Quantcast

Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
E-newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 18, 2014, 12:30:23 PM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
  • Total Members: 22213
  • Latest: glo9003
Stats
  • Total Posts: 620190
  • Total Topics: 46726
  • Online Today: 224
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online

Welcome


Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: Law And Order  (Read 5098 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Solo_LTSurvivor

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,176
  • Twerk Baby Twerk
Law And Order
« on: October 12, 2011, 12:50:51 PM »
A retired New Jersey police captain had sex with at least two women without telling them he was infected with HIV, prosecutors said.

He faces two counts of a diseased person committing an act of sexual penetration, and was held on $50,000 bail.

I'm still going WTF over that last line... and not the bail portion.

Full story here
don't equate intelligence with lack of masculinity
Jim Phelps, Mission Impossible
____________________________

Seroconverted: Early 80s
Tested & confirmed what I already knew: early 90s

Current regimen: Atripla. 
Last regimen:  Epzicom, Sustiva (since its inception with NO adverse side effects: no vivid dreams and NONE of the problems people who can't tolerate this drug may experience: color me lucky ::))
Past regimens
Fun stuff (in the past):  HAV/HBV, crypto, shingles, AIDS, PCP

Jan 2012: 818/21%
Apr 2012: 964/22%
Jul. 2012: 890/21%
Oct. 2012: 920/23%

Still UD after all these years

Offline denb45

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,051
  • "1987 Classic Old School POZ+"
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2011, 01:26:45 PM »
A retired New Jersey police captain had sex with at least two women without telling them he was infected with HIV, prosecutors said.

He faces two counts of a diseased person committing an act of sexual penetration, and was held on $50,000 bail.

I'm still going WTF over that last line... and not the bail portion.

Full story here

Yeah, that 1st count is a felony in most States, he should have disclosed his status and use a dam rubber, so he deserves  whatever he get's, for being dumb  :)
"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 10,726
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2011, 06:09:43 PM »
Well there is progress in Switzerland. Maybe it is progress.  
Progress would be decriminalization of non-disclosure, period.
 
Last week a judge threw out a case of non-disclosure. The acts date a few years ago but finally made it to court.  The married couple has long since split up.  The guy was positive and on HAART.  The sex was unprotected.
The woman claims they screwed for a long time before he disclosed.  
The man claims he disclosed before they ever did it.
They were married at the time of the acts.
The woman charged him for pain and suffering - get this -- just for time she said that passed between him disclosing he was positive, and her confirming tests that proved she was negative.  A few weeks or months.
He said, logically to his story, she was consenting.
But the news reported that the judge threw it out - get this - when the guy proved he was on HAART and undetectable at the time of the acts.
So, "he said she said", "disclosure or not", didn't seem to matter to the judge.

Many issues were raised by this case, but few were answered.


« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 06:12:41 PM by mecch »
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 10,726
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2011, 06:19:19 PM »
He faces two counts of a diseased person committing an act of sexual penetration, and was held on $50,000 bail.

Somerset County Prosecutor Geoffrey Soriano urged anyone who has had sex with Martina in the past 10 years to see a doctor and contact the county's sex crimes and child abuse enforcement unit.

_________

First of all, this guy is innocent until proven guilty.
Secondly, he has a sketchy past, yes.  Connected to sexual assault, so we could assume he MIGHT be someone who wouldn't disclose.

I cannot see how ANY defendant can prove an act of non-disclosure.  Isn't it always he said she said.  Unless someone signs something, "I am not HIV+" and dates it.  Even then, there is the possibility of CONSENT, and later regrets.

The case in Switzerland seemed to be a person seeking revenge on an ex, for whatever reason. Maybe non disclosure.....


“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline denb45

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,051
  • "1987 Classic Old School POZ+"
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2011, 06:47:21 PM »
There is a case of nondisclosure in NY-State that happened a few yrs back, I forget the details tho, anyway the guy was convicted of a class-b-felony, and is still in the State-Penn, even tho the person or victim has yet to contract HIV/AIDS, it was the overt-act of sex w/ or without consent who knowingly has HIV/AIDS and who has not disclosed that fact...... but, yeah the case your talking about where you live dose sounds like some sorta revenge or something......
"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

Offline WillyWump

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,017
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2011, 06:56:18 PM »
"A Diseased Person" - that's sweet.
POZ since '08

Last Labs-
6/25/13 CD4- 1036, UD,
2/4/13, CD4 - 489, UD, 28%
8/9/12, CD4 not taken, UD.
2/13/12, CD4- 904, UD 42%

Current Meds: Prezista/Epzicom/ Norvir
.

Offline denb45

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,051
  • "1987 Classic Old School POZ+"
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2011, 06:57:42 PM »
There are some many threads on this forum about this subject, and it's been covered over & over so many times  ::)  this is nothing new to say the least.......
"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,666
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2011, 08:11:48 PM »
There are some many threads on this forum about this subject, and it's been covered over & over so many times  ::)  this is nothing new to say the least.......

Yeah but this is different, it's got pictures. 



I hope I can still get some side bush when I'm 64.....
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 10,726
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2011, 08:18:55 PM »
There are two different issues that people do confuse.

1)  Laws about criminal transmission

2) Laws about non disclosure.

Both areas of criminalisation are rather fucked up in my opinion.  But particularly 2 - which is all kinds of crazy.  Inside 2, there is the difference between non-disclosure and transmission. And non disclosure and no transmission.  And probably non-disclosure even if the sex is protected.  I have not read recently in the subject, I do seem to remember there are places in this world where you can have PROTECTED sex and still be convicted of a crime for not saying you are HIV+.

It is all so complicated.  And rather senseless.

Could someone please explain:  How a person can prove a hiv+ sex partner did not disclose, if there is no transmission?  The HIV+ person would have to admit to non-disclosure in court?
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline denb45

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,051
  • "1987 Classic Old School POZ+"
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2011, 08:20:09 PM »
Yeah but this is different, it's got pictures. 



I hope I can still get some side bush when I'm 64.....

 :D shit I hope I'll still be alive when I reach 64  ;D
"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

Offline denb45

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,051
  • "1987 Classic Old School POZ+"
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2011, 08:23:22 PM »

It is all so complicated.  And rather senseless.

Could someone please explain:  How a person can prove a hiv+ sex partner did not disclose, if there is no transmission?  The HIV+ person would have to admit to non-disclosure in court?

Meh  you'd probably be better off asking a criminal attorney at law, I agree mecchie they are very complicated..
"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,666
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2011, 09:13:53 PM »
2) Laws about non disclosure.

Both areas of criminalisation are rather fucked up in my opinion.  But particularly 2 - which is all kinds of crazy.  Inside 2, there is the difference between non-disclosure and transmission. And non disclosure and no transmission.  And probably non-disclosure even if the sex is protected.  I have not read recently in the subject, I do seem to remember there are places in this world where you can have PROTECTED sex and still be convicted of a crime for not saying you are HIV+.

It is all so complicated.  And rather senseless.

Could someone please explain:  How a person can prove a hiv+ sex partner did not disclose, if there is no transmission?  The HIV+ person would have to admit to non-disclosure in court?

You forgot about disclosure and protected sex where scorned lover lies about it.....  there are two women in this case so it could be possible.   It's kind of strange when you think about it, he was with the 45 year old and seeing the 61 year old on the side.  That 45 year old must be crushed!
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline Bucko

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,947
  • You need a shine, missy!
    • The Spin Cycle
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2011, 02:27:17 AM »
Color me very ambivalent on the topic of criminalizing HIV.

On the one hand, I think (personally) that everyone with HIV has a responsibility to disclose: I do. But I recognize that others have other opinions, especially when no risk's involved (ie: protected sex).

But criminalizing sexual behavior just seems inherently wrong (FWIW I consider rape to be assault, not sex). I've been there and had it done: it's no fun. And criminalizing a transmittable disease just smacks of inhumanity. Besides, isn't safe(r) sex the responsibility of both partners?
Blessed with brains, talent and gorgeous tits.

The revolutionary smart set reads The Spin Cycle at least once every day.

Blathering on AIDSmeds since 2005, provocative from birth

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 10,726
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #13 on: October 14, 2011, 08:06:21 PM »
Color me very ambivalent on the topic of criminalizing HIV.

On the one hand, I think (personally) that everyone with HIV has a responsibility to disclose: I do. But I recognize that others have other opinions, especially when no risk's involved (ie: protected sex).

But criminalizing sexual behavior just seems inherently wrong (FWIW I consider rape to be assault, not sex). I've been there and had it done: it's no fun. And criminalizing a transmittable disease just smacks of inhumanity. Besides, isn't safe(r) sex the responsibility of both partners?

Does not sound like you are ambivalent. Sounds like you are against criminalization.
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline Bucko

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,947
  • You need a shine, missy!
    • The Spin Cycle
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2011, 12:46:22 AM »
Does not sound like you are ambivalent. Sounds like you are against criminalization.

It's one of my pet hates: yeah. I understand the rationale but dislike the procedure (much like a colonoscopy).

C'est pas mon truc.
Blessed with brains, talent and gorgeous tits.

The revolutionary smart set reads The Spin Cycle at least once every day.

Blathering on AIDSmeds since 2005, provocative from birth

Offline jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #15 on: October 15, 2011, 02:03:48 AM »
The continued criminalization of HIV places us squarely twenty years int he past as regards the AIDS pandemic.

Young gay men are simply not testing - because if they do not KNOW their status they do not have to lie. And other young gay men are making their safer sex decisions based on the word of strangers on the internet (D/D Free UB2) without regard for personal responsibility.

On an internet sex forum why is it even necessary to put one's own presumed HIV status in one's profile, or ask another person their status, if both parties are going to have safer sex? It is evident that people are still taking reckless risks, and then blaming another party for their own inability to practice personal responsibility.

Not to mention the fact that many HIV disclosure cases are tried in the press, where guilty or innocent means little at the end of the day, when a person is forever branded and stigmatized.

Insofar as the gay community is concerned, the notion of criminalization is wretched, gross, and contributes to the spread of AIDS-Phobia along with the spread of HIV.

I cannot imagine it's much better in the straight community, where a wealth of condom alternatives leave women dangerously vulnerable to HIV.


"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

-Kimberly Page-Shafer, PhD, MPH

Welcome Thread

Offline BT65

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 9,620
  • Diagnosed + 1989
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #16 on: October 15, 2011, 04:20:53 AM »
I hate the criminalization of HIV.  Suppose a person does disclose, and the other partner gets pissed off at the person down the line and decides to claim (s)he was not informed?  It promotes further stigmatization, and I believe it can make people w/ HIV feel "dirty."  I mean, how can you criminalize an act that millions of people do every day?  There's no law about HPV.  And if left untreated, that can cause cancer.  WTF?

Personally, in the last relationships I was in, I did disclose.  But I get people not being tested so they can claim they didn't know their status.  And what about proof of intent?  How can one prove that? 

It's just a horrible thing, and very draconian in nature.
I've never killed anyone, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary notices.-Clarence Darrow

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 10,726
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #17 on: October 15, 2011, 07:05:35 AM »
I am not sure that young people do NOT get tested because they are thinking about HIV criminalization.  Non disclosure or transmission laws.  I think they don't want to know personally and don't want to deal with the issue of HIV when they are getting the sex they want.

If they are smart enough to factor in the local laws regarding HIV, then they are probably smart enough to know that "not knowing" would not be enough, or may not be enough, to exonerate them if they are indeed HIV+ and a partner decides to press the issue.
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 27,947
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #18 on: October 15, 2011, 07:23:09 AM »
I am not sure that young people do NOT get tested because they are thinking about HIV criminalization. 

I think they very likely ARE thinking about the possible legal ramifications in addition to just not wanting to know. After all, it's not like you have to search for information - every time there is a hiv transmission case in the courts, it makes headline news. Kinda hard to avoid seeing it on the evening news, hearing about it on hourly radio news and/or reading about it in the papers. Unless someone is living in a cave on an isolated mountainside, they're going to know that prosecution is a possibility where hiv is concerned.
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline spacebarsux

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,350
  • Survival of the Fittest
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #19 on: October 15, 2011, 07:24:29 AM »
 
I hate the criminalization of HIV......  I mean, how can you criminalize an act that millions of people do every day?  There's no law about HPV.  And if left untreated, that can cause cancer.  WTF?

My sentiments precisely. Criminalization of HIV transmission is plain ridiculous.

Criminalization of HIV in the US, Canada and elsewhere seems to result from non-disclosure (which appears to be the deciding factor) and 'intent to harm' isn't even given any weight. That's just so wrong.

In fact, I'm pretty sure it's awful public health policy as well. It hardens people's perceptions of the 'infectee' being a victim and the 'infector' being a vile disease spreading monster - when in fact it takes 2 consenting adults to have sex. This mentality serves no useful purpose and only heightens the fear of getting tested and furthers the spread of the epidemic (This was exactly my experience: I was too afraid to get tested, the fear being exacerbated greatly due to perceived stigma, and put someone else at a real risk because of that).

What's more, the desire, the want, the need, the urge to have sex is something so fundamental and basic to nearly every human being's existence. It is something practically all people on this planet have or will experience at some point.  Criminalization of and the equating to murder of, an act that stems from a basic, natural and intrinsic urge just stinks of sanctimonious draconian bullshit, in my eyes.

That said, I do think that disclosing prior to sex should be encouraged and every poz person has the moral obligation to use condoms every time they engage in sexual intercourse with some one who is negative or of unknown status, at the very least.
 
The only exception, where I think criminalization might be justified is in a scenario where a poz person who knows his/her status has unprotected sex with someone else with the sole intent to infect the other person. There must be mens rea (i.e. a clear murderous intent to cause harm) and that must be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law- and then, and only then, should someone be punished. And in which case, I don't really see why such a person should be punished under some special HIV legislation either; he/she should just be booked under the general criminal provisions covering 'intent to cause grievous bodily harm'.(Please note: In this example the only relevant factor is 'intent to cause harm' and not the actual act of sex). I do concede that this is tricky and is like getting on a slippery slope cos how does one prove 'malicious intent'? But then the same applies to almost all other criminal acts- 'presumption of innocence until proven guilty' in a court of law.

In all other situations people should just accept the fact that they have been infected by a virus and not by another person.

People don't infect other people; people have sex with other people.

The virus infects people.

And a virus has no morals.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2011, 08:19:16 AM by spacebarsux »
Infected-  2005 or early 2006; Diagnosed- Jan 28th, 2011; Feb '11- CD4 754 @34%, VL- 39K; July '11- CD4 907@26%,  VL-81K; Feb '12- CD4 713 @31%, VL- 41K, Nov '12- CD4- 827@31%

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,666
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #20 on: October 15, 2011, 11:19:15 AM »


  I don't want him thrown in jail for not disclosing, but it would be ok for all the times he's probably billy clubbed some poor guy for jay walking.  I like to think of this as copper karma.
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 10,726
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #21 on: October 15, 2011, 11:58:03 AM »
You know if cops arrested one of their own, he's probably a pretty bad guy.  :(
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 10,726
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #22 on: October 15, 2011, 12:03:30 PM »
I think they very likely ARE thinking about the possible legal ramifications in addition to just not wanting to know.
I guess so.  I dunno. My hunch says they don't want to think about HIV at all - (am I infected? could I infect others? could I be committing a civil or criminal offense, blah blah blah).  I think its all suppressed. 

I don't understand gay men who don't test regularly and never have. But every explanation I have heard over 20+ years is more in the realm of "I don't/didn't want to know" or "I don't care" or "I'm mostly safe" etc etc etc.   I have never heard a person say I am getting an HIV test because I don't want to commit a crime.

Anywho, is a non-discloser off the hook because he/she didn't know?  Is this all very technical and depending on the laws in place where the act is committed?
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline denb45

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,051
  • "1987 Classic Old School POZ+"
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #23 on: October 15, 2011, 12:24:33 PM »
I for one think that anyone who won't test for STD's & HIV/AIDS is fucking irresponsible, as well as non disclosure laws, they are and always will be very controversial  ;)
"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

Offline Hellraiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,110
  • Semi-misanthropic
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #24 on: October 15, 2011, 02:10:29 PM »
I can't wait for them to break this law out against someone who has diabetes or a cold.

Offline spacebarsux

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,350
  • Survival of the Fittest
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #25 on: October 15, 2011, 02:11:38 PM »
Mecch, I agree that 'not wanting to commit a crime' isn't the prime reason sexually active people avoid getting tested.

However, criminalization severely intesifies the stigma poz people face (perceived or real). The media contorts the picture and puts a very negative moral spin on consesual sex between two adults by labelling one party as an irresponsible, criminally negligent, disease spreading parasite.

And this, either directly or subconsciously, sharpens the fear of getting tested because no one wants to be one of them.
Infected-  2005 or early 2006; Diagnosed- Jan 28th, 2011; Feb '11- CD4 754 @34%, VL- 39K; July '11- CD4 907@26%,  VL-81K; Feb '12- CD4 713 @31%, VL- 41K, Nov '12- CD4- 827@31%

Offline GSOgymrat

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,959
  • HIV+ since 1993. INTJ
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #26 on: October 15, 2011, 02:38:47 PM »
I got into this very discussion this week with a couple of nurses where I work. They were advocating criminalization of HIV nondisclosure and the health department monitoring people with HIV. I pointed out how people need to take personal responsibility for their sexual behavior, the chilling effect of criminalization on testing, the impracticality of "monitoring" people with HIV, the distinction between disease transmission and appropriate response (airborne versus blood born), etc. They seemed very receptive and had obviously not thought through the implications of their initial emotional reactions. I couldn't help but point out that they are supposed to be the medical professionals, not me.

Offline Cliff

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,645
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #27 on: October 15, 2011, 02:58:33 PM »
These cases hit the gut so I can understand a gut reaction...but yes professionals (medical and policy makers) are paid to see through gut reactions.  Shame.  

I don't like seeing the pictures...sad that people lives (and mistakes) are displayed for public lynching.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2011, 03:01:22 PM by Cliff »

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 27,947
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #28 on: October 16, 2011, 07:50:57 AM »
Mecch, I agree that 'not wanting to commit a crime' isn't the prime reason sexually active people avoid getting tested.

However, criminalization severely intesifies the stigma poz people face (perceived or real). The media contorts the picture and puts a very negative moral spin on consesual sex between two adults by labelling one party as an irresponsible, criminally negligent, disease spreading parasite.

And this, either directly or subconsciously, sharpens the fear of getting tested because no one wants to be one of them.

That is what I was getting at. While I do not think that criminalisation is uppermost in their minds, it certainly has a strong influence, whether consciously or not.


Also, I only just realised this topic was in Off Topic, when it's very much a topic for Living With. Off Topic is for non-hiv related subjects. The criminalisation of hiv is very much a Living With topic. So I've moved it. :)
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline TheRoof

  • Member
  • Posts: 188
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #29 on: October 16, 2011, 05:56:57 PM »
I hate the criminalization of HIV.  Suppose a person does disclose, and the other partner gets pissed off at the person down the line and decides to claim (s)he was not informed?  It promotes further stigmatization, and I believe it can make people w/ HIV feel "dirty."  I mean, how can you criminalize an act that millions of people do every day?  There's no law about HPV.  And if left untreated, that can cause cancer.  WTF?

Personally, in the last relationships I was in, I did disclose.  But I get people not being tested so they can claim they didn't know their status.  And what about proof of intent?  How can one prove that?  

It's just a horrible thing, and very draconian in nature.

In my opinion:

A year back I had a profile on a gay-hookup site. I disclosed my HIV status in the profile. There were many HIV Negative men who were okay with my status; some even wanted bareback.
 I  never did.
 Even if they were totally okay with it; the sense of responsibility lies on my side. If god-forbid I infected a person and they tried to sue me. The law would be on THEIR side, just because we are held to a higher degree of responsibility.

Both parties agreed to it, but unless one has physical proof (en e-mail, letter) stating otherwise. What can you do to prove it?
I am not sure about this part of the HIV criminalization aspect. Each case should be delt individually and in-depth.




All though... not all "acts" or "cases" are considered the same.
 For example; it is A LOT worse to NOT disclose. If you knew about your STATUS and irresponsibly put another person at risk.

That I think is very wrong.

Offline Solo_LTSurvivor

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,176
  • Twerk Baby Twerk
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #30 on: October 16, 2011, 08:25:38 PM »
Also, I only just realised this topic was in Off Topic, when it's very much a topic for Living With. Off Topic is for non-hiv related subjects. The criminalisation of hiv is very much a Living With topic. So I've moved it. :)

When I posted it, I initially thought about putting it here in Living With, but then I thought about the possibility of people reacting like some do in AII or even here (you know the ones who want LTSers to verify that ARVs aren't poison because they think if they start meds, it will kill them) so I put it in OT instead.

Anyway, I'm still with Wumpy and Trey in that I cannot get over the fact that we can be charged with being diseased persons who commit acts of sexual penetration  ;D
don't equate intelligence with lack of masculinity
Jim Phelps, Mission Impossible
____________________________

Seroconverted: Early 80s
Tested & confirmed what I already knew: early 90s

Current regimen: Atripla. 
Last regimen:  Epzicom, Sustiva (since its inception with NO adverse side effects: no vivid dreams and NONE of the problems people who can't tolerate this drug may experience: color me lucky ::))
Past regimens
Fun stuff (in the past):  HAV/HBV, crypto, shingles, AIDS, PCP

Jan 2012: 818/21%
Apr 2012: 964/22%
Jul. 2012: 890/21%
Oct. 2012: 920/23%

Still UD after all these years

Offline spacebarsux

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,350
  • Survival of the Fittest
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #31 on: October 17, 2011, 01:22:48 AM »
Anyway, I'm still with Wumpy and Trey in that I cannot get over the fact that we can be charged with being diseased persons who commit acts of sexual penetration  ;D

I'm wondering whether a diabetic woman with a dildo strapped on is covered in the definition ?   ;D
« Last Edit: October 17, 2011, 01:29:13 AM by spacebarsux »
Infected-  2005 or early 2006; Diagnosed- Jan 28th, 2011; Feb '11- CD4 754 @34%, VL- 39K; July '11- CD4 907@26%,  VL-81K; Feb '12- CD4 713 @31%, VL- 41K, Nov '12- CD4- 827@31%

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 10,726
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #32 on: October 17, 2011, 03:58:56 AM »
But you are Blanche, you are!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTtpDwrKaxo
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,604
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #33 on: October 18, 2011, 12:01:17 AM »
Apparantly, it doesn't matter whether you disclose.  I just read this article here at poz.com.  This is getting scary.  This man disclosed and the jury believed that he disclosed, but they still convicted him.  This is a huge slippery slope.  As we all know, many couples make their own decisions about what risks to take.  Many decide to go bareback, because the poz partner is on meds and UD.  The neg partner makes the decision to take on whatever risk there is.  

So, I can see bad break-ups and the neg partner trying to get back at the poz partner this way.  And, prosecutors can pursue cases on their own, if they hear about a poz person having unprotected sex even if they disclosed.  Obviously, they often have a hard time if they don't have a "victim" to assist them.  I could really see this happening more in small towns where everyone knows your business.    

http://www.poz.com/articles/Convicted_Despite_Disclosure_1_21323.shtml

Modified:

I was just thinking where else this slope could go.  Using the statute they used to convict this man, it would seem they could prosecute a poz person for having unprotected sex with his/her poz partner.  They could say it doesn't matter whether the other person was already poz.  This could apply to oral sex or possibly even masturbation as it says the "transfer of blood, sperm, etc."  They would make the case the transfer occured when you got some of it on the other person.   
« Last Edit: October 18, 2011, 12:07:47 AM by tednlou2 »

Offline le_liseur

  • Member
  • Posts: 119
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #34 on: October 18, 2011, 12:08:00 AM »
And what about this one going on, now?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phillip-m-miner/hiv-criminalization_b_1008252.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

I've read it hasn't been cleared up if there has been or not disclosure before the two had sex, but I think the jury's decision is dangerous for everyone living with HIV - it makes it sound as if disclosure didn't matter, as long as you "transfer" HIV to someone else, you're a potential criminal. Harsh. Does this only apply in the state where this story happens?

Adding : Just saw ted wrote about the exact same story while I was writing this... ! Would like to add something else : maybe it's because I don't read it the way it's meant to be read, but it feels like art. 2 concerns medical situations, where someone used an object to transfer the virus (blood transfusion, sperm donation, etc.), and it has been twisted so it could work in a sexual transmission situation. Am I wrong?

Also, don't you find it pretty strange that this whole story happened in 2009, and it's going on in court now, end of 2011?
« Last Edit: October 18, 2011, 12:12:23 AM by le_liseur »

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,604
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #35 on: October 18, 2011, 12:13:19 AM »
And what about this one going on, now?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phillip-m-miner/hiv-criminalization_b_1008252.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

I've read it hasn't been cleared up if there has been or not disclosure before the two had sex, but I think the jury's decision is dangerous for everyone living with HIV - it makes it sound as if disclosure didn't matter, as long as you "transfer" HIV to someone else, you're a potential criminal. Harsh. Does this only apply in the state where this story happens?

You and I were making the same post at the exact same time..lol.  I enjoyed reading your link from the huff-post better.  They did a better job.

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 10,726
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #36 on: October 18, 2011, 07:06:40 AM »
Daniel Rick was convicted of criminal transmission.

AGAIN, please remember they are different, though obviously related, areas of law.

Non-disclosure law comes with its own irrationalities.

Criminal transmission comes with its own irrationalities.

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline Solo_LTSurvivor

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,176
  • Twerk Baby Twerk
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #37 on: October 18, 2011, 12:11:29 PM »
Daniel Rick was convicted of criminal transmission.

It's clear to see that he was convicted as a deterrent from committing further violations, as he has a history.

...According to charges, Rick and the victim, who worked at the Saloon Bar, recognized Rick there in May 2009 from an online chat and struck up a conversation, according to the criminal complaint.

After work, the man went to Rick's home, where they had sex without using condoms, the complaint said. According to prosecutors, Rick did not say he was HIV-positive, but Ascheman told jurors that his client had disclosed he was HIV positive before the men had sex. The man later tested HIV-positive. According to the complaint, he had tested negative before having sex with Rick. According to the charges, Rick tested positive for HIV in January 2006 and received counseling about safe-sex practices.

Faces similar charges

Rick faces three more counts of attempted first-degree assault and third-degree criminal sexual conduct in earlier cases that caused his victim in last week's trial to come forward.

He was charged in February 2010 with raping a drunken man after a night out in downtown Minneapolis, transferring the virus to him. The publicity from that case led two men to come forward the next month who accused Rick of not disclosing having the virus when he had sex with them after the partners met him over a website. One of the men contracted the virus, while the other did not.

A trial date will be set for those cases when Rick is sentenced Nov. 28. Rick also pleaded guilty to felony third-degree criminal sexual conduct for having sex with a 15-year-old in Sherburne County. He received two months' jail time and probation
.

Criminal transmission comes with its own irrationalities.

Edited to emphasize snip from newspaper quote from yesterday's link (see "history")

Shades of "To Catch A Predator"
« Last Edit: October 19, 2011, 12:11:15 PM by Solo_LTSurvivor »
don't equate intelligence with lack of masculinity
Jim Phelps, Mission Impossible
____________________________

Seroconverted: Early 80s
Tested & confirmed what I already knew: early 90s

Current regimen: Atripla. 
Last regimen:  Epzicom, Sustiva (since its inception with NO adverse side effects: no vivid dreams and NONE of the problems people who can't tolerate this drug may experience: color me lucky ::))
Past regimens
Fun stuff (in the past):  HAV/HBV, crypto, shingles, AIDS, PCP

Jan 2012: 818/21%
Apr 2012: 964/22%
Jul. 2012: 890/21%
Oct. 2012: 920/23%

Still UD after all these years

Offline David_CA

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,232
  • Joined: March 2006
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #38 on: October 18, 2011, 01:07:43 PM »
I wonder if the guys running around infecting others in these cases are on meds.  Yeah, I know meds and an undetectable viral load don't equal zero risk, but it's very low.  The likelihood of somebody being on meds, hooking up with no disclosure, transmitting the virus infecting a 'victim' who never barebacks except with this one poz. guy, and proving that it could be nobody else except the one accused... I'm not really adding anything to the discussion but am just more or less wondering about all this.  Even those cases where no infection is required would be hard to prove.  Maybe there was just masturbation and kissing and no penetration... who knows.  There doesn't appear to be much logic at all, and should be very difficult cases to prove in court, unless the accused confesses. 
Black Friday 03-03-2006
03-23-06 CD4 359 @27.4% VL 75,938
06-01-06 CD4 462 @24.3% VL > 100,000
08-15-06 CD4 388 @22.8% VL >  "
10-21-06 CD4 285 @21.9% VL >  "
  Atripla started 12-01-2006
01-08-07 CD4 429 @26.8% VL 1872!
05-08-07 CD4 478 @28.1% VL 740
08-03-07 CD4 509 @31.8% VL 370
11-06-07 CD4 570 @30.0% VL 140
02-21-08 CD4 648 @32.4% VL 600
05-19-08 CD4 695 @33.1% VL < 48 undetectable!
08-21-08 CD4 725 @34.5%
11-11-08 CD4 672 @39.5%
02-11-09 CD4 773 @36.8%
05-11-09 CD4 615 @36.2%
08-19-09 CD4 770 @38.5%
11-19-09 CD4 944 @33.7%
02-17-10 CD4 678 @39.9%  
06-03-10 CD4 768 @34.9%
09-21-10 CD4 685 @40.3%
01-10-11 CD4 908 @36.3%
05-23-11 CD4 846 @36.8% VL 80
02-13-12 CD4 911 @41.4% VL<20
You must be the change you want to see in the world.  Mahatma Gandhi

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 10,726
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #39 on: October 19, 2011, 03:59:50 AM »
Shades of "To Catch A Predator"

The television news report on that site, is asinine.  Neither journalist nor their news writers thought to wonder why all these supposed victims of James Rick believed it was "safe" to have unprotected sex, and with a casual partner, in fact, a complete stranger, it seems.

Such logic leads me to think that criminalization must be doing the contrary of one thing it is supposed to do. Are there really gay communities, like Minneapolis, where a lot of people bareback and REALLY BELIEVE that its mostly safe because the partner must be HIV negative because nothing has been said? Afterall, it would be against the law to have unsafe sex if one were positive.  So anyone who does not say he is positive must be negative.  

I find it hard to believe that grown urban men believe that.  

If there really are guys coming out of the woodwork to denounce the Typhoid Mary of Minneapolis, then these guys must be pretty dumb.  Totally ignoring their own dumb sex choices and ready and willing to make HIV+ gay guys into evil doers.

---------
So I Googled Daniel Rick James.  Hmm I can see why he has plenty of invitations for sex.  So gay guys are so dumb that this cutie must be negative and its fine to bareback. Oh wait, he's positive? Oh what a bad bad bad man.

And Queerty takes essential the same logic.  How lame.  

http://www.queerty.com/daniel-james-rick-suspected-of-raping-another-man-oh-and-transmitting-hiv-to-a-slew-of-others-20100226/

t’s a week of disgusting men who infect other people with HIV, isn’t it? First that Tony Perkins fella and those hundred women, and now Minneapolis’ Daniel James Rick stands accused of having sex with at least two other men — one during a date rape — without telling them he’s HIV-positive.
Investigators say Rick used Facebook and other sites, as well as local bars, to meet guys to have sex with without ever telling them of his status. Which is illegal, yo.
In an encounter earlier this month that has Rick facing rape charges, a man says Rick raped him while he was intoxicated.
Now a second man has come forward, saying he and his boyfriend (yes) met Rick online. Robert O’Riley says just weeks after their sexual encounter, he came down with flu-like symptoms, and after testing positive for HIV his doctor told him he likely contracted it in the past few weeks. But it took a television report, with Rick’s photo on screen, for O’Riley to learn his alleged infector’s true identity. (Meanwhile, there are separate charges involving Rick and a 15-year-old boy whom snuck out of his house to have sex with Rick.)
And police say they suspect there are more unknowing victims out there. Rick, meanwhile, faces criminal charges of knowingly transmitting HIV/AIDS to someone without informing them. And being a complete and utter asshole.






« Last Edit: October 19, 2011, 04:03:17 AM by mecch »
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 10,726
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #40 on: October 19, 2011, 04:04:28 AM »
This one is a gem, for a local paper:

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2010/03/daniel_james_ri.php

This week two more men contacted authorities with their own accounts. Their stories compelled the Hennepin County Attorney's office to levy two additional assault charges against Rick yesterday.


The men were partners, according to the Hennepin County Attorney. The couple solicited Rick for a ménage à trois on manhunter.com on Oct. 15, 2009 and had unprotected sex.

"He knew the consequences knew his condition," says Hennepin County Mike Freeman. "And yet he was just kind of rampantly going out trolling for sex. It's pretty despicable."
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 10,726
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #41 on: October 19, 2011, 07:47:01 AM »
The couple solicited Rick for a ménage à trois on manhunter.com on Oct. 15, 2009 and had unprotected sex.

"He knew the consequences knew his condition," says Hennepin County Mike Freeman. "And yet he was just kind of rampantly going out trolling for sex. It's pretty despicable."

Just in case my point isn't clear. 3 men.  THREE MEN were "rampantly" "trolling" for sex here.  And the HIV+ guy is the evil one, after the fact, after the barebacking??   And no journalist thinks to ask this question?  The "victims"  -- gay guys barebacking unknown partners -- sit calmly with their lawyers and in front of judges and don't feel any personal responsibility? Any hypocrisy?
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,666
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #42 on: October 19, 2011, 09:53:20 AM »


  Anyone know the details about his rape conviction, did he transmit the virus to the 15 year old?   As someone who was diagnosed in 2006, and having this number of instances already, he sure seemed rather wreckless...
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline David_CA

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,232
  • Joined: March 2006
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #43 on: October 19, 2011, 09:58:15 AM »
So I Googled Daniel Rick James.  Hmm I can see why he has plenty of invitations for sex.  So gay guys are so dumb that this cutie must be negative and its fine to bareback.


I wouldn't mind playing dumb and having unprotected sex with this guy.
Black Friday 03-03-2006
03-23-06 CD4 359 @27.4% VL 75,938
06-01-06 CD4 462 @24.3% VL > 100,000
08-15-06 CD4 388 @22.8% VL >  "
10-21-06 CD4 285 @21.9% VL >  "
  Atripla started 12-01-2006
01-08-07 CD4 429 @26.8% VL 1872!
05-08-07 CD4 478 @28.1% VL 740
08-03-07 CD4 509 @31.8% VL 370
11-06-07 CD4 570 @30.0% VL 140
02-21-08 CD4 648 @32.4% VL 600
05-19-08 CD4 695 @33.1% VL < 48 undetectable!
08-21-08 CD4 725 @34.5%
11-11-08 CD4 672 @39.5%
02-11-09 CD4 773 @36.8%
05-11-09 CD4 615 @36.2%
08-19-09 CD4 770 @38.5%
11-19-09 CD4 944 @33.7%
02-17-10 CD4 678 @39.9%  
06-03-10 CD4 768 @34.9%
09-21-10 CD4 685 @40.3%
01-10-11 CD4 908 @36.3%
05-23-11 CD4 846 @36.8% VL 80
02-13-12 CD4 911 @41.4% VL<20
You must be the change you want to see in the world.  Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Jeff G

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 9,239
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #44 on: October 19, 2011, 10:31:35 AM »
I wouldn't mind playing dumb and having unprotected sex with this guy.

I'm with you on this ... its clear to see just from looking at his picture he is totally innocent  :)

Offline Buckmark

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,475
  • Would you like to tie me up with your ties, Ty?
    • Henry's Home Page
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #45 on: October 19, 2011, 11:23:43 AM »
And here's another case where someone was found guilty of transmitting HIV, even though he supposedly disclosed to his partner.    Convicted in Minnesota of assault -- a felony:

http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/131457548.html

He faces more charges for 2 other incidents, plus he has already been convicted on another charge of having sex with a minor, so he's hardly a paragon of virtue.  I'm sure that made it easier for the jury to convict him.

A few thoughts:

1.  This is the kind of thing that *will* discourage people from getting tested.  Even if an individual is not specifically thinking about he specific legal ramifications, it does make an impression and have an effect:  "all these hassles that come with knowing that I have HIV....  eh, why bother"

2.  Assuming that most (certainly not all) new cases of HIV in Minnesota are a result of sexual transmission, should the health department be forwarding all of their new HIV cases to the DA's office for prosecution?  I can imagine so overzealous prosecutor pushing for something like this.

I'm disgusted.  Now even disclosure is not enough, in some states.  Maybe I need to dip myself in a giant vat of "New Skin" before I have sex with someone.   ::)

Regards,

Henry


"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things:
     One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell.
     The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love."
- Butch Hancock, Musician, The Flatlanders

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 10,726
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #46 on: October 19, 2011, 06:19:30 PM »
Well, if there is one lesson, its that HIV+ people have got to be familiar with the fine details of the laws that apply where they are having sex.   He seems to have gotten a raw deal. His "victims" are only that, because of the local laws.  Not moral justification.

Its not ok to not disclose.  In this case, the jury even believes he did disclose!  The prosecutor believes he did not.

Rick has not been convicted of non-disclosure!  

Nor has be been convicted of "sexual transmission" because that conviction would have been possible only if he had not disclosed, in this state.  

it is hard to understand exactly what he has been convicted of. Some kind of illegal medical transmission, by giving body fluids???  Very odd.  Hope he appeals.

We don't know if he is a Typhoid Mary, do we.  I appreciate all the people posting more details as they emerge.

My personal opinion is that the victim in this criminal transmission case is unjustified pursuing the case, if in fact Rick disclosed.  And maybe even if the Rick didn't disclose.  Because he was a stranger. Why would you, should you, believe a stranger, let alone a lover.   But that is my moral scheme. Local laws let this couple be "victims".  Pathetic.

Maybe this is a case of two wrongs.  Maybe Rick is not disclosing.  But that has not been proven.  Clearly this "victim" can't accept his own responsibility for taking sexual risks.  That is sure.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2011, 06:27:42 PM by mecch »
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,604
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #47 on: October 20, 2011, 01:06:27 AM »
The comment section on Queerty is, um, interesting.  One guy says he is best friends with "Mr. Rick" and knows the 15 year-old and knows it couldn't have happened, yada, yada.  Others think this guy writing comments is the accused man coming on there to defend himself, but in another persona.

Modified:

I may have missed this in the reports.  Did the convicted man, Rick James, admit that no condoms were used?  Or, did they just go on what the "victim" said? 
« Last Edit: October 20, 2011, 01:22:33 AM by tednlou2 »

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,604
Re: Law And Order
« Reply #48 on: October 20, 2011, 02:37:03 AM »

 


Terms of Membership for these forums
 

© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.