US judge upholds 50-year term for spreading HIV

[klipsch]

This just popped into my email through the POZ News Desk. This is the reality of what's happening out there. I do feel that these types of cases need to be handled on an individual basis.

IOWA CITY, Iowa (WTW) — A federal judge has upheld a 50-year prison term for an Iowa City man convicted of having unprotected sex with women while knowing he carried the virus that causes AIDS.

U.S. District Judge James Gritzner on Wednesday rejected a petition for post-conviction relief filed by Iowa prison inmate Adam Musser.

Musser was convicted on four counts of criminally transmitting HIV for failing to disclose to female sexual partners in 2002 and 2003 that he carried HIV. Musser had been diagnosed with HIV and was taking medication for it at the time.

After the Iowa Supreme Court upheld his conviction and sentence, he appealed to federal court.

Gritzner says Musser's 50-year prison term was reasonable, noting he repeatedly subjected women to health risks. He says Musser's rights were not violated.

Facebook Comment:

50 years "reasonable?" I think he should have gotten life. He KNEW he was HIV+ and he knowingly exposed those women to a virus with no known cure. To me, that says he was trying to infect those women. And if he was trying.g to infect goose women, then that's premeditated murder because he planned it.

Facebook Comment:

I think they should get the death penalty since they basicly gave it to the person they gave it to

[Miss Philicia]

I do feel that these types of cases need to be handled on an individual basis.

...

I think they should get the death penalty since they basicly gave it to the person they gave it to

obviously

[Buckmark]

Where's the outrage, prosecution, and tough sentencing for people who are "knowingly transmitting" diseases other than HIV / AIDS?

(*crickets chirping*)

[Miss Philicia]

Now not only will we pay to keep him locked up, but we also will give him free medical care, food, clothing, housing, cable TV, fitness center, ... for the rest of his days. How many lives did this pig ruin? How many families will never happen now because he effectively killed how many women?

[mecch]

I only scratched around a little bit, but at least one of his convictions was for NONDISCLOSURE, and not transmission.  I think the offense was legally called "criminal transmission" but it included non-discloure and NO TRANSMISSION.

I don't know about the other 2 convictions. 

Needless to say, the news release above makes no mention of this.  I guess its too complicated.   I guess the public can't even see a difference between nondisclosure as a crime (which it sadly is in some parts) and HIV transmission, also a crime in some parts.  "JUST LOCK UP all the aidsy folks who have sex and don't make me think about them or my own risks, please."

"In 2002, Musser had engaged in sexual intercourse three times with his “victim,” “R.D.,” without in- forming her that he was HIV-positive.23 The prosecution did not need to prove that Musser intended to transmit the virus,24 merely that Musser knew he was HIV-positive25 and “that the defendant intention- ally expose[d] another person to the defendant’s infected bodily fluid in such a way that the virus could be transmitted”26—in other words, that he intended to engage in unprotected sex. At the time of the sexual intercourse, Musser was receiving medical treatment for his condition.27 Scientists have shown that successful treatment for HIV/
AIDS lowers the risk of transmitting the disease.28
Nonetheless, Musser was sentenced to twenty-five years of imprisonment29 despite not infecting “R.D.” with HIV."

Nonetheless, Musser was sentenced to twenty-five years of imprisonment29 despite not infecting “R.D.” with HIV."
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/cornell-law-review/upload/McArthur-Final.pdf

Also, i thought he had been sentenced to 25 years.  50?

[spacebarsux]

Facebook Comment:

I think they should get the death penalty since they basicly gave it to the person they gave it to[/color]

Great, HIV+ people supporting capital punishment is just what we needed. Quite an eclectic bunch we are, I must say.

Just thrills the cockles of my heart. 

[Joe K]

I only scratched around a little bit, but at least one of his convictions was for NONDISCLOSURE, and not transmission.  I think the offense was legally called "criminal transmission" but it included non-discloure and NO TRANSMISSION.

Nonetheless, Musser was sentenced to twenty-five years of imprisonment29 despite not infecting “R.D.” with HIV."

Mecch, thanks for adding the salient point; that no transmission took place.  What I find most troubling about these "laws" is they impute a given motivation, not disclosing you are poz, with the intent to infect another with HIV.  This case isn't even based on common law, because the "victim" suffered no harm.  She wasn't infected, yet he was sentenced as if she had become poz.  I would think that a case such as this, would be an excellent argument as "cruel and unusual punishments."

Joe

[mecch]

Yes indeed.  But just to make clear, of course it was nondisclosure combined with unprotected sex.  For his lie (she asked him, do you have anything, and he said no, according to her testimony) and for the unprotected sex - 25 years.  (Not sure how he got the other 25 years....)

I wonder, with these hideous laws in some parts, can someone also be accused of a crime for non disclosure with PROTECTED sex?  Hmm.  You see hear this sometimes. People who discover a sex partner is HIV+ and totally freak out, despite the fact there were condoms involved. 

[mecch]

I scratched a bit more.  Seems that there was one transmission. I get the impression its not always information given to court, in Iowa, if there is transmission or not, for a certain trial, since the unprotected sex is a crime in itself.



http://www.iowawatch.org/?p=6902
At least three of the 15 individuals convicted to date under Iowa’s law exposed a minor to the virus, and at least one case involved a man exposing a mentally ill woman incapable of understanding the consequences associated with contracting HIV.

Nine of those 15 are still in jail, including Matthew Powills, convicted in 2005 after sexually molesting his stepdaughter. Upon his arrest, investigators found more than 1,000 images on his computer of prepubescent females posing nude and performing sex acts. He was found guilty of both HIV criminal transmission and sexual abuse in the second degree and sentenced to 25 years in prison for each of the two charges, to run consecutively. Records do not reveal whether Powills actually transmitted the virus to his stepdaughter.

Another of those convicted was Jimmy Stevens, a Black Hawk county man who had oral sex with a 15-year-old boy. The boy said he didn’t know Stevens was HIV positive. Stevens was sentenced to 35 years in prison, 25 for criminal transmission of HIV and 10 for sexual abuse in the third degree. Stevens did not transmit the virus.

Then there are the four cases involving documented transmission of HIV.

A Coralville man, Adam Musser, was convicted in 2006 of four counts of criminal transmission, and transmitted the virus to at least one woman.

Musser’s victim, Kerri Coiner, told the Sioux City Journal that she was “in shock and crying” when she found out that she was HIV positive. At Musser’s trial, Coiner testified that when she’d first asked Musser if he “had anything,” meaning a sexually transmitted disease, he said no.

Lonnie Tabor, convicted in 2009, dated his girlfriend for three years without telling her he was HIV positive and ended up infecting her with the virus. Early last year, his appeal for a new trial was rejected.

David Porter, convicted in 2000 in Black Hawk County, also transmitted the virus. According to a Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier article, the woman he infected found out she was HIV positive while trying to donate blood plasma.

Dewayne Boyd, the lone HIV transmission case prosecuted in Dickinson County in north central Iowa, married a woman without disclosing his HIV status and infected her with the virus. After his wife was hospitalized for infection and learned of her positive status, his father-in-law reported him.

Those seeking change to Iowa’s HIV law say that any of these circumstances could be prosecuted using other laws on the books that don’t single out HIV positive individuals. “Recklessly causing injury to another,” “inflicting grievous bodily harm,” and “reckless endangerment” are all charges on which HIV positive people have been tried in other places around the country. In order to press charges against a person for under these laws in Iowa, however, a victim would have to prove intent to do harm, a stipulation not a part of the current HIV transmission law.

Punishments on such charges would also be less severe than the current penalty under Iowa’s HIV law. Hypothetically, if a person wanted to press a charge for willfull injury with regards to the transmission of HIV, the most serious penalty would render a class “c” felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Criminal transmission of HIV is currently a class “b” felony, punishable by up to 25 years.
_____

[mecch]

OK, perhaps this is more of the full story of how this came to be:


http://www.dmcityview.com/archives/2006/08aug/08-17-06/rapsheet.shtml
Docket diving

Kerri Coiner was 17 years old when she began dating Adam Donald Musser in the summer of 2002. Musser, of Iowa City, was good-looking and "sweet," she would later say, and the two eventually got serious. They began having sex - at first using condoms religiously, but shrugging it off sometimes as the relationship progressed. Things were going well until Coiner began hearing rumors that Musser was HIV positive. When she confronted him about it, however, he brushed it off as hearsay, and convinced her it was untrue.

What Coiner didn't know was that only two months prior, Musser had met another woman, identified in court documents only as "S.S.," at a friend's house one evening. S.S. and Musser hit it off and eventually ended up in a bedroom. Neither of the two had a condom, so S.S. asked Musser if he "had anything" - meaning sexually transmitted diseases - and he assured her he was clean. Later, a friend told S.S. that Musser was HIV positive. At first, he denied the accusation, but then left a message on S.S.' answering machine, saying that he "felt bad for what he had done and he felt suicidal about it." S.S. called the police.

Coiner, meanwhile, knew nothing about S.S.' experiences with Musser until he was arrested in January 2003. His charge? Criminal transmission of HIV, after state health records revealed that Musser had known he was HIV-positive since 2000. In fact, he was taking medication for the virus when he slept with S.S., and later, with Coiner.

By April 2004, S.S., Coiner and two other Johnson County women had come forward with allegations that Musser had not told them about his HIV-positive status before engaging them in sex. Iowa law requires anyone with HIV or AIDS to inform partners before a sexual act.

Musser was found guilty and sentenced him to 50 years in state prison. He appealed, claiming that his punishment was "cruel and unusual." He also charged that Iowa's HIV-notification law infringed on his First Amendment rights and violated his right to privacy.

The case climbed all the way to Iowa's Supreme Court, where justices rejected his appeals. They wrote, "Just like the robber carrying a gun or a knife, a defendant infected with HIV is armed with a dangerous virus capable of inflicting serious injury or death on the victim. In view of the gravity of the offense, we cannot say a twenty-five-year sentence for the criminal transmission of HIV appears grossly disproportionate."

At least one of the victims tested negative for the virus. Two others remain anonymous, and their status is unknown. Coiner, on the other hand, spoke publicly when she learned that she had contracted HIV from her encounter with Musser (who is now 25). "I think of him every day," Coiner later told a TV reporter. "I have to face the fact that I have HIV, and I have it from him."

[Raf]

I wonder how many of these women were forced to sex without condoms  or they trusted the "good claims" of Musser and they allow him to BB? what a way to scapegoat their own responsability and make us the poz monsters infecting everyone.

[klipsch]

Facebook Comment:

I think they should get the death penalty since they basicly gave it to the person they gave it to

Great, HIV+ people supporting capital punishment is just what we needed. Quite an eclectic bunch we are, I must say.

Just thrills the cockles of my heart. 

I didn't see anything that lead me to believe that the commenter on Facebook was poz. Though they may not have had the best grasp of the English language. 

[mecch]

Now not only will we pay to keep him locked up, but we also will give him free medical care, food, clothing, housing, cable TV, fitness center, ... for the rest of his days. How many lives did this pig ruin? How many families will never happen now because he effectively killed how many women?

Maybe space was referring to Miss P's odd comment.

[surf18]

well my thought is like the above poster. no one raped these woman. they had sex without a rubber period. thats their fault,just like all of our faults. why is the country taking people's responsibility away for everything? One should assume their partner is hiv pos and take responsibility and wrap it up. if you don't then its your cross to bear should you sleep with a hiv pos person and get it. I blame no one for my being dx'd with HIV but my own stupidness period. This is so stupid. And to ask someone if you get something and expect them to be honest in the heat of the moment is so asinine. this makes me angry.

[Miss Philicia]

Maybe space was referring to Miss P's odd comment.

Are you challenging the validity of my statement?

[mecch]

He was a bum for lying, Miss P.  But how did he "effectively kill" many women? I don't know much about the details of his case, just what I dug up above. Sounds like one transmission.  And it took two to tango, but certainly he shouldn't have lied.

Don't you think, Miss P, that one needs to be "all in" on decriminalization.  Why is this 50 year sentence OK, if criminalization of HIV is wrong.

I would go further and say your arguments about the cost of his life in prison are but MORE weight added to how "cruel and unusual" the punishment is.  Its the equivalent of a sentence for murder, is it not?  He didn't murder anyone, there was a nasty virus transmission from sex.

I would say your "cost" argument is much much too similar to the prejudice society and particularly american society has AGAINST hiv+ people, as "pigs" or "deviants" or "degenerates" or  "immorals", who got what they deserved and who are going to cost the health system too much money.  Didn't some Presidential candidate recently seem to say let sick people die if they can't afford their own treatment for their irresponsible or immoral lifestyle choices... more or less. ?

[Miss Philicia]

My you're not bright. I simply did a copy/paste from the comments section of a news article about this. Are you sure you're a professor?

[Rev. Moon]

My you're not bright. I simply did a copy/paste from the comments section of a news article about this. Are you sure you're a professor?

[tednlou2]

I am curious why all these stories seem to be exclusively involving women.  One would think there are many more gay men deceived or believe they were.  Do they not go to police?  Or, the police laughs them out of the building, believing they got what they deserved, if infected.  If not infected, they feel they should be damn thankful and move on.  Or, the media only reports the stories involving women--especially white women?  It is strange.

[jkinatl2]

I am curious why all these stories seem to be exclusively involving women.  One would think there are many more gay men deceived or believe they were.  Do they not go to police?  Or, the police laughs them out of the building, believing they got what they deserved, if infected.  If not infected, they feel they should be damn thankful and move on.  Or, the media only reports the stories involving women--especially white women?  It is strange.

Well that's easy. The gay men were all infected through the eye.

[buginme2]

I am curious why all these stories seem to be exclusively involving women.  One would think there are many more gay men deceived or believe they were.  Do they not go to police?  Or, the police laughs them out of the building, believing they got what they deserved, if infected.  If not infected, they feel they should be damn thankful and move on.  Or, the media only reports the stories involving women--especially white women?  It is strange.

Gay men deserve the aids, it's gods wrath.

But seriously, the fact that ALL these cases involve the heterosexual transmission (or possible transmission) from men to women isn't just media reporting bias.   It's rather another reason why HIV criminalization is wrong, in all it's forms.  How anyone can defend biased prosecutions is beyond me.

[spacebarsux]

Gay men deserve the aids, it's gods wrath.

But seriously, the fact that ALL these cases involve the heterosexual transmission (or possible transmission) from men to women isn't just media reporting bias.   It's rather another reason why HIV criminalization is wrong, in all it's forms.  How anyone can defend biased prosecutions is beyond me.

True.

I think it also has to do with the perception amongst legislators/judges/media/health workers (i.e. general establishment, pretty much everywhere) that given the historical course of the epidemic, it is perfectly reasonable to presuppose that a 'greater' onus behooves gay men for any and all sexual behaviours.

It’s a deeply prejudiced mindset since it holds a different standard for one group in comparison to the rest of the population and thereby helps cement, rather than allay, the misconception that it’s a predominantly gay disease.

[spacebarsux]

I didn't see anything that lead me to believe that the commenter on Facebook was poz. Though they may not have had the best grasp of the English language.

I understand that you got it off facebook.

However, my previous comment was more an inference I drew from the fact that you specifically culled out the very comment that mentioned death penalty and reproduced it here so as to lend support to your pro-criminalization stance. You were implying: 'Look, this is how other people think'.

At least that's how I took it to mean.

Edited typo

[mecch]

My you're not bright.

I thought you were speaking in tongues, so I just called it odd, cause there was no quote.

But then you egged me on with the second snark:

Are you challenging the validity of my statement?

And I thought ok, maybe he really does....      Yeah I'm a dumbass!

[mecch]

http://www.iowawatch.org/?p=6902
At least three of the 15 individuals convicted to date under Iowa’s law exposed a minor to the virus, and at least one case involved a man exposing a mentally ill woman incapable of understanding the consequences associated with contracting HIV.
.....
Another of those convicted was Jimmy Stevens, a Black Hawk county man who had oral sex with a 15-year-old boy. The boy said he didn’t know Stevens was HIV positive. Stevens was sentenced to 35 years in prison, 25 for criminal transmission of HIV and 10 for sexual abuse in the third degree. Stevens did not transmit the virus.

The cases are not all heterosexual sex.  I read cases of male-male transmission/and/or nondisclosure, leading to criminal sentences..

[Miss Philicia]

I thought you were speaking in tongues, so I just called it odd, cause there was no quote.

My larger point, which I meant to be vague initially, is that this entire thread is nothing but a retread on the same subject that klipsch is obsessed with, and on which he finally bailed last month. So he reappears with a new thread, and seems to think adding anonymous facebook comments is somehow valid to his viewpoint... sorry, but I just find this entire effort of his nothing but trolling. I think he'd get more out of it all if he printed his threads out and took them to his next therapy session.

[mecch]

Ah ok cest claire.  You were speaking in tongues and trolling/provoking him a little bit for his own trolling on this topic.  I get it now.

Well, anyway sorry for thinking it might have been possible you could think those thoughts.

[klipsch]

I understand that you got it off facebook.

However, my previous comment was more an inference I drew from the fact that you specifically culled out the very comment that mentioned death penalty and reproduced it here so as to lend support to your pro-criminalization stance. You were implying: 'Look, this is how other people think'.

At least that's how I took it to mean.

Edited typo

No...actually I just copy/pasted from the story here, that the POZ News Feed linked to. This shit gets sent to my email...I don't spend my time looking for it. As far as the "Look, this is how other people think" comment...it IS how some people think. You know it and I know it. But I think that the crime is, that some people are that ignorant, that they would even think like that. Not to mention the complete disregard for proper use of the English language. 

Please do the both of us a favor. Stop thinking that you know how I think based on a bunch of rubbish I spewed out of my pie hole without having a better grasp of how everybody in the poz community is affected in different ways for different reasons.

Thanks! 

[spacebarsux]

No...actually I just copy/pasted from the story here, that the POZ News Feed linked to. This shit gets sent to my email...I don't spend my time looking for it. As far as the "Look, this is how other people think" comment...it IS how some people think. You know it and I know it. But I think that the crime is, that some people are that ignorant, that they would even think like that. Not to mention the complete disregard for proper use of the English language. 

Please do the both of us a favor. Stop thinking that you know how I think based on a bunch of rubbish I spewed out of my pie hole without having a better grasp of how everybody in the poz community is affected in different ways for different reasons.

Thanks! 

OK fair enough. 

However, I'm not the only one who had such thoughts given the criminalization thread from last month.

My larger point, which I meant to be vague initially, is that this entire thread is nothing but a retread on the same subject that klipsch is obsessed with, and on which he finally bailed last month. So he reappears with a new thread, and seems to think adding anonymous facebook comments is somehow valid to his viewpoint... sorry, but I just find this entire effort of his nothing but trolling. I think he'd get more out of it all if he printed his threads out and took them to his next therapy session.

[klipsch]

OK fair enough. 

However, I'm not the only one who had such thoughts given the criminalization thread from last month.

I totally understand that, and that's fair. However...I read a lot of what I felt were enlightening responses in this thread, whether sarcastic or not. Take the uninformed stereotypical village idiot, not much unlike myself...who pops into this forum but never really takes part or even registers. They're just reading for curiosity sake. They may be poz or not. If this type of topic is never discussed...and by virtue of that, the members here don't make their feelings known...whether based on facts or just opinions...then nobody is going to see another viewpoint on the matter. If one person gets up in arms over whats being discussed, it's one thing. But when a couple of handfuls of people are all voicing similar concerns like in the previous thread you're referring to...anybody with some level of intelligence has to at least step back and reconsider their own thoughts on the matter. Without seeming presumptuous that I have said intelligence...that's how I became more aware of the consequences of criminalization.

One of the replies I read here that really stuck out was, "how come it's only stories about women becoming infected by somebody that didn't disclose their status?" Tell me where else somebody is going to read this type of outrage? I'm not posting this stuff to start shit. I'm on the side of the fence that's just saying "Look! Another one..." It is what it is...

[Miss Philicia]

So these threads are for the benefit of the unwashed, unregistered masses? How wonderfully generous of you.

[Buckmark]

Take the uninformed stereotypical village idiot, not much unlike myself...who pops into this forum but never really takes part or even registers. They're just reading for curiosity sake. They may be poz or not.

I know there are a lot of people who visit these forums as guests, or are even members, but never post.  None of us -- including yourself -- really know much about them.  So posting information here on the forums on the assumption that it benefits them is pretty pointless -- it's like starting a conversation with someone who cannot respond.  There are other areas of the web site for educational purposes.  Forums are for conversation.

If this type of topic is never discussed...and by virtue of that, the members here don't make their feelings known...whether based on facts or just opinions...then nobody is going to see another viewpoint on the matter.

Never discussed?  What about all the previous threads on this issue?

I'm just not buying your premise that you are posting this for the benefit of the masses who won't speak up.  If you are, that's just stupid, because that's not how forums work.  But it's clear to me that you have a strong viewpoint in support of criminalization that you wish to continue to communicate. 

If one person gets up in arms over whats being discussed, it's one thing. But when a couple of handfuls of people are all voicing similar concerns like in the previous thread you're referring to...anybody with some level of intelligence has to at least step back and reconsider their own thoughts on the matter.

Essentially, you are calling anyone who disagrees with your thoughts on this matter stupid.

We know there many out there (like yourself) who believe in criminalization, and that's why there have been so many threads on it.  But you're really just being a chicken shit by continuing to post others' viewpoints "just for our awareness and reconsideration".   It's certainly a convenient way to attempt to mask the fact that you believe in criminalization.

Keep the conversation going if you wish, but include your point of view, and address it to the forum members, not the mythical masses.  Have some integrity.

[Dachshund]

Ah ok cest claire.  You were speaking in tongues and trolling/provoking him a little bit for his own trolling on this topic.  I get it now.

Well, anyway sorry for thinking it might have been possible you could think those thoughts.

Nice back handed way to call Lady P a troll.

[Miss Philicia]

Actually I was countertrolling, not trolling. The rest of you plebes are feeding the troll. However, it is true that I am a lady.

[Joe K]

To me, the OP made no effort to provide any context with his initial post.  No link, just lifting some text and a few comments and then reproducing them here.  But what strikes me as odd, is he offered no "context" for the post.  He didn't comment on the case, the sentence or anything else.  I find it to be intellectually dishonest to start a post, with no personal involvement and then chaste when other call the OP on it.

If you had included points from your later posts, regarding your opinions and motivation for starting the thread, it would have made much more sense.  Instead you just lobbed this puddle of innuendo, parading as substantive and then you bristle when you get called on just another troll posting.

You claim to want to provide an enlightened discussion on the criminalization of non-disclosure, but you provide no context in which that can happen.  If you insist on beating this same old horse, then fine, but at least provide a decent basis for a discussion.

This is not a church and we don't do sermons.

Joe

[klipsch]

This just popped into my email through the POZ News Desk. This is the reality of what's happening out there. I do feel that these types of cases need to be handled on an individual basis.

Let me try and break this down...

This just popped into my email through the POZ News Desk.

I assume that anybody else that is or isn't active in the forum either received or has access to the same source?

This is the reality of what's happening out there.

"LOOK! Another one! As in...Here it is again. What are your thoughts?

I do feel that these types of cases need to be handled on an individual basis.

Here's my thought on the criminalization issue. Because I really can't make a case or even a valid example of how it would help matters any...I was genuinely interested in reading others thoughts on how the justice system handled this? If I don't have any foundation of knowledge on which to base any kind of valid discussion, there's really not much more for me to post other than what I did. The fact that I changed my thoughts on the actual criminalization of transmission/non-disclosure, was based on reading the majority vote that it would cause more problems than help. As of this moment...that's all I have to go on.
Everything else about this discussion being helpful to others (as well as myself) was a complete after thought. Because while I was thinking about whether or not it's pointless to even bring these cases up...I realized that it's not being discussed anywhere else. So why not?

[jkinatl2]

I am confused when you mention that a guest on the forums might not see a criminalization thread and assume we don't talk about it. One pops up here every couple of months at the least.

Also the forums are searchable. I really feel no obligation to maintain permanent and circular discussion threads simply for the benefit of strangers whose desire to read such a topic is unknown. This forum is for those of us living with HIV. The fact that it is open to guests is a bonus.

[mecch]

Returning to the subject matter.
I think people who want to prosecute someone for an HIV transmission should have to do so without the benefit of laws specifically and only about HIV. 

As I have learned about this issue in my years on this forum, it seems clear that laws just about HIV are bad and should be done away with.  I am sure there are laws about reckless endangerment, bodily harm, whatever, that a court could be persuaded to consider in such cases.  That would open up a can of worms, and foreground the bad logic and reasoning of singling out HIV, when people could pursue damages for being the victims of all sorts of reckless or immoral behavior, transmisison of disease, etc.  For example, I'm sure a kid could sue his parents for second hand smoke using such laws, and so on and so on. 

If transmitting HIV can get you 50 years, then I guess Herpes is worth a good 1 or 2.  HPV maybe 5!     Bringing a cold to work, and spreading it around, thats worth at least a hefty fine, too, right? 

If you can get 25 years for not telling someone you have HIV and then having unprotected sex, but no transmission, than you should merit punishment for all sorts of risky or lying behavior that in fact leads to no injury of others, except psychological.  If I take a loaded gun into a shopping mall, and start shooting out the faux stain glass skylights, and nobody gets hurt, how many years do I get? 25?

[Hellraiser]

Let me try and break this down...

This just popped into my email through the POZ News Desk.

I assume that anybody else that is or isn't active in the forum either received or has access to the same source?

This is the reality of what's happening out there.

"LOOK! Another one! As in...Here it is again. What are your thoughts?

I do feel that these types of cases need to be handled on an individual basis.

Here's my thought on the criminalization issue. Because I really can't make a case or even a valid example of how it would help matters any...I was genuinely interested in reading others thoughts on how the justice system handled this? If I don't have any foundation of knowledge on which to base any kind of valid discussion, there's really not much more for me to post other than what I did. The fact that I changed my thoughts on the actual criminalization of transmission/non-disclosure, was based on reading the majority vote that it would cause more problems than help. As of this moment...that's all I have to go on.
Everything else about this discussion being helpful to others (as well as myself) was a complete after thought. Because while I was thinking about whether or not it's pointless to even bring these cases up...I realized that it's not being discussed anywhere else. So why not?

You're being trolled buddy.

[tednlou2]

And, as this thread is happening, I noticed this update about Tony Perkins from Indiana.

http://www.poz.com/articles/Indiana_HIV_nondisclosure_1_22258.shtml

[Dachshund]

You're being trolled buddy.

Without a doubt you're the biggest shit stirrer of the forums.

[Hellraiser]

Without a doubt you're the biggest shit stirrer of the forums.

Says the guy who never starts a thread, makes a comment about a thread, or contributes to these forums in any positive way.  You merely jump into threads and troll posters.  Hypocrisy, Dachsund is thy name.

[Dachshund]

Whatever Trigger.

[Hellraiser]

Whatever Trigger.

Whatever sadtroll.

[Dachshund]

Whatever sadtroll.

If you weren't so butt ugly I could use you for Dressage.

[Jeff G]

Says the guy who never starts a thread, makes a comment about a thread, or contributes to these forums in any positive way.  You merely jump into threads and troll posters.  Hypocrisy, Dachsund is thy name.

You jump into a thread and write one sentence calling someone a troll , then follow up with this and throw hypocrisy into the fray ... very rich stuff indeed LOL . 

[Rev. Moon]

Oh What A Lovely Thread

 

[denb45]

I used to collect them way back when I was a teen 

[Joe K]

You're being trolled buddy.

Says the guy who never starts a thread, makes a comment about a thread, or contributes to these forums in any positive way.  You merely jump into threads and troll posters.  Hypocrisy, Dachsund is thy name.

You jump into a thread and write one sentence calling someone a troll , then follow up with this and throw hypocrisy into the fray ... very rich stuff indeed LOL . 

Trey,

You would have been better off to just skip the troll bomb in the first place.  It's a little pompous to accuse others of doing what you are doing and then pretending to be offended.  You started it, so don't complain when it doesn't go your way.   

Joe

[skeebo1969]

  Trey,  I think you should get a one week timeout for insolent behavior.

  Just my opinion.