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.
August 29, 2014, 10:29:48 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 636552
  • Total Topics: 48313
  • Online Today: 177
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online
Users: 6
Guests: 150
Total: 156

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: HIV criminalization escalates  (Read 19074 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,490
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #100 on: March 11, 2012, 10:36:02 AM »
I've read quite a few blogs and it makes me a bit miffed when I hear of someone who is positive who continues to have unprotected sex with people. Their rationale is that the person should protect themselves. I'm sorry but there needs to be some personal accountability for the person who is positive. Here's why:

1) They KNOW their status, therefore THEY can decrease the spread of HIV by not passing their strain onto someone who is negative.
2) By not insisting on condoms, they are putting themselves at risk for other STDS that the "negative" person might be carrying. These can cause many more unnecessary medical problems.
3) The positive person is giving their partner the ability to choose.

Why do people like you continue to insist on making the lives of millions of people (HIV+ people) more difficult and less EQUAL because of the actions of a few assholes???

If you are a social worker, its your job to educate HIV+ irresponsible youth to not be narcissistic pathological typhoid marys.  Oh, and also to educate everyone to protect themselves, as well.

As for diabetes.  A few years into being HIV+, my life is easier than that of diabetics, health wise.


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

Offline Buckmark

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,523
  • Would you like to tie me up with your ties, Ty?
    • Henry's Home Page
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #101 on: March 11, 2012, 10:43:42 AM »
I can't believe some of the cold posts I've been reading. I might get a bit of flak for this, but it's almost like some poz people want to punish or teach those who are negative a lesson. That's not fair, I think everyone has the right to dignity and respect regardless of their status. 

No, poz people aren't trying to punish those who are not poz.  It's the reverse we are talking about here in this thread.  But you are right in one way:  poz people *are* trying to teach those who are negative a lesson, but not the lesson you think.  Re-read jkinatl2's post above, and you'll see that stated more eloquently than I can state, but here's the message:

The only was you can prevent yourself from becoming infected with HIV, or other STDs, is to take personal responsibility for your sexual health, and use a condom when you have sex.  Relying on what someone does or should tell you will not prevent HIV infection.


From your other posts in the "I just tested positive" forum you appear to be quite a fan a prosecuting those with HIV who infect others.

Quote
I'm in part in favor of criminalizing HIV because if someone knowingly transmits the virus, then they should be punished. That person is taking away someone else's right to good health and freedom.

So, you are using laws to criminalize HIV to create a world where people have a right to a sex life that is free of responsibility or consequences?  Talk about irresponsible and ineffective.  Although that's a world I would love to live in, that is a fantasy world.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 10:46:11 AM by Buckmark »
"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 klipsch

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #102 on: March 11, 2012, 11:24:40 AM »
“I can’t imagine a person who would know that a person had AIDS and would sleep with them,” Wilson said of the reason to mandate disclosure

I'll never forget the reaction of one particular guy: "Congratulations, you are aware that you will be dead in 5 years from now."
Seriously, how does a person like this deserve my disclosure?

That's happened to me.  But there's a silver lining, right?  The jerk doesn't deserve a disclosure, but also doesn't deserve sex with me.  Its a bit bitter as a pre-coitus cocktail cause you never get to the coitus. But there are plenty more fish in sea.

DING DING DING DING!!! We have a match...


Most HIV infected people contracted the virus through irresponsible sexual behavior. While I'm better understanding why criminalization may not be the best idea, after reading through the tread a few times...it's this type of thinking that has it being considered by some in the first place.

If you're HIV+ because of previous indiscriminate sexual behavior...Guess what? You don't get to be able to carry on with that same indiscriminate sexual behavior!!!

When I was first diagnosed...I thought about getting a Bio-Hazard or POZ tattoo...because I had seen some pictures of those who did in POZ magazine. 13+ years later I'm glad I didn't...but while strides are being made to reduce the stigma associated with HIV (fuck...I'm straight...so I even have the added stigma of being assumed gay), that doesn't mean that we don't need to make EVERY EFFORT not to potentially spread it. Giving a possible sexual partner the option to say NO...is part of that effort.
when shit has value...the poor will be born without assholes...

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #103 on: March 11, 2012, 11:46:18 AM »
With due respect, since you're HIV negative you can't possibly fully understand the 'disclosure dilemma' and your post reflects that.

Moreover, this is more about criminalization due to non-disclosure (even when protection is used and neither is transmission intended, nor does it occur) and not about poz people going around having unprotected sex (who are exceedingly rare).

Also, you might want to check if you're permitted to post in 'Living with HIV'- since you do not live with HIV.

Best

Good catch, Space. You quoted his post before he edited out the reference to his negative hiv status.

His other two posts were also in a forum meant for hiv positive people only, and those posts were also only written to berate positive people. I asked him about his hiv status in that other thread, but he ignored me. Now I know why.

He's banned, so he won't be doing it again.

Ann
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 klipsch

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #104 on: March 11, 2012, 12:01:10 PM »
Does re-posting somebody else's thoughts myself...being positive 13+ years make this a valid statement? While I fully respect the forum rules...I also believe this was immediately discredited based on a "lowest common denominator" type premise. I appreciate that it wasn't removed entirely.
While I'm not debating forum rules by any means...non of my HIV docs or social workers are positive...but I respect their direction and advice with the utmost trust and respect. Please correct me if I'm wrong...  ;)

I think this topic is a bit tricky. I agree it's someone's responsibility to protect themselves, but it almost seems like the posters are completely removing responsibility for their own actions just because they're positive.

I've read quite a few blogs and it makes me a bit miffed when I hear of someone who is positive who continues to have unprotected sex with people. Their rationale is that the person should protect themselves. I'm sorry but there needs to be some personal accountability for the person who is positive. Here's why:

1) They KNOW their status, therefore THEY can decrease the spread of HIV by not passing their strain onto someone who is negative.
2) By not insisting on condoms, they are putting themselves at risk for other STDS that the "negative" person might be carrying. These can cause many more unnecessary medical problems.
3) The positive person is giving their partner the ability to choose.

Here's why I think disclosure is important. There is a chance that the condom will break. So even if you practiced safe sex, you run the risk of being liable for the person you infected. Disclosure removes liability from you.

I can't believe some of the cold posts I've been reading. I might get a bit of flak for this, but it's almost like some poz people want to punish or teach those who are negative a lesson. That's not fair, I think everyone has the right to dignity and respect regardless of their status. 

I'm in part in favor of criminalizing HIV because if someone knowingly transmits the virus, then they should be punished. That person is taking away someone else's right to good health and freedom. I think we need to be careful about oversimplifying HIV. I am so glad there have been so many advances made in medicine. At the same time though, we can't dismiss the fact that it is a SERIOUS virus that no one should ever contract. The message is getting distorted and downplayed. HIV is not at this point in time diabetes and needs to stop being viewed as such.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 12:02:43 PM by klipsch »
when shit has value...the poor will be born without assholes...

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #105 on: March 11, 2012, 12:11:58 PM »
Does re-posting somebody else's thoughts myself...being positive 13+ years make this a valid statement? While I fully respect the forum rules...I also believe this was immediately discredited based on a "lowest common denominator" type premise. I appreciate that it wasn't removed entirely.
While I'm not debating forum rules by any means...non of my HIV docs or social workers are positive...but I respect their direction and advice with the utmost trust and respect. Please correct me if I'm wrong...  ;)


These forums have sections where hiv negative people are not permitted to post - and for good reason.

He broke the rules of this forum and now he's gone. End of discussion (where he's concerned).

Ann

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: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #106 on: March 11, 2012, 12:47:53 PM »

Most HIV infected people contracted the virus through irresponsible sexual behavior. .....If you're HIV+ because of previous indiscriminate sexual behavior...Guess what? You don't get to be able to carry on with that same indiscriminate sexual behavior!!!


^^^ And this mindset my friend, is the crux of YOUR angst.

HIV is spread through unprotected sex (among other routes).

Nearly every person on this planet has had/or will have unprotected sex in their lives. There could be people who've had multiple partners and dodged infection (because they wore a condom) and others who've got it the night they lost their virginity.

You are casting YOUR morals on a VIRUS.

By calling people 'irresponsible' or whatever (and what gives YOU the right anyway?) you are propping up a 'good AIDS', 'bad AIDS divide', and who the fuck is going to judge that?

Do remember, a virus has NO MORALS.

Which again goes back to what everyone here is banging on about: Wear a fucking condom.

Edited to add: By whinging about others being 'irresponsible' (according to you i.e.) you are eschewing your own responsibility of protecting yourself.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 01:26:11 PM 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 LM

  • Member
  • Posts: 409
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #107 on: March 11, 2012, 01:03:06 PM »
that doesn't mean that we don't need to make EVERY EFFORT not to potentially spread it. Giving a possible sexual partner the option to say NO...is part of that effort.

We make this effort. We use condoms. We would be potentially spreading it if we didn't.

Now, it would certainly make sense to give the sexual parter the option to say NO if the question was "Do ya wanna get teh AIDS?". But that's not the case.

I mean, just ask around: how many HIV+ people, knowing their status but not disclosing it, infected their partners while having safe sex?

Offline jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #108 on: March 11, 2012, 01:37:28 PM »
We make this effort. We use condoms. We would be potentially spreading it if we didn't.

Now, it would certainly make sense to give the sexual parter the option to say NO if the question was "Do ya wanna get teh AIDS?". But that's not the case.

I mean, just ask around: how many HIV+ people, knowing their status but not disclosing it, infected their partners while having safe sex?

I hasten to add, before the inevitable "broken condom" argument flares up, that I have been answering questions in AM I INFECTED for about ten years, and ANN has been doing the same for longer than that. And we have never, ever seen a poster test positive over a condom break.

If you are using such an exceedingly rare event at impetus for criminalization, then it's obvious to me there's an agenda at play here.

And thanks, everyone who pointed out that there is a difference between "unprotected sex" and "irresponsible behavior."

I have, on occasion, driven when I should not have. That's irresponsible behavior. My mom and dad had unprotected sex, and I was the result of that. To equate the two is extremely telling.

"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 denb45

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,051
  • "1987 Classic Old School POZ+"
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #109 on: March 11, 2012, 01:48:14 PM »
klipsch..you say that you've come to terms with being infected 13+ yrs ago...

 it sure doesn't seem like you have, have you considered speaking to therapist, or a Mental health care professional about your emotions, and issues about your AIDS

 it just might help you out some, at the very least it will help you move pass this, and that is nothing to be ashamed about, especially here in these forums  ;)
"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

Offline Solo_LTSurvivor

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,176
  • Twerk Baby Twerk
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #110 on: March 11, 2012, 03:02:09 PM »
klipsch..you say that you've come to terms with being infected 13+ yrs ago...

 it sure doesn't seem like you have, have you considered speaking to therapist, or a Mental health care professional about your emotions, and issues about your AIDS

 it just might help you out some, at the very least it will help you move pass this, and that is nothing to be ashamed about, especially here in these forums  ;)

Good points, Dennis.

I think (and I may be wrong) that some of klipsch's issues stem from his need to feel he has to distinguish that he did not contract teh aids via any of the transmission routes that many (uneducated) people think of.  While I can be sympathetic to the fact that some heterosexual people feel as if they are lost in a system that appears to cater to the gay male population at large - but at the end of the day this virus does not discriminate and all the time I've been on this forum it has been my observation that there is no separationism being practiced.

After all, it has been emphasized in many of his posts that he feels the need to say that he is straight -- which makes it seem as if he would greatly benefit from (a) finding the need to not worry about people thinking that he became poz from gay sex, especially if he is as comfortable with being poz for 13 years and (b) realizing that the pissing contest is so 24 seconds ago because it does not make him any more of a man than the rest of us here who are living with this virus.
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 Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,619
  • 31 Years Poz
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #111 on: March 11, 2012, 03:22:44 PM »
Good points, Dennis.

I think (and I may be wrong) that some of klipsch's issues stem from his need to feel he has to distinguish that he did not contract teh aids via any of the transmission routes that many (uneducated) people think of.  While I can be sympathetic to the fact that some heterosexual people feel as if they are lost in a system that appears to cater to the gay male population at large - but at the end of the day this virus does not discriminate and all the time I've been on this forum it has been my observation that there is no separationism being practiced.

After all, it has been emphasized in many of his posts that he feels the need to say that he is straight -- which makes it seem as if he would greatly benefit from (a) finding the need to not worry about people thinking that he became poz from gay sex, especially if he is as comfortable with being poz for 13 years and (b) realizing that the pissing contest is so 24 seconds ago because it does not make him any more of a man than the rest of us here who are living with this virus.

I think the issue is much deeper than what we may think.  I think he may believe that he is somehow diminished by being poz, so he's not worried about being a bigger man, he may be afraid that he is "not" man enough.  We have all experienced the stigma of being poz and I can appreciate how difficult it can be to adjust with the added stigma of HIV being viewed as a "gay" disease.  The stigma isn't right, but it can serve to cloud what you experience and how you view yourself.

Sorting out personal identity issues can be very complex, but as most of us have learned, you have to come to terms with being poz and accept that your own personal views influence how you see the world.  I believe this may be the greatest challenge that all pozzies face.  Reconciling what you want to believe, with reality.  This adjustment is a process and some folks take longer than others to get through it.  There's nothing wrong with any of it, until you try and use ONLY your own perceptions on how others should live their lives.

Joe

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,490
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #112 on: March 11, 2012, 04:03:34 PM »


If you're HIV+ because of previous indiscriminate sexual behavior...Guess what? You don't get to be able to carry on with that same indiscriminate sexual behavior!!!


You judge some HIV+ people pretty harshly for "indiscriminate sexual behavior."  Nobody else in this forum is even talking about that.

HIV has to do with a few risk factors.  NONE of them are how many people you have had sex with.  Its the way you had sex each time.

Your global view on the HIV+ crowd and how we got that way and how we should live, is quite narrow and pre-judged. 

« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 04:13:32 PM by mecch »
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline klipsch

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #113 on: March 11, 2012, 04:43:39 PM »
Most HIV infected people contracted the virus through irresponsible sexual behavior. ....

^^^ And this mindset my friend, is the crux of YOUR angst.

HIV is spread through unprotected sex (among other routes).

Nearly every person on this planet has had/or will have unprotected sex in their lives. There could be people who've had multiple partners and dodged infection (because they wore a condom) and others who've got it the night they lost their virginity.

You are casting YOUR morals on a VIRUS.

By calling people 'irresponsible' or whatever (and what gives YOU the right anyway?) you are propping up a 'good AIDS', 'bad AIDS divide', and who the fuck is going to judge that?

I'm actually casting myself into the same pool of irresponsibility by failing to protect myself years ago by not wearing condoms or even thinking that I could contract something like HIV in a purely hetero lifestyle (unless I picked it up from a dirty tattoo parlor). I was young and naive.

You judge some HIV+ people pretty harshly for "indiscriminate sexual behavior."  Nobody else in this forum is even talking about that.
HIV has to do with a few risk factors.  NONE of them are how many people you have had sex with.  Its the way you had sex each time.
Your global view on the HIV+ crowd and how we got that way and how we should live, is quite narrow and pre-judged. 

Well...you're certainly not doing anything to change anybody's narrow views including Delegate C.T. Wilson, a Democrat from Charles County, whom this thread was in response too with statements like the one below

The jerk doesn't deserve a disclosure, but also doesn't deserve sex with me.  Its a bit bitter as a pre-coitus cocktail cause you never get to the coitus.  But there are plenty more fish in sea.

How many other men and women with similar attitudes about disclosure do you think there are in the New York craigslist postings for today?


« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 04:45:54 PM by klipsch »
when shit has value...the poor will be born without assholes...

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,374
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #114 on: March 11, 2012, 05:09:00 PM »
So, let me ask you again -- maybe you'll see fit to respond at some point.

Why should HIV be treated any differently from other, potentially fatal, diseases -- no other diseases will land you in jail.  HIV laws will put you in jail even if there is no actual harm done to another person.

Rather than examining the actual issue of criminalization of HIV, you keep going back to people not disclosing their status, regardless if they are having safe or unsafe sex.  Who gives a rat's ass about the New York Craigslist ads? 

Bottomline -- if everyone used condoms for anal or vaginal sex, HIV would not spread -- whether or not anyone uttered a single word or not.  Putting poz folks in jail will NOT stop the spread of HIV, another area that you seem to overlook while trying to legislate your moral view on the rest of the world.

Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline klipsch

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #115 on: March 11, 2012, 05:21:02 PM »
I actually retracted my feelings on the criminalization somewhat a few posts back. Now it's just been disclosure vs non-disclosure. But I understand that what my practices are, have no correlation to what others feel is right or wrong. People will however still consider the criminalization of transmission due to non-disclosure and unsafe sex, as long as there is no clear understanding or acceptance of HIV as whatever they want to believe it is...
« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 05:27:23 PM by klipsch »
when shit has value...the poor will be born without assholes...

Offline Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,619
  • 31 Years Poz
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #116 on: March 11, 2012, 05:59:13 PM »
Most HIV infected people contracted the virus through irresponsible sexual behavior. ....

I'm actually casting myself into the same pool of irresponsibility by failing to protect myself years ago by not wearing condoms or even thinking that I could contract something like HIV in a purely hetero lifestyle (unless I picked it up from a dirty tattoo parlor). I was young and naive.

Well...you're certainly not doing anything to change anybody's narrow views including Delegate C.T. Wilson, a Democrat from Charles County, whom this thread was in response too with statements like the one below

How many other men and women with similar attitudes about disclosure do you think there are in the New York craigslist postings for today?

How sad you can't even discuss something without being deceitful.  You just can't bring yourself to admit your bias about disclosure and your judgment of other people is very telling indeed.  No matter what you believe, stopping HIV infections will remain the responsibility of BOTH sexual partners and no law can force anyone to always do what is in their best interests.  You claim to be irresponsible in becoming poz, yet you judge others on how they should conduct their lives.  You are unable to separate your personal feelings from this discussion and that's why there really is nothing more to say.

It's not an issue about being right or wrong, it's about being grounded in reality in what you believe and accepting that while others may not share those views, imposing your will on another is simply wrong.  Just because we have the power to punish poz folks, doesn't mean that we have to, or that it would ever be right.  Until you can understand that distinction, you will never understand what folks are trying to help you see.

Joe

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,490
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #117 on: March 11, 2012, 06:42:12 PM »
You keep changing your words. First it was indiscriminate. Then irresponsible.  whatever.

Your negative opinion about HIV+ people accumulatives across your posts. Seems like we are dirty dirty dirty.  Pretty damn slutty.  Liars. Criminals.  The Boo Radley characters - the pathological diseases spreaders, preying on the innocent.  The gay barebackers on Craigs list.  blah blah blah blah blah.

I'm glad you're slowly seeing the bigger picture though!  :D

I had a good 25 years of "indiscriminate" sexual encounters -- that waned hotter or colder depending on the year or couple of years -- and never got HIV and even had lovers who were HIV+.   And the vast majority of first time casual lays nobody talked about HIV because nobody wanted to, we just had safe sex.  Some of these even turned into relations and then we had the disease history discussions. 

You really don't know jack squat about the gay world so stop trying to generalize.   

I dont consider my sex life or choices irresponsible or indiscriminate or dirty or subject to your morals or anyone's, especially a government or judicial system.  I don't berate myself for the anal warts I got, or UTIs or the clap or parasites.   Medicine dealt with some, my immune system with others.  It s a damn pity HIV is so nasty but at least a lot of people have hope with drugs and medical care.

HIV has a terrible bias and its built and mantained by people like you with your nonstop inability to detach disease and viruses and bacteria and parasites far away from your morality and psychological questions of punishment, dirtiness, crime, karma, redemption, salvation, absolutes, and whatever else you want to throw in the mix. 

Basta!  It seems to be a prison, your mind trap, and I pity you having to live there.

« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 06:59:46 PM by mecch »
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline Hellraiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,136
  • Semi-misanthropic
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #118 on: March 13, 2012, 03:27:49 AM »
I find it interesting that you pretty much admit that your infection was due to risky sexual behavior, Klipsch.  You seem to ignore the fact that other people who are negative are engaging in the same kind of behavior and should take the only truly preventative steps they can to stop from being infected.  You put the onus of disclosure onto a positive partner (and we all do), but remove all responsibility from the negative partner (this is where we disagree).

I feel a responsibility to disclose to any sexual partner, but I can't say that if I were in what I consider a "no risk" situation I would feel the same way.  I don't enjoy telling people I have this virus, but when it's necessitated I do.  I think that a majority of this forum does as well, although I cannot vouch for them.  The criminalization of viral infection is just overkill.  Educate the public and make people responsible for their sexual health so that hopefully we can limit infections by any route.  Prosecuting someone for a mistake whether they did it knowingly or not helps absolutely no one.

Offline klipsch

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #119 on: March 13, 2012, 11:16:50 AM »
Prosecuting someone for a mistake whether they did it knowingly or not helps absolutely no one.

If they did it knowingly...then it wasn't a mistake, it was a poor decision. If some type of punishment for such a decision isn't in place, then there's no reason for those with lesser morals to disclose. If that were not the case, then it wouldn't be classed as a misdemeanor in some states as it is already. I don't know at what level of punishment it crosses from an appropriate to inappropriate judgement. But I do know that laws and punishment are all fear based.
I understand the difference between safe and unsafe situations, and so understand where somebody wouldn't feel it necessary to disclose. I do...but that's my personal decision, based on my potential lesser of two evils down the road. I would rather face the pain of rejection now...over the pain of explaining myself later if I had too. It has nothing to do with possible criminal punishment...it has to do with my having to live with whatever decisions I make. Somebody told me a long time ago, that "I can do whatever I want...as long as I'm willing to pay the price".
when shit has value...the poor will be born without assholes...

Offline poz91

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #120 on: March 13, 2012, 03:37:00 PM »
I tend to agree in principle with klipsch…

If I were to point a gun at a police officer pull the trigger and he dies, the fact that the officer knew the dangers of his profession and should have protected himself in no way shape or form excuses my pulling the trigger.

It’s just not the “either/or” proposition some are wanting to make it out to be… yes, people have a responsibility to protect themselves from contracting HIV, but people with HIV also have a responsibility to not put others at risk. Both statements are simultaneously true and neither statement negates the other.
 
But I also strongly agree with those who argue that HIV/AIDS should not be “singled out” for criminalization… the basic Constitutional and judicial principles of equality and universality demand that individuals living with HIV be treated in the exact same manner and no differently than persons with any other infectious disease would be.

The flu, for example, is far more contagious than HIV and kills far more people every day of every year than AIDS does, and yet we don’t see folks suggesting that we throw people in jail for showing up to work sick as a dog and putting others at risk.

Penalizing only those with HIV is equivalent to the significantly harsher penalties for possession of rock cocaine … the underlying reason for both is prejudice, not justice.

Offline newt

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,878
  • the one and original newt
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #121 on: March 13, 2012, 04:15:56 PM »
Quote
If I were to point a gun at a police officer pull the trigger and he dies, the fact that the officer knew the dangers of his profession and should have protected himself in no way shape or form excuses my pulling the trigger.

Having sex is different to shooting a police officer, having sex is consensual (we hope) and intimate, private, shooting a police officer is non-consensual and public.

In the UK we have no HIV specific laws, but oddly, bar 1 case of hepatitis transmission, it's only HIV folk who have been done. There was 1 prosecution for passing on herpes where the "victim" said "It was a death sentence" and ruined her life. Oddly for someone with a ruined life she has a new partner and a baby now. The person who got done, his case was chucked out by a more senior judge in the end, but not before his mugshot and name were all over the papers.

- matt
"The object is to be a well patient, not a good patient"

Offline forrest

  • Member
  • Posts: 162
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #122 on: March 13, 2012, 09:57:59 PM »
… yes, people have a responsibility to protect themselves from contracting HIV, but people with HIV also have a responsibility to not put others at risk. Both statements are simultaneously true and neither statement negates the other.

I can't believe I'm even commenting on this thread... I am not a debater.. but I totally agree with this statement. I'm not sure how I feel about this whole topic yet and can see different sides... but I do agree that people that are HIV+ do have a responsibility (or moral code) to at least not put others at risk.  I am almost positive the way I got it was from a guy that in the course of things, took off his condom.. I didn't know about it..he was having issues keeping it up... was in and out... and at some point, took it off... without my permission!!!!!  THAT totally pissed me off because that was not what I wanted because I insisted on a condom being used... and then he sneakily took it off.  I didn't notice. I shouldn't have even put myself in that scenario... so I take responsibility.  But he also shouldn't have taken it off without my permission and knowing it! 

We all have a responsibility. 
2011-03-26:  Tested Positive

Date           |VL        |CD4 |4%  |CD8 |8%  |C4:C8
2011-04-06 |48,653 |603 |32.0 |646 |35.0 |0.61
2011-05-23 |64,324 |577 |36.0 |576 |36.0 |1.00
2011-08-02 |18,319 |574 |36.3 |587 |37.2 |0.98
2011-12-06 |10,375 |480 |30.1 |616 |38.7 |0.78
2012-02-22 |  9,674 |570 |33.6 |655 |38.7 |0.87
2012-05-04 |  8,439 |559 |30.4 |706 |38.4 |0.79

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,374
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #123 on: March 13, 2012, 10:14:41 PM »
 

We all have a responsibility. 

Correct!!  Yet only the poz person faces jail time.  So, legally, we ALL are NOT being held responsible for our actions.  That is the point of this thread -- not whether or not one should disclose, or under what circumstances -- it's the legal position that is thrust ONLY ON ONE PARTY -- that being the positive one.

Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline Rev. Moon

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,782
  • Smart ass faggot ©
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #124 on: March 13, 2012, 10:17:36 PM »
I tend to agree in principle with klipsch…

If I were to point a gun at a police officer pull the trigger and he dies, the fact that the officer knew the dangers of his profession and should have protected himself in no way shape or form excuses my pulling the trigger.


This has got to be one of the worst analogies that I've ever seen, more so within a "criminalization of HIV" thread  ::).  As Matt noted, there is nothing consensual about this encounter.  Jeebus.

This thread has indeed become totally reductive. 
"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

Offline poz91

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #125 on: March 13, 2012, 10:29:48 PM »
Correct!!  Yet only the poz person faces jail time.  So, legally, we ALL are NOT being held responsible for our actions.  That is the point of this thread -- not whether or not one should disclose, or under what circumstances -- it's the legal position that is thrust ONLY ON ONE PARTY -- that being the positive one.

Mike

The blatantly obvious distinction here is that an HIV- person is putting theirself at risk, while an HIV+ person is putting someone else at risk...

Offline poz91

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #126 on: March 13, 2012, 10:57:27 PM »
having sex is consensual

The legal definition of informed consent is: agreement to do something or to allow something to happen only after all the relevant facts are known.

The very term "nondisclosure" pretty much speaks for itself in this regard...

Offline AdonisSMU

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #127 on: March 13, 2012, 11:23:52 PM »
Ummm we don't know if the HIV- person isn't putting the HIV+ person at risk for something. We don't even know if the HIV- person isn't an HIV+ person. The bottom line is we don't know. When you don't know who is putting who at risk...it's best not to use the law to guess.

Offline AdonisSMU

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #128 on: March 13, 2012, 11:26:08 PM »
The legal definition of informed consent is: agreement to do something or to allow something to happen only after all the relevant facts are known.

The very term "nondisclosure" pretty much speaks for itself in this regard...
Not quite that cut and dry. You have to ask if you want to know. If you are afraid to ask, then you probably shouldn't be having the sex to begin with. No one is going to volunteer information to someone they don't know very well. Nor should they be expected to. Why don't we wear a big fat + sign on our foreheads? It's easier. Secondly, the HIV question is rendered irrelevant as soon as there is a condom put on.

Again we don't know who is at risk because we don't know who is positive or not at any given point in time. This is why they say even if the person is negative treat them as though they are positive and use a condom regardless. Blood tests only measure one point in time.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 11:28:40 PM by AdonisSMU »

Online Jeff G

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 11,365
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #129 on: March 13, 2012, 11:42:35 PM »
The legal definition of informed consent is: agreement to do something or to allow something to happen only after all the relevant facts are known.

The very term "nondisclosure" pretty much speaks for itself in this regard...

I think this day in age the relevant facts are that if you have unsafe sex you may get an std including HIV so I really don't understand your logic .

 

Offline jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #130 on: March 14, 2012, 12:28:26 AM »
The legal definition of informed consent is: agreement to do something or to allow something to happen only after all the relevant facts are known.

The very term "nondisclosure" pretty much speaks for itself in this regard...

So I don't disclose, but no transmission occurs either because we correctly use condoms OR we engage in activities that do not transmit HIV, then should I still go to jail? Because in many/most states with HIV laws, I can.

What if the reverse happens? WHat if I disclose my HIV status yet my partner does not disclose his syphilis chancre? And what if, thanks to my HIV disease, that syphilis progresses to irreversable blindness within months (before, say, a routine six month STD panel?) Should that other person be put into jail?

Have you even read the postings made on this topic? Have you even thought this through?

I refuse to rehash my old posts. You've simply wondered in with a bucket of uninformed, ill-considered bullshit that only reinforces the stigma that - newsflash- you not only face, but cause.

I get irritated when people refuse to put forth a rational discussion.

"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 Solo_LTSurvivor

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,176
  • Twerk Baby Twerk
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #131 on: March 14, 2012, 02:12:09 AM »
Especially when informed consent is only applicable in tort law, which specifically only deals with civil cases  ::)
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 LM

  • Member
  • Posts: 409
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #132 on: March 14, 2012, 02:23:43 AM »
I can see neg people being supportive of HIV criminalization laws, in their stupidity, but poz people defending them? That's just sad.

Offline spacebarsux

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,350
  • Survival of the Fittest
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #133 on: March 14, 2012, 02:34:36 AM »
It seems as though the pro-criminalization bandwagon elects to revel in blithe oblivion of the intense stigma that makes it so awfully difficult for people to disclose. And how ironic that these HIV specific criminalization statutes are perhaps the most major drivers of stigma.  ::)

No one is saying that disclosure should not be encouraged.

What we are saying however, is that if someone prior to engaging in sexual intercourse, for whatever reason, doesn’t disclose but does take ALL precautions (i.e. wears a condom and/or engages in ‘no-risk activities’), and most crucially, neither is transmission intended, nor does it occur,  then how or why is it rational or just to single out and punish such a person, particularly since no law anywhere would punish people transmitting any other infection notwithstanding if malicious intent is the driving factor or whether the infectee dies as a result of transmission (e.g- liver damage due to Hep B or C, Cancer due to HPV) ?

What about a case where a poz person and someone with syphilis hook up and neither discloses but they engage in protected sex, however the poz person contracts syphilis via oral sex and dies as a result. Why is the syphilis guy permitted to fuck with impunity while the laws specifically prescribe punitive measures for the poz person in spite of  the fact that he presented no risk to the other party at all (since he correctly used a condom)?

Criminalization of transmission sends out a deeply prejudiced and lopsided signal that implicitly sanctions people eschewing their personal responsibility to protect themselves at the cost of elbowing ALL poz people even further at the margins of society.

A message that promotes and even seeks to defend a mindset where people would/could be led to place more importance on ‘the other person disclosing’ than on protecting themselves by simply wearing a condom.<----This not only sharpens stigma against ALL poz folk, as it labels us as predators/ disease spreading monsters in the eyes of the public (which couldn’t be further from reality as the overwhelming vast majority of us are responsible who take all practicable measures to ensure the virus doesn’t leave our bodily confines) but also severely detracts from some hard truths:

-HIV is a human disease and does not discriminate between a whore and a housewife (pardon the crassness).

-Monogamy doesn’t always inoculate one from HIV infection and promiscuity (together with responsibility and prudence) can and does offer protection from infection.

-Infection can easily be avoided by wrapping up
.

People, in pandering to these exceedingly hypocritical laws (that keep fear mongering & prejudices alive), are complicit in propping up a smokescreen over the real issue (i.e. HIV is a human disease and can affect anyone) that sedates the majority, rather perversely, into a comfortable bubble of self-righteous denial from which they can hurl their sanctimonious stones on a viral subclass of humans that they’ve helped create, a group they may sadly join one day owing to their ignorance.

Edited typo
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 03:21:44 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 Buckmark

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,523
  • Would you like to tie me up with your ties, Ty?
    • Henry's Home Page
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #134 on: March 14, 2012, 11:38:49 AM »
I can see neg people being supportive of HIV criminalization laws, in their stupidity, but poz people defending them? That's just sad.

For the pozzies who support criminalization, I think they take some false comfort -- and sometimes high moral ground -- in thinking that if the person who infected them with HIV had disclosed, they wouldn't have become infected in the first place.  It's not their sexual partner's disclosure or lack thereof that caused their infection, rather it is their sexual behavior which caused it -- sex without a condom.  They may not have made that choice if their partner has told them they were HIV+.  But if they keep having sex without a condom, sooner or later they will have a sexual encounter with someone unaware of being HIV+, and they will become infected.

Many of us have beaten ourselves up after having unprotected sex, perhaps thinking (or praying) we dodged a bullet, and pleading with ourselves or bargaining with God that we will stop.  Yet no matter how disgusted we may have been with ourselves, or simply that we should have known better, for whatever reason we were unable to resist engaging in that behavior again, and ultimately became infected.  So it's not just the HIV that's the issue here, but the sexual behavior behind it, and all those associated moral judgements.

Ultimately I think it is self-loathing that's behind pozzie's support of criminalization.  Loathing of their sexual behaviors, and their inability to stop engaging in them.  And ultimately loathing themselves for becoming HIV+.  It's a convenient coping mechanism for pozzie's to support criminalization, because they can see themselves as an "innocent victim".   They are a "good pozzie", not one of those bad promiscuous pozzies who deserves being HIV+, and deserves being punished as a criminal.  But I know more than a few promiscuous guys -- sluts, if you will -- who are neggies because they use a condom every single time.

At the end of the day, we still became infected with HIV+ because of our sexual behavior.  There are a lot of moral judgements that will be thrown at us because of that.  What these pozzie criminalization advocates don't realize is that by supporting criminalization, they are not only perpetuating those moral judgements, but participating in them.  Self-loathing, indeed.  To break out of that cycle, you need to start by changing  your view of yourself, not how others view you.

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 newt

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,878
  • the one and original newt
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #135 on: March 14, 2012, 04:38:00 PM »
Good post

I note it's always the LAST person to acquire the virus who gets the police et al on their side, the boys and girls in blue and blokes and women in gowns and wigs never say to the accused, erm, yes I know we are doing you, but would you like us to get the person who gave you HIV? << as infinitum, ad nauseum

As one UK law enforcer said to me, (more or less) "You can't get the queers and blacks anymore for being queer and black, but many people I work with would like to have a go at them so there's always HIV." qv: stupid "exposure" laws eg spitting.

Of course there's the the druggies (and I guess that included me once) you can always get them. And, eg in Russia, get away with not treating them.

And in some countries, HIV+ mothers ARVs or no ARVs in pregnancy...

Whatever the moral ins and outs of disclosure in sex (HIV, being married, other things), the criminal law for unintentional transmission, it's a witch hunt.

I salute JK for raising the two way thing about sex and harm. My HIV-positive mate got syphilis off a neg guy he shagged, his CD4 crashed and has never come back up, got real ill; the neg guy is still neg and just had to have a shot (there were condoms).

- matt
"The object is to be a well patient, not a good patient"

Offline Raf

  • Member
  • Posts: 255
  • Bald by choice
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #136 on: March 16, 2012, 12:10:33 AM »
criminalization will lead to fear to people not testing themselves, and when aids finally hits them, maybe the stigma and depression would not let them go to treatment.

But I don't think that pro-criminalization supporters of this thread will understand something that simple.
Dx: 05/14/2008
Latest HIV Meds combo I've been taking:

Kaletra + Combivir (since 05/16/2008 - today)

Offline klipsch

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
when shit has value...the poor will be born without assholes...

Offline Buckmark

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,523
  • Would you like to tie me up with your ties, Ty?
    • Henry's Home Page
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #138 on: March 20, 2012, 02:52:13 PM »
Thoughts on this dude...?

http://www.newson6.com/story/17171823/seven-felony-charges-filed-against-grady-county-man

The first thought that comes to mind is that he had a crappy marriage with his wife.  With examples like this, it's hard to imagine why straight people fight to keep marriage all for themselves.  The sanctity of marriage, indeed.   ::)

The second thought that comes to mind is:  where are the examples of people being charged for crimes of spreading diseases other than HIV?  No one ever seems to respond to this question no matter how many times I (or other here) have posed it.   Where's the outrage when it comes to spreading diseases other than HIV / AIDS?





"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 LM

  • Member
  • Posts: 409
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #139 on: March 20, 2012, 03:00:14 PM »
He's an asshole, sure. But why did the women have unprotected sex with him? He did not force it on them, as far as the story goes. They were stupid. If there wasn't so much stigma about HIV, maybe he wouldn't hide, and maybe they wouldn't be stupid enough to think that he was "clean" because of his looks, or that it's not right to ask a sexual partner to test for STDs before dropping the condom. Criminalization doesn't solve this issue, it only makes it worse.

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,228
  • Ninja Please
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #140 on: March 20, 2012, 03:05:26 PM »
Thoughts on this dude...?

http://www.newson6.com/story/17171823/seven-felony-charges-filed-against-grady-county-man

Flamebait link and run! Nice. The Gipper approves. ^.^



But taking a little look at the article I noticed:

Quote
He's also charged with having sex with a 14-year-old girl.

The defendant, not President Reagan and I'm thinking it's not the HIV which makes this fellow dangerous.

MtD

Offline klipsch

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #141 on: March 20, 2012, 04:05:29 PM »
Not trying to re-open discussion on criminalization...but I think this guy certainly fits the bill. It had me thinking about "why would somebodies wife (or husband) feel the need to use protection?"... but the article stated they were just married last October, so what about before that? I didn't read or hear anything in the video to prove that he "intentionally" gave his wife and the previous girlfriend and child HIV.
when shit has value...the poor will be born without assholes...

Offline Rev. Moon

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,782
  • Smart ass faggot ©
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #142 on: March 20, 2012, 04:09:38 PM »
I didn't read or hear anything in the video to prove that he "intentionally" gave his wife and the previous girlfriend and child HIV.


Glad you noticed.  Nuff said.
"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,228
  • Ninja Please
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #143 on: March 20, 2012, 05:14:23 PM »
I must say I see two distinct legal issues in this discussion.

In New South Wales, failing to disclose one's HIV positive status to a sexual partner beforehand is a specific offence under the Public Health Act 1991 and carries specific penalties. No other disease is so proscribed in our statute law.

But, to my knowledge, prosecutions are rarely carried out under that particular code.

Rather when prosecutions of this kind are brought in NSW the charge is usually "inflicting grevious bodily disease" which I believe (but I may be wrong) is an offence under the common law and is not necessarily limited to HIV. Presumably other notifiable infections such as syphilis, tuberculosis, and the dreaded McWhirter's scuppity itch can also leave a person open to such an action.

I am not necessarily convinced that the latter approach is always unreasonable. There may be times when persons who, whether knowingly or through reckless indifference, cause egregious harm to others should be hauled before the beak and given the opportunity to account for themselves.

MtD

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,490
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #144 on: March 20, 2012, 05:52:36 PM »
A bad law is bad but can, nevertheless, punish one immoral person.
Its still a bad law, for other reasons, multiplied by millions of people.

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

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,228
  • Ninja Please
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #145 on: March 21, 2012, 06:30:23 AM »
A bad law is bad but can, nevertheless, punish one immoral person.
Its still a bad law, for other reasons, multiplied by millions of people.

Heidi,

This has gotta be bullshit, even by your standards. ::)

MtD

Offline spacebarsux

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,350
  • Survival of the Fittest
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #146 on: March 21, 2012, 07:25:09 AM »
I must say I see two distinct legal issues in this discussion.

In New South Wales, failing to disclose one's HIV positive status to a sexual partner beforehand is a specific offence under the Public Health Act 1991 and carries specific penalties. No other disease is so proscribed in our statute law.

But, to my knowledge, prosecutions are rarely carried out under that particular code.

Rather when prosecutions of this kind are brought in NSW the charge is usually "inflicting grevious bodily disease" which I believe (but I may be wrong) is an offence under the common law and is not necessarily limited to HIV. Presumably other notifiable infections such as syphilis, tuberculosis, and the dreaded McWhirter's scuppity itch can also leave a person open to such an action.

I am not necessarily convinced that the latter approach is always unreasonable. There may be times when persons who, whether knowingly or through reckless indifference, cause egregious harm to others should be hauled before the beak and given the opportunity to account for themselves.

MtD

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

There are many shades of grey when it comes to these issues, I think. For example:

1.   Woman is in an abusive relationship with a man. Starts having an affair with someone else. Contracts HIV. Terrified of consequences if she discloses to her husband and is no position to dictate to him about wrapping up. She exposes him to HIV. Transmission results.

2.   Man hooks up for a one night stand on an internet site. He usually doesn’t disclose but always wears condoms. Then one night he slips up in a state of intoxication and truly forgets to wrap up or whatever. Exposes someone to the virus and transmission takes place.

3.   Man hooks up for sex often. He never discloses but always (without exception) wears a condom. Then, one night, during a particularly rough sex session, the condom breaks but he realises it after the act is concluded. He is terrified to disclose, so he doesn’t. Transmission occurs.

4.   A and B are two people in a relationship. B gets diagnosed with HIV. B does not tell A as he does not want to lose him and wants to take time to come to terms with everything. They always practice safe sex and continue to do so.

A year down the line, B finds out A is cheating on him. B is infuriated and wants A to pay. B suggests that they dispense with condoms with the clear intention of causing harm. B knowingly, with a conscious mind, has unprotected sex with A on several occasions with the sole purpose of infecting him (as opposed to it being a one time thing). When B is the active partner in intercourse, he makes sure he ejaculates in A- many times. Transmission results.

I think it is justifiable for the criminal justice system to get involved in scenario 4. However, the ‘burden of proof’ should always rest with the prosecution to prove that the ‘intention of causing harm’ was unequivocally and unambiguously present – to a degree that is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ (as in all criminal cases).

I think the courts have no business at all in entertaining cases that resemble scenarios 1, 2 or 3. There is a clear ‘intent to harm’ (mens rea) in scenario 4 that is lacking in the other cases- which is ‘essential’ and ‘key’ before sentencing anyone.

The guy in scenario 4 is no different to someone assaulting and causing ‘bodily harm’ and thus he should be charged under the ‘general criminal provisions’ and not under the label of ‘grievous bodily disease’, much less a specific and special HIV law. It is wholly contrary to the principles of natural justice and equality to have laws that create a viral subclass of humans. I think the term 'grievous bodily harm' is much more prevalent (in common law countries) as well as more suitable than grievous bodily disease--> (what does that mean anyway? Does it include Cervical cancer caused by HPV? -I bet it doesn't why? Because HPV isn't associated with outlaw sexual minorities, HIV is).

I imagine such a case deserves (scenario 4) the title of ‘rarest of the rare’- and quite frankly I find it risible to think the offender should walk scot free - or that any court would let him/her.

The real problem then becomes with how much finesse and accuracy the legislators and the courts make this distinction- especially since there is the very real possibility of miscarriages of justice resulting if the courts start including negligent/ reckless behaviour (such as in scenario 1, 2, 3) as ‘reckless enough to warrant the malicious label’. I find that totally wrong and something to be avoided at all costs.

As the saying goes (applicable to all common law countries) “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”.
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 Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,228
  • Ninja Please
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #147 on: March 21, 2012, 07:57:45 AM »
I think there is a difference between a negligent/ reckless poz person who exposes someone else due to slipping up in an inebriated stupor where his/her raging hormones prevent him/her from thinking rationally/reasonably and someone who with a clear and conscious mind acts with the malicious intent to cause harm by transmitting the virus and does in fact transmit it.

There are many shades of grey when it comes to these issues, I think. For example:

1.   Woman is in an abusive relationship with a man. Starts having an affair with someone else. Contracts HIV. Terrified of consequences if she discloses to her husband and is no position to dictate to him about wrapping up. She exposes him to HIV. Transmission results.

2.   Man hooks up for a one night stand on an internet site. He usually doesn’t disclose but always wears condoms. Then one night he slips up in a state of intoxication and truly forgets to wrap up or whatever. Exposes someone to the virus and transmission takes place.

3.   Man hooks up for sex often. He never discloses but always (without exception) wears a condom. Then, one night, during a particularly rough sex session, the condom breaks but he realises it after the act is concluded. He is terrified to disclose, so he doesn’t. Transmission occurs.

4.   A and B are two people in a relationship. B gets diagnosed with HIV. B does not tell A as he does not want to lose him and wants to take time to come to terms with everything. They always practice safe sex and continue to do so.

A year down the line, B finds out A is cheating on him. B is infuriated and wants A to pay. B suggests that they dispense with condoms with the clear intention of causing harm. B knowingly, with a conscious mind, has unprotected sex with A on several occasions with the sole purpose of infecting him (as opposed to it being a one time thing). When B is the active partner in intercourse, he makes sure he ejaculates in A- many times. Transmission results.

I think it is justifiable for the criminal justice system to get involved in scenario 4. However, the ‘burden of proof’ should always rest with the prosecution to prove that the ‘intention of causing harm’ was unequivocally and unambiguously present – to a degree that is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ (as in all criminal cases).

I think the courts have no business at all in entertaining cases that resemble scenarios 1, 2 or 3. There is a clear ‘intent to harm’ (mens rea) in scenario 4 that is lacking in the other cases- which is ‘essential’ and ‘key’ before sentencing anyone.

The guy in scenario 4 is no different to someone assaulting and causing ‘bodily harm’ and thus he should be charged under the ‘general criminal provisions’ and not under the label of ‘grievous bodily disease’, much less a specific and special HIV law. It is wholly contrary to the principles of natural justice and equality to have laws that create a viral subclass of humans. I think the term 'grievous bodily harm' is much more prevalent (in common law countries) as well as more suitable than grievous bodily disease--> (what does that mean anyway? Does it include Cervical cancer caused by HPV? -I bet it doesn't why? Because HPV isn't associated with outlaw sexual minorities, HIV is).

I imagine such a case deserves (scenario 4) the title of ‘rarest of the rare’- and quite frankly I find it risible to think the offender should walk scot free - or that any court would let him/her.

The real problem then becomes with how much finesse and accuracy the legislators and the courts make this distinction- especially since there is the very real possibility of miscarriages of justice resulting if the courts start including negligent/ reckless behaviour (such as in scenario 1, 2, 3) as ‘reckless enough to warrant the malicious label’. I find that totally wrong and something to be avoided at all costs.

As the saying goes (applicable to all common law countries) “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”.

And this is what I mean. :)

In common law, the point can be argued based on centuries of precedent. Taking into account all manner of permutations. The cold remove of the jurisprudence operating to the fore.

Judicial officers have a freer hand to deal with such things.

Statute law is confected by politicians in response to popular whim, designed to satisfy contemporary populist appetites rather than weighing lawful arguments.

MtD

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,490
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #148 on: March 21, 2012, 08:59:58 AM »
oops
« Last Edit: March 21, 2012, 09:08:27 AM by mecch »
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,228
  • Ninja Please
Re: HIV criminalization escalates
« Reply #149 on: March 21, 2012, 09:13:17 AM »
oops

I saw what you did there, Gretchen.  ;)

MtD

 


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.