Author Topic: criminalization in the news (Read 19759 times)

Joe K · « **Reply #50 on:** May 28, 2015, 07:34:41 pm »

A sad reality about many laws, is they generally lag, by several years, any progress in the area that they control. Look how long it took the Red Cross to allow gay men to donate blood, but they still refuse any blood from a man who had sex with another man, within the past year. HIV science tells us that a 3 month negative result is conclusive, that unprotected intercourse with a UD poz is safer than unprotected with a person of unknown status, but old hatreds die hard.

If we could strip away the "gay" part of HIV, the laws may be very different. I firmly believe that many HIV transmission laws are meant as a rebuke to how gays have sex, and not about preventing infections. If it was all about curtailing the spread of disease, HIV would be far down on the list as it's much harder to contract that most STIs and the laws of disclosure would involve Hep C and Herpes.

Joe

Richie_R2 · « **Reply #51 on:** May 28, 2015, 07:41:09 pm »

I can tell you definitively that when you're dealing with something that causes fear and hatred, Science Does Not Matter. He heard all the evidence, but all he listened to was the fact that I was being accused by a Negatoid. I might as well have been a black man in Mississippi being accused of raping a white woman in 1952.

That's exactly the problem. It was written in 1990, based on a fear in the late 80s that we'd go around intentionally spreading it because we're angry. The law specifically says that condoms are irrelevant, though, so it makes me wonder if they really care about anything other than finding an excuse to put us "away". Or, as a politician, ex-Governor of a state about 30 miles from me, once put it, steps should be taken to "isolate the carriers of this plague"-- quote:

Mike Huckabee once advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, opposed increased federal funding in the search for a cure and said homosexuality could "pose a dangerous public health risk." ... "If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague."

In other words, they were trying to build concentration camps, so afraid they were back in the early 90s. That's why I got this HIV+ tattoo with a symbol (red triangle) from Dachau around it. When asked about the statement in his 2008 bid for President, he refused to retract and apologize. I will put the link below.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/12/08/mike-huckabee-advocated-isolation-aids-patients-in-12-senate-race.html

Richie_R2 · « **Reply #52 on:** May 28, 2015, 07:53:20 pm »

Wow, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-109 does indeed prohibit all sex by positive persons. I read several side-site explanations. Sorry. One site clarifies "particularly" if you don't use a condom, but it's not necessary to the charge. That's why I've always said, since my parents attended grad school at Louisiana Tech University when I was a kid, "F the Volunteers!!!"

What a messed up state/statute. And I thought Missouri was bad. Actually, I didn't know anything about Missouri until they brought me here and said I did bad things in this state (didn't... never had been here... I was in Kansas with the Ex... but ok).

Joe K · « **Reply #53 on:** May 28, 2015, 07:58:24 pm »

Mike Huckabee is only pandering to the Evangelicals with talk like this. I wish someone would do to him, what Dan Savage did to Rick Santorum. They both make my skin crawl.

Joe

Richie_R2 · « **Reply #54 on:** May 28, 2015, 08:02:34 pm »

Ah.. nope, TN statute doesn't prevent all sex. There's an Affirmative Defense, meaning you have to actively prove it to prevail, the way the Prosecution usually does to attain a conviction (beyond reasonable doubt to jury). The same is true in Missouri. The statute's page says at the bottom:

Usually, people who do not know that they are infected with an STD cannot be convicted of criminal exposure.

Generally, condom use is not a defense to criminal exposure.

It is a defense to exposing another to HIV or hepatitis if the victim:

knew of the defendant’s infection
knew that the behavior could result in transmission, and
consented to the behavior.

(Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-109.)
Punishment

Exposing another to an STD is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a fine of up to $50.

Exposing another to HIV and aggravated prostitution are Class C felonies, punishable by three to 15 years’ imprisonment a fine of up to $10,000.

Exposing another to hepatitis is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to eleven months, 29 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,000 and restitution (repayment of expenses occurred as a result of the crime) to the victim. The victim can also sue for expenses and loss of services.

Escaping from quarantine in a secure facility is a Class E felony, punishable by one to six years’ imprisonment a fine of up to $3,000.

Richie_R2 · « **Reply #55 on:** May 28, 2015, 08:11:07 pm »

Quote

It is a defense to exposing another to HIV or hepatitis if the victim:

knew of the defendant’s infection
knew that the behavior could result in transmission, and
consented to the behavior.

I can't help but note that, under these laws (MO is same), even if they 1. knew, 2. knew, and 3. consented.... they're still a "victim". FFFFFFFFFFF the Volunteers!

Joe K · « **Reply #56 on:** May 28, 2015, 08:38:57 pm »

Quote from: Richie_R2 on May 28, 2015, 08:11:07 pm

I can't help but note that, under these laws (MO is same), even if they 1. knew, 2. knew, and 3. consented.... they're still a "victim". FFFFFFFFFFF the Volunteers!

Richie,

You had me in agreement, until I reached the part in blue. I cannot understand how disparaging the people, who are only doing their jobs gets us anywhere? The culpability for these kinds of laws, rests with the politicians and ultimately us, for electing them. I can't see a connection in blaming the messenger, when they are conveying the message of their superiors, ie us all.

Joe

initforlife · « **Reply #57 on:** May 28, 2015, 09:01:30 pm »

I find this all very depressing. Sure we can change the laws if and only if we get the right people voted in. but living in a bible state( sorry for all those Christians out here I am or was one too. ) but being hiv+ has opened my eyes on so much that is wrong with our country. To get someone voted in who understands and who would help change the laws would take an act of GOD! Be a cold day in hell before I would even think about having sex with someone not poz.. and that's sad as I'm sure there are a lot of good men out there who wouldn't care. but no way I can chance it. would you? I mean what if someone got pissed at you and there you have it just because your poz your in the wrong to start with...

Richie_R2 · « **Reply #58 on:** May 28, 2015, 09:13:35 pm »

It's most definitely a weapon in the hands of anyone who wishes to hurt you unless you take some very careful steps to protect yourself... short of a signed contract, that's mainly by being so "out of the closet" and open with everyone that no one can reasonably say they didn't know.

But I am 100% in agreement with Init about the elected officials. These laws got passed because a few bigots in the Reagan administration passed a rider with the Ryan White act requiring such laws for states to receive money. Bigots in the states then enacted significantly harsher measures in most state legislatures... which were written typically by one, then pushed through as a rider on much larger bills. "Sub-rider #7, oh we're going to lock up our pozitoids." The laws are written to sound like they can only be used in a particular way, e.g. "when the person intends harm", but prosecutors and police see that to mean "intent = they had sex." I have already proved that this is the case with my own paperwork, that I scanned yesterday. I can repost the links here if people didn't see it. Elected officials have little to do with what actually happens to us. It's only how our government works in fairy tale books they read from in classrooms. Not trying to attack you, Joe, but that's just how it is on so many subjects. The states have a loooong history of passing laws that target unfavored minorities, which is why the 14th amendment was passed, applying federal civil rights to state defendants. But it was rescinded in large part with an obscure law called the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act" (AEDPA) in 1996, which gutted state prisoner access to habeas corpus writ petitions in federal court. States can get away with almost anything to their own citizens, in the end, limited only by their own self-policing, in most cases. Heh. I can't believe I even typed the phrase "self-policing" government.

bocker3 · « **Reply #59 on:** May 28, 2015, 10:18:11 pm »

Quote from: Joe K on May 28, 2015, 08:38:57 pm

Richie,

You had me in agreement, until I reached the part in blue. I cannot understand how disparaging the people, who are only doing their jobs gets us anywhere? The culpability for these kinds of laws, rests with the politicians and ultimately us, for electing them. I can't see a connection in blaming the messenger, when they are conveying the message of their superiors, ie us all.

Joe

I think he might have been talking about the University of Tennessee Volunteers -- not folks who volunteer.

M

initforlife · « **Reply #60 on:** May 28, 2015, 10:29:18 pm »

Tn is the volunteer state! I'm sure that's what he meant lol but I can see how that can get misunderstood.

Richie_R2 · « **Reply #61 on:** May 28, 2015, 10:42:05 pm »

I meant the University of Tennessee sports mascot, the Volunteers. They have a good women's basketball team that are rivals of the team at my parents' Alma Mater, both for undergrad and postgrad degrees, Louisiana Tech University. I was simply applying that to the rest of the state. I'd say F the Tigers (for Mizzou), but LSU, where my mom got her PhD, is also the Tigers, so that seemed inappropriate for my applied F-bomb.

Jim Allen · « **Reply #62 on:** May 31, 2015, 02:19:09 pm »

Don't know if this has already been posted in a different part of the forum.(I checked could not spot it)

But it seems like Australia has made a positive step of removing the law regarding the criminalisation of HIV. It's a good sign that major locations such as Australia are taken steps like this.

MAY 28, 2015
http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/local-news/victoria-news/victoria-repeals-section-19a-to-reduce-hiv-stigma-in-law/137176

Activist and HIV Legal Working Group chair Paul Kidd led the campaign to repeal 19A, and told the Star Observer the reform would go towards reducing HIV stigma affecting everybody in the community.

“A core part of our argument about section 19A from the very beginning is that even though only a tiny number of people have ever been directly affected by it, we believe that this is a law that affects everybody, and that everybody who is HIV-positive is impacted by the negative effects of this law and of criminalisation generally,” Kidd said.

“When people are criminalised it perpetuates stigma, and often when you look at the people who have gone through the criminal justice system they are victims of stigma.”

Richie_R2 · « **Reply #63 on:** May 31, 2015, 02:25:43 pm »

Big hugs to you for posting that! Really. Thanks.

timmm55 · « **Reply #64 on:** May 31, 2015, 05:37:10 pm »

Quote from: Richie_R2 on May 31, 2015, 02:25:43 pm

Big hugs to you for posting that! Really. Thanks.

It's great to see you still have a sense of humor!

i wonder, if today, with the DOJ findings and recommendations that could be used as 'evidence"?

Australia is the modern model. It wasn't in 2008 when they disagreed with the Swiss Statement. They said there would be a 10X increase.

Now they are with Dr. Fauci, Dr. Montaner and the rest of the HIV specialists.

ACON:
There are now at least five strategies that reasonably constitute‘safe sex’,provided that certain parameters are met.
They are:
1.The use of Condoms during casual encounters between men of unknown or discordant serostatus.
2.HIV negative men taking effective pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).
3.Men living with HIV who only have sex without condoms when they have a sustained undetectable viral load (UVL) and in the absence of sexually transmissible infections (STIs).
4.Effective use of serosorting between HIV positive men.
5.Effective negotiated safety agreements.

http://www.acon.org.au/sites/default/files/What-is-Safe-Sex-Position-2014.pdf

Richie_R2 · « **Reply #65 on:** May 31, 2015, 06:32:47 pm »

Science does not make it into a courtroom unless they want it there. Period. You can try, but there are a hundred ways to distract a jury from boring ol' science, especially if you can't afford a flashy lawyer and have to rely on a Public Pretender. I tried handing a printed copy of the CDC's official findings to the Parole Board, who refused and said, quote, "Mr. (R2), if what you said was true, I would have seen seen it on CNN." Endquote. I thought, but did not say, "Don't you mean Fox News?"

There is an interesting case in the military federal courts of appeal in which an Air Force sergeant's case was overturned on those grounds, recently, because it was not proven likely that he could have actually harmed anyone. It's the first of its kind that I have seen, and it bodes well for the future of criminalization. Doesn't completely reverse criminalization altogether, but does make the penalty non-Draconian.

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/02/23/court-tosses-one-conviction-against-airmen-david-gutierrez-hiv-case/23913645/

Forums Index

Welcome

Author Topic: criminalization in the news (Read 19759 times)