New Here. Question

[alexjones]

First off, hello everyone. I'm Alex, I'm a 45 year old male living in the U.S. and I've been a lurker here for a while. I enjoy reading the forums and I appreciate all of the knowledgable conversation. I was diagnosed about 4 years ago and have been on meds since that time. CD4-400ish VL-UD. I'm feeling fine.

I read a thread on here just today pertaining to criminalization, and it sparked my interest. Just FYI, I am strongly against the criminalization of this disease except in cases where someone transmits the virus with malicious intent. I had the opportunity to protect myself and I didn't, I can't blame someone else for that.

Anyways, a few days ago, there was an article on Poz.com with a headline that read "CDC: Half of new infections originate from those unaware of their status." Does everyone remember that article? here's the link- http://www.poz.com/articles/hiv_transmission_testing_761_21914.shtml

Ok, so this is the question. Does this mean that the other HALF of infections originate from those with partners aware of their status? I can't seem to come to any other conclusion (nor can I imagine how in the world they know this).

If this is the case...how come people aren't being prosecuted by the hundreds? how many people are infected in the U.S. each year? 56,000? So you take half of that (28,000) and they're all victims of a crime, right? When someone tests positive, the state health asks them for all of their hookups and they cross reference the list for people who already tested positive? At a rate of 28,000 per year we would have 76 prosecutions per day. The news wouldn't be able to keep up!

how come this isn't the case?

please destroy my logic, if possible...it's just something I was thinking about.

Thanks!

[arlvarunner]

Apparently so. From the POZ article:

"These missed opportunities proved significant by Hall’s team after plugging HIV prevalence and incidence estimates into a mathematical model. The researchers estimated that 51 percent of transmissions were from people aware of their HIV status, whereas a disproportionate rate—49 percent—were from those unaware they were living with HIV."

However, I would be curious to know how many of those new infections, originating from the 51% who knew their status, were caused with malicious intent? Should you be culpable if your partner knows you are HIV+ and willingly chooses to engage in unprotected sex with you?

[alexjones]

 Of course not. As someone on the boards has already stated: to consent to have unprotected sex is to consent to the possibility of catching something. Pretty simple, really. But does that scenario make up the 51%?

Surely not, I would think.

[arlvarunner]

Sorry...should have said this is my other reply:

I completely agree with prosecuting those who have malicious intent. That being said, the burden of proof should be left to the prosecution. Particularly by the new legislation introduced in Maryland that we were discussing, the wording is very vague. Conceivably, under this new law, if a woman who is HIV+ is raped, and she passes the infection on to her attacker, he could legally seek judgment against her. And if this legislation is passed, conceivably, he could win. Like a burglar who tries to break into your home and breaks his leg on a broken stair, he could sue you. The laws are full of holes and up to interpretation. A judge with a vendetta could rule against you. All laws, particularly laws of this nature should be concrete and air-tight. The problem with that is that our legislators, both Federal and State, are so ignorant to the disease, that this will never happen until they educate themselves.

[Buckmark]

First off, hello everyone. I'm Alex, I'm a 45 year old male living in the U.S. and I've been a lurker here for a while. I enjoy reading the forums and I appreciate all of the knowledgable conversation. I was diagnosed about 4 years ago and have been on meds since that time. CD4-400ish VL-UD. I'm feeling fine.

I read a thread on here just today pertaining to criminalization, and it sparked my interest. Just FYI, I am strongly against the criminalization of this disease except in cases where someone transmits the virus with malicious intent. I had the opportunity to protect myself and I didn't, I can't blame someone else for that.

Anyways, a few days ago, there was an article on Poz.com with a headline that read "CDC: Half of new infections originate from those unaware of their status." Does everyone remember that article? here's the link- http://www.poz.com/articles/hiv_transmission_testing_761_21914.shtml

Ok, so this is the question. Does this mean that the other HALF of infections originate from those with partners aware of their status? I can't seem to come to any other conclusion (nor can I imagine how in the world they know this).

If this is the case...how come people aren't being prosecuted by the hundreds? how many people are infected in the U.S. each year? 56,000? So you take half of that (28,000) and they're all guilty of a crime, right? When someone tests positive, the state health asks them for all of their hookups and they cross reference the list for people who already tested positive? At a rate of 28,000 per year we would have 76 prosecutions per day. The news wouldn't be able to keep up!

how come this isn't the case?

please destroy my logic, if possible...it's just something I was thinking about.

Thanks!

If there is disclosure and consent between the two individuals, in most cases there is not a crime (although there have been some cases to the contrary lately).

I doubt the health department routinely feeds data to the police so they can determine if a case needs to be prosecuted.  Even if they did, the police department probably has more important crimes to investigate.  I suspect the "victim" needs to report it to the police.  Most probably don't, because they consented.

Reasonable people engaging in unprotected sex realize there is a risk of HIV transmission, particularly if they know that their partner has HIV.  Like you, despite this, a lot of people don't feel the responsibility to protect themselves, and believe either "it won't happen to them".   No crime committed, just ignorance, carelessness, or stupidity (in most cases).

Welcome...

Henry

[Buckmark]

Of course not. As someone on the boards has already stated: to consent to have unprotected sex is to consent to the possibility of catching something. Pretty simple, really. But does that scenario make up the 51%?

Surely not, I would think.

Au contraire, according to the study.

[Matty the Damned]

First off, hello everyone. I'm Alex, I'm a 45 year old male living in the U.S. and I've been a lurker here for a while. I enjoy reading the forums and I appreciate all of the knowledgable conversation. I was diagnosed about 4 years ago and have been on meds since that time. CD4-400ish VL-UD. I'm feeling fine.

I read a thread on here just today pertaining to criminalization, and it sparked my interest. Just FYI, I am strongly against the criminalization of this disease except in cases where someone transmits the virus with malicious intent. I had the opportunity to protect myself and I didn't, I can't blame someone else for that.

Anyways, a few days ago, there was an article on Poz.com with a headline that read "CDC: Half of new infections originate from those unaware of their status." Does everyone remember that article? here's the link- http://www.poz.com/articles/hiv_transmission_testing_761_21914.shtml

Ok, so this is the question. Does this mean that the other HALF of infections originate from those with partners aware of their status? I can't seem to come to any other conclusion (nor can I imagine how in the world they know this).

If this is the case...how come people aren't being prosecuted by the hundreds? how many people are infected in the U.S. each year? 56,000? So you take half of that (28,000) and they're all victims of a crime, right? When someone tests positive, the state health asks them for all of their hookups and they cross reference the list for people who already tested positive? At a rate of 28,000 per year we would have 76 prosecutions per day. The news wouldn't be able to keep up!

how come this isn't the case?

please destroy my logic, if possible...it's just something I was thinking about.

Thanks!

Because clinical "occasions of care" don't translate to prosections, I suppose. Mounting a prosecution is a complicated matter.

MtD

[arlvarunner]

Of course not. As someone on the boards has already stated: to consent to have unprotected sex is to consent to the possibility of catching something. Pretty simple, really. But does that scenario make up the 51%?

Surely not, I would think.

Unfortunately, the study doesn't differentiate between the percentage of that 51% the were a result of malicious intent, and those that were a matter of two consenting adults not being careful enough. But, if 49% of new cases are transmitted by those who were unaware of their status, is it inconceivable to believe that the vast majority of those involving people who DID know could be the case?

[newt]

Does this mean that the other HALF of infections originate from those with partners aware of their status?

Logically, yes, of which a large proportion will be from people who had disclosed/in long term relationships/think their misjudgements/optimism in personal relationships are properly sorted out by themselves not the police.

But the non-prosecution does kinda give weight to the exposure/unintentional transmission = prison being a witch hunt. If they were serious about this being a crime they'd have a copper down the clinic.

The number of people who have been done (rightly or wrongly) for transmission with intent in the world is like, a handful out of millions. Accidents happen, people in relationships happen, evil poz folk wishing to propagate a plague rarely happen.

- matt

[le_liseur]

Do these numbers take into account infections that happened in circumstances other than sexual, such as intra-veinous drug use?

[alexjones]

Ok, so tell me if this is how it works:

Mr./Ms. A walks in to the ministry of health and tests positive for the cooties. The nurse says, "tell us the names of your dirty tricks, or else!"

So Mr./Ms. A reports that he/she hooked up with Mr. B, Ms. C, Mr. D, and (uh-oh!) Mrs. E at the local watering hole/bookstore last month.

Fine, now the nurse at the ministry of health calls/visits the hypothetical, alphabetical, tricks in question. But prior to that, the nurse enters the names into some kind of cooties database to make see if any of the reported tricks are already HIV+ (does such a list exist?)

Let's say the list does exist, and it shows that Ms. B was there six months ago and tested positive. From there the nurse notifies Mr./Ms. A that someone (Ms. B) already knew of their infection.

Is this how the process works? I would assume this to be the only way they could say for sure that they know that 51%I of new infections come from a knowing partner.

[alexjones]

Do these numbers take into account infections that happened in circumstances other than sexual, such as intra-veinous drug use?

Oh, I didn't think about that. Good question. I didn't see anything in the article to answer that.

[mecch]

There are not more prosecutions because

1) it is NOT a crime everywhere

2) and/or people own up to their decisions and don't see a need to get the law
involved

3) and/or people don't know who infected them or when. No one to "blame"

and I'm sure other people can come up with other reasons there are not more prosecutions. And thank god.

[jkinatl2]

Sorry...should have said this is my other reply:

I completely agree with prosecuting those who have malicious intent. That being said, the burden of proof should be left to the prosecution.

The problem with that, at least in the states, is that the very accusation can destroy a person's life. Open records allow the media access to these procedures, and a person's name and often face are plastered in newspapers/internet regularly. Regardless of the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra, a person can (and likely will be) ruined in his/her community simply by the accusation.

Even if found innocent, the accused is likely to be a pariah in his/her community as a result. At the very least, his/her HIV status is made widely known. Likely s/he is bankrupt from attorney's fees. And employers easily find excuses to sever ties. In many states, the "victim" remains anonymous while the accused does not.

The very accusation can ruin a life. No one should have that sort of indiscriminate power over someone else.

Ben Franklin said "that it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

Given the rarity of the socio/psychopathic HIV spreader, and the current stigma surrounding (still!) HIV, I cannot fathom how these laws cannot be routinely abused.

 It is even worse (and unprecedented) when the non-disclosure does NOT result in infection, or the sexual acts performed posed essentially zero risk. It is often a struggle to get medical sites to keep their information current - let alone the legal systems of fifty US states.

I think that one reason there are not more prosecutions is that it is, ultimately, a difficult case to prove without multiple accusers. This is likely a very rare event, in that even if their identities are kept from the media, the trial is still likely to be an arduous event. I know how difficult it is to be a material witness to a sexual assault, as I was just that a long time ago. In a conservative county in Georgia, before the advent of HAART, and not only dealing with a same sex assault, but an interracial one as well. It was the Holy Grail of Stuff People Didn't Like at the time.

Perhaps this is why the majority of the prosecutions have been brought to the courts by multiple female victims, with only a relative few brought about by male victims. Adding the stigma of male homosexuality to the stigma of HIV infection is a lot to ask someone to face in open court, often for months and months of dedicated testimony.

I am dead set against HIV criminalization laws, and no one to date has given me reason to believe that they serve any purpose other than perpetuating stigma, driving people away from testing, and creating a false sense of security among the HIV negative population.

Sometimes we get a new member to these forums that wants to legally go after his/her source for the virus. I have yet to see it end well for either party.

[newt]

Is this how the process works?

No

Prosecutions almost always happen when the police think they can get somone,or some frustrated well-meaning public officlal thinks they should stop someone, then the media kick in (perversly unjust that 1st amendment when applied to sell a few ads/newspapers).

- matt