally/reasonably and someone who with a clear and conscious mind acts with the malicious intent to cause harm by transmitting the virus and does in fact transmit it.

The first guy may be an asshole but I feel the criminal justice system in any country should "only" get involved in the second situation, if at all. The second guy should be booked under the 'general criminal laws' of the land rather than some special HIV code as he is no different than someone causing grievous injury/ bodily harm.

However, what then becomes of concern is that miscarriages of justice could easily occur if the courts interpret 'malicious intent' too broadly and thereby include the first guy's reckless behaviour as malicious enough to be punished- which is why I feel it is like getting on a very slippery slope ! Plus these things always boil down to 'he said', 'she said' type scenarios and 'evil intent' becomes hard to prove. And I don't think Jurys view this kind of stuff as dispassionately as is needed.

Even though I personally intensely dislike the thought of any poz person being labelled as a criminal offender, I think it's totally unrealistic for any criminal court in any country to allow the second guy to go completely scot free- and they have a point.

Where, how and with what degree of clarity and precision the courts draw the line between how they treat the first guy and the second guy is what's most important, I think.

Besides, do people like the second guy even exist?

[mecch]

Most people like sex. A lot of people go out of their way to get it. Some people are all frustrated about sex. Most people sometimes get screwed in more ways then one, or the reverse, screw over another person, getting the sex they want.

Everybody likes sex when there are all pluses and no minuses.  Nobody likes the downside of sex, when sometimes it delivers a steaming pile of crap into your life.

I think some HIV+ people blame themselves only.  Some of these people sometimes never forgive themselves for this crap, and I think that's not good for living well. 
Some HIV+ mostly reject personal responsibility and blame the other exclusively. This always reminds me of bitter divorced people or bitter victims. 
Some people blame everyone and carry that mentality too long.
Some people blame everyone and then get over the blame game.
Some people never even consider the blame game (and I admire that mentality!).

Why anyone would PURSUE a case of emotional damage for a non-disclosure when there is NO transmission is beyond...  beyond... I dunno. I think even if there is a law, to be party to such a suit is screwed up.  Besides that, I guess sometimes the law enforcement can even just pursue these cases against a person (always a Typhoid Mary) without the supposed victims really being motivated to do so? A crime is a crime, I suppose the reasoning is.

(Some women lunch at the Plaza, ski in St. Moritz, and buy expensive furs every year. Some women just look that way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg8Oj4Q_wB4&feature=related)

[LM]

I think there is a difference between a negligent/ reckless poz person who exposes someone else due to slipping up in an inebriated stupor where his/her raging hormones prevent him/her from thinking rationally/reasonably and someone who with a clear and conscious mind acts with the malicious intent to cause harm by transmitting the virus and does in fact transmit it.

The first guy may be an asshole but I feel the criminal justice system in any country should "only" get involved in the second situation, if at all. The second guy should be booked under the 'general criminal laws' of the land rather than some special HIV code as he is no different than someone causing grievous injury/ bodily harm.

However, what then becomes of concern is that miscarriages of justice could easily occur if the courts interpret 'malicious intent' too broadly and thereby include the first guy's reckless behaviour as malicious enough to be punished- which is why I feel it is like getting on a very slippery slope ! Plus these things always boil down to 'he said', 'she said' type scenarios and 'evil intent' becomes hard to prove. And I don't think Jurys view this kind of stuff as dispassionately as is needed.

Even though I personally intensely dislike the thought of any poz person being labelled as a criminal offender, I think it's totally unrealistic for any criminal court in any country to allow the second guy to go completely scot free- and they have a point.

Where, how and with what degree of clarity and precision the courts draw the line between how they treat the first guy and the second guy is what's most important, I think.

Besides, do people like the second guy even exist?

I agree with you completely, and everything you said before too.

I don't know if the person who infected me knew about the virus. I think he did. But I know it's my fault. I wouldn't sue him or anything like that, I wasn't forced to do it.

But anyway, there was a case of a man who went to jail here because of transmitting HIV. The law here says that it's a crime to intentionally transmit an infectious disease like HIV. Like you said, it's difficult to prove someone had the intention of doing it, even if he knew his status, so it's hard to have a case. However, in this man's case, what happened was that he knew he was poz, and he used condoms with his wife, but then he got a mistress, and didn't use condoms with her and infected her with the virus. So since he cared about his wife's health, but not about his mistress, he was found guilty.

[mecch]

There are always gonna be isolated cases in which most people would say, that was a gross transgression and malicious intent of an HIV+ person to harm someone.  However, the reason HIV criminalisation has got to go is the overall view, of the plusses and the minuses. For a "population".  A population is not served well by these laws.

Its somewhat like capital punishment. Around the world, most people can understand the isolated cases in which the death penalty feels or can be argued to be appropriate.  But generally, capital punishment is inhuman.

[Growler]

I'm armed, I'm dangerous, I'm packing heat and so being a responsible citizen before I pull my weapon and shoot, I give a warning.

GROWLER (Who wants a six shooter)

[SANJUANDUDE]

http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/south_central/suspected-hiv-predator-gets-3-years-awaits-jury-trial?ref=scroller&categoryId=10001&status=true

There is someone that I know, and NO, he is not a friend.  I know him, and I have had conversations with him in the past.  I have been to his place in a platonic way.  This person tested positive back in the late 90's.  He's always been very full of himself and has to be the ***center of attention at all times, everywhere and anytime.     He was talking to me about HIV at his place and showed me, in a shoebox, he had hidden away, his HIV meds.  I don't know to this day whether or not he takes them or not and do not care.  So this gentleman for lack of a better word, tested HIV+.  No big deal, right. 

As I said, he always has to be the center of attention.  Also, from what I could tell and you will learn in in just a moment, he was endowed better than most horses.   This person got a role in a few adult entertainment (gay) films.   I was shocked!!!!!!  Literally shocked!!!!!!  I do not, repeat do not, own the dvd's; however, I have seen clips of some of his "work" .  Would everyone in here like to hear this.  He was not, was not, in any clip that I ever saw wearing a condom.  These are films made in the US.  Like I said, none of my business, but I would think that the studio had a responsibility to protect the other models.  Yes, of course, each and every model was a consenting adult, but they clearly do not test for such a thing prior.

I have never let this leave my lips who and where it is, but it is my understanding he is still around.

http://timehasshownme.com

[Ann]

James, I've merged your new thread into a thread already going about the subject.

Ann

[Ann]

I have never let this leave my lips who and where it is, but it is my understanding he is still around.

You don't have to. The article that both you and the OP linked to tells us who and where he is. And he's not "still around", he's in jail.


Or wait a minute... ~scratches head~ ... are you saying you know the guy in the article, or are you talking about someone of whom the guy in the article reminds you ? Because with what you titled your thread/post, it leads me to believe you're talking about Tony Perkins, from the article.

[mecch]

Clutches pearls!  You mean hiv+ people work in porn?  Horrors.  Where are my smelling salts!


Maybe he was in bareback porn, man. Which does employ both HIV+ actors and HIV- actors who consent to the risks they are taking.

Whats your point? That there are selfish narcissistic people among HIV+ people, and they might put others at risk.  Yep.

So does your reckless horsehung acquaintance lead you to support criminalization of HIV or not?  Spell it out, please.

[SANJUANDUDE]

the article is similar to the story I told, that is why I added the link originally here.  Actually, NO, to the other person who replied, I had no idea, for real, no idea, that HIV+ persons worked in porn, bareback yet.

http://timehasshownme.com

[leatherman]

(when we know that second hand smoke causes cancer)

going off topic just a bit, but since we're talking about medical facts, like bona fide transmission as evidence, second hand smoke CAN cause cancer - not DOES cause cancer. Actually both smoking and second hand smoke neither causes cancer 100% of the time. Of course, there is a very high risk; but the chances are not anywhere near 100%.

So while you are suggesting the contrast that 2nd hand smoke does cause cancer and people should be jailed for that; unlike someone that doesn't transmit HIV should not be jailed; I am suggesting that in actuality, exposure to 2nd hand smoke doesn't guarantee cancer just like exposure to HIV doesn't 100% of the time cause seroconversion, so neither should be jailed.

[Assurbanipal]

going off topic just a bit, but since we're talking about medical facts, like bona fide transmission as evidence, second hand smoke CAN cause cancer - not DOES cause cancer. Actually both smoking and second hand smoke neither causes cancer 100% of the time. Of course, there is a very high risk; but the chances are not anywhere near 100%.

Barebacking CAN cause HIV transmission.  But it isn't guaranteed 100% of the time.

kinda like secondhand smoke and cancer, no?

But it is considered ok for smokers to light up without asking bystanders.  Whereas barebacking without permission is assault.

[leatherman]

But it is considered ok for smokers to light up without asking bystanders.  Whereas barebacking without permission is assault.

this comparison is not quite correct either as barebacking without permission sounds like rape. probably the better comparison in this situation is smokers not asking permission from bystanders nearby to conduct a legal act compared to both partners neglecting to demand that protection be used during consensual sexual activities.

Whereas barebacking without permission is assault.

what is barebacking WITH permission then? Not a crime, I would imagine
Is permission implied if the person doesn't specifically state otherwise?
What if transmission occurs?

[Assurbanipal]

My point was simply that barebacking usually has a greater degree of consent from the potentially harmed party than does exposure to second hand smoke.

But the penalties are reversed.

[mecch]

Soi disant victims who prosecute HIV+ people for crimes of nondisclosure but no transmissions - should themselves receive 40 lashes with a limp HIV+ penis and a mandatory safesex education class.

[Ann]

the article is similar to the story I told, that is why I added the link originally here.  Actually, NO, to the other person who replied, I had no idea, for real, no idea, that HIV+ persons worked in porn, bareback yet.

Thanks for the clarification, James.

I'm surprised you never heard of poz porn. In fact, we have a member here (he doesn't post much these days) who worked in porn and he started this very popular thread! (Said thread has the top position in both the "Top 10 Topics (by Replies)" and the "Top 10 Topics (by Views)" in our stats section.)

[Miss Philicia]

poz porn is a bit of a misnomer. The assumption is that with bareback gay porn the actors are paired according to +/-, but in condom gay porn they don't test or sort partners, or at least most studios do not.

[Ann]

poz porn is a bit of a misnomer. The assumption is that with bareback gay porn the actors are paired according to +/-, but in condom gay porn they don't test or sort partners, or at least most studios do not.

Wasn't the company that Jeremy worked for one that was wholly - or at least had a subdivision - one that featured poz on poz barebacking? It's been so long now that I'm not sure if I'm remembering that correctly. Dah aidz iz omnomnomnoming away at me brayen sellz.

[Miss Philicia]

Wasn't the company that Jeremy worked for one that was wholly - or at least had a subdivision - one that featured poz on poz barebacking?

I think it was more conjecture. I don't believe they actually marketed themselves as such, not can I think of any that do openly. Even long-standing bareback studio Treasure Island Media didn't market a poz-poz pairing openly until last year. The studio has been around at least a decade.

[buginme2]

My point was simply that barebacking usually has a greater degree of consent from the potentially harmed party than does exposure to second hand smoke.

But the penalties are reversed.

I wish there was a like button, I would push it a dozen times for this comment.

This whole topic is something that just bugs me to no end. 

[mecch]

Even long-standing bareback studio Treasure Island Media didn't market a poz-poz pairing openly until last year.

I thought the newsworthiness of that was because McGuire is HIV- and is fine to work in dozens of bb films, but now I see it also included the news that they do all poz films or scenes.  But yeah I have never seen one labelled as such for the viewer....

[Jayad]

I had sex with a girl once and did not tell her about my status. I used a condom and felt bad about it. What sucked was I really ended up liking her and obviously couldn't start a relationship with someone I wasn't honest with from the get go. Sucks for me but I deserved it.

[mecch]

I had sex with a girl once and did not tell her about my status. I used a condom and felt bad about it. What sucked was I really ended up liking her and obviously couldn't start a relationship with someone I wasn't honest with from the get go. Sucks for me but I deserved it.

"and obviously couldn't start a relationship with someone I wasn't honest with from the get go. Sucks for me but I deserved it."

and obviously couldn't start a relationship with someone I wasn't honest with -  You could re-think that "obviously".  Says who?  Another scenario is that you could have still seen her and told her eventually and let her make up her own mind about the date of your disclosure vis-a-vis the dates of your protected sex.

"Sucks for me but I deserved it."  deserved what, exactly?  suffering because you didnt pursue the girl?  You didn't say she rejected you. You seemed to accept to suffer from one act of non-disclosure, shame for yourself so nothing could be pursued.

_____

General comment -

I dont get why HIV+ people think these issues can be cut and dry, thought about once, or never, mind made up, and good to go... 

Relationships are NOT built on pre-defined cut and dry rules.  Someone may have their rules they think can never be trangressed, never be forgiven, and other rules that must always be followed.  But this rigid "value scheme" and "rules of engagement" come with advantages and disadvantages. 

For example, fine, a guy has this rule - I will never date a drug addict. Maybe protects him from a bad relationship, based on prior experience with a drug addict boyfriend. Or just as a general rule.  But too many "deal-breakers" is just a bad idea, in my opinion.  Not enough "deal-breakers" also maybe a bad idea.  Its a process

Just seems like disclosure is a process that we need to revisit as life evolves, and as particular relationships evolve.

But some people like to keep things simple and consistent. 

I do get the point that in a state where there are laws dictating what HIV+ people can and can't do for sex, one needs to follow them, or put ones freedom at risk.

Other places, I dont think people should be QUICK to judge themselves or others about when disclosure happens in an intimate relationship. 

Which is one of the arguments against these stupid HIV criminalisation laws! Isn't it??

[bocker3]

"and obviously couldn't start a relationship with someone I wasn't honest with from the get go. Sucks for me but I deserved it."

and obviously couldn't start a relationship with someone I wasn't honest with -  You could re-think that "obviously".  Says who?  Another scenario is that you could have still seen her and told her eventually and let her make up her own mind about the date of your disclosure vis-a-vis the dates of your protected sex.

"Sucks for me but I deserved it."  deserved what, exactly?  suffering because you didnt pursue the girl?  You didn't say she rejected you. You seemed to accept to suffer from one act of non-disclosure, shame for yourself so nothing could be pursued.

_____

General comment -

I dont get why HIV+ people think these issues can be cut and dry, thought about once, or never, mind made up, and good to go... 

Relationships are NOT built on pre-defined cut and dry rules.  Someone may have their rules they think can never be trangressed, never be forgiven, and other rules that must always be followed.  But this rigid "value scheme" and "rules of engagement" come with advantages and disadvantages. 

For example, fine, a guy has this rule - I will never date a drug addict. Maybe protects him from a bad relationship, based on prior experience with a drug addict boyfriend. Or just as a general rule.  But too many "deal-breakers" is just a bad idea, in my opinion.  Not enough "deal-breakers" also maybe a bad idea.  Its a process

Just seems like disclosure is a process that we need to revisit as life evolves, and as particular relationships evolve.

But some people like to keep things simple and consistent. 

I do get the point that in a state where there are laws dictating what HIV+ people can and can't do for sex, one needs to follow them, or put ones freedom at risk.

Other places, I dont think people should be QUICK to judge themselves or others about when disclosure happens in an intimate relationship. 

Which is one of the arguments against these stupid HIV criminalisation laws! Isn't it??

His "obviiously" was most likely based upon a fear of the woman sending his ass to jail.  That is very "simple and consistent" to see.  He is from Virginia -- not a very progressive state.  How do I that -- I live there, while you live in Switzerland.

It's these hypocritical posts, BTW, that give you the "pompous" reputation.  Today you are all about being open to "grey", so you moralize about people being too rigid.  Tomorrow you may be in your "black and white" frame of mind" and will start moralizing about people who aren't.    

Mike

[mecch]

I do get the point that in a state where there are laws dictating what HIV+ people can and can't do for sex, one needs to follow them, or put ones freedom at risk.

Other places, I dont think people should be QUICK to judge themselves or others about when disclosure happens in an intimate relationship. 

Which is one of the arguments against these stupid HIV criminalisation laws! Isn't it??

The general comment was not directed at the person from the previous post, and I clearly set it apart. 

It is my contribution to the general discussion of this issue and for the entire forum community that discusses this issue, and several times a year. 

I don't think its pompous.  Its similar to my opinion I express when people say they won't present themselves for a job opportunity because for some reason HIV prejudice, discrimination, could make it impossible -- the overseas job, or promotion,  or worse, lead to losing what job one has..   These are individual challenges, one rule does not apply.  In some individual instance, its helpful to look hard at what limitations are self-applied, and what are coming from the situation.  Its a balancing act and its grey, yeah, cause several sides of a possible act need to be considered.

Oh and you can save your personal insults about my character, which contribute nothing to the discussion.