Plainfield man arrested on HIV exposure charge

[newt]

you godda scream at this combination of the law's finest hour, them boys in blue (or green or whatever they have in the fields), 3rd party gossp n dimbos cruising online

--

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-ia-hivarrest,0,1876401.story

CEDAR FALLS, Iowa - A Plainfield man has been charged with allegedly exposing another person to the virus that causes AIDS.

Thirty-four-year-old Nick Rhoades is charged with criminal transmission of HIV. He was arrested on Monday at University Hospitals in Iowa City.

Police say Rhoades met a Cedar Falls man online and then traveled to the man's home on June 26 where they had intimate contact. Police say the man later learned from a friend that Rhoades has HIV. <<  No I didn't miss off the +

Police did not say whether the man was infected with the virus.

--

- matt

[GSOgymrat]

Someone please remind me to bring a disclosure statement and a notary next time I want to have sex.

[mecch]

Wouldn't want to live in one of those states. But I'm told I live in one of those countries!!! But now our law takes into account if there is transmission, or not, and HIV viral load....  All too f*ing complicated.

Laws requiring HIV+ status disclosure to sex partners - some studies have shown such laws don't prevent transmission, don't change risk behaviours, don't encourage HIV testing, don't improve health education, and DO increase stigma against HIV+ people.

Does the Iowa law require disclosure before sex? Or does the Iowa law say its illegal if there is sex and HIV transmission without pre-sex disclosure? 

Too many unanswered questions in the article.

(I understood the lesson about "I am HIV" being riduculous.  But what's so off about "I have HIV" versus "I am HIV+"?)  

[AndyArrow]

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the arrest but part of that story was missing from the Chicago Tribune story.  The Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier also had this paragraph:

Cedar Falls police arranged for the victim to contact Rhoades again by phone on July 10, where Rhoades admitted he was HIV positive. He admitted it again during an interview with police on July 14, according to court documents. He also admitted that he didn’t tell the victim he was HIV positive during their initial contact.

AA

[mecch]

answered my own questions, see below....

[mecch]

For those who don't already know, there's a great blog about criminal transmission by Edwin J Bernard

http://criminalhivtransmission.blogspot.com/

the iowa entry here:
http://criminalhivtransmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Iowa

I think its a fascinating topic.

Answering my own question, OH MY, the Iowa law is BAIT AND SWITCH justice:

"4.  This section shall not be construed to require that an infection with the human immunodeficiency virus has occurred for a person to have committed criminal transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus."

So ick, this poor Iowa HIV+ fellow commits "criminal transmission" even if there is no transmission....

What the f**k!   "What's the Frequency, Kenneth"?

Many thanks again to the creators of this site and others like it, and to all those who contribute such varied experiences - good and bad.  I'm stupified how much I have to learn. Baby steps required - I will go thrift shopping now - change my mood - this story is so discouraging. Is knowledge power?

Have a nice day. 

[komnaes]

Someone please remind me to bring a disclosure statement and a notary next time I want to have sex.

Just do it in a sauna's dark room so no one will recognize you..

Seriously though, that's the reason why I am sticking with other pozzies.

And of cos there are studies saying that this type of laws doesn't work, and you know what solution they'd come up with? That's being considered in Singapore - that's not enough to just make sure all of us to disclose, it should also include people that should have known (i.e. have a history of risky behaviors but never tested) that they could be HIV to warn their partners.

It's not that far from tattooing all of us..

[emeraldize]

Someone please remind me to bring a disclosure statement and a notary next time I want to have sex.

A couple of years ago, through one of the poz dating sites, I chatted online with a poz attorney who does just that. He has a disclosure form that a woman must sign if they have any sexual relations. I've never heard of anyone else doing that, but he say it works for him.

[Ann]

A couple of years ago, through one of the poz dating sites, I chatted online with a poz attorney who does just that. He has a disclosure form that a woman must sign if they have any sexual relations. I've never heard of anyone else doing that, but he say it works for him.

So instead of a "pre-nup", he has women sign a "pre-fuck". Interesting.

I'm currently with another poz and life is so much easier now (in many, many ways) than it was when I was in a SD relationship.

And yeah, what the hell is this crap in Iowa where they can charge you for criminal transmission when no transmission has taken place? That's like charging someone for theft just because they picked an item up off the shelf in a shop and put it back down again. Well, you might have stolen it! Crickey.

I'd also like to know exactly what they mean by "intimate contact". That could be anything from a chaste hug to a no-holds-barred, dirty monkey bareback fuckfest. I mean, come on. We see enough people in the Am I forum worried about mutual jackoff situations.... maybe the Iowa State Legislature needs to read this forum.

Makes my head spin.

Ann

[komnaes]

That could be anything from a chaste hug to a no-holds-barred, dirty monkey bareback fuckfest...

Sorry I have to laugh when I saw this..

Ann, you're amazing and we all love you for this..

[Buckmark]

Someone please remind me to bring a disclosure statement and a notary next time I want to have sex.

Sadly, I've often thought the same thing -- so much for spontaneity.   

I can't recall someone being arrested and charged with exposing someone to other potentially deadly infectious diseases like Hep-C or TB.  A google search turned up nothing on the latter, but plenty of examples of folks being arrested for exposing another to HIV. 

The more I think about it, the more angry I become.  And we wonder why there is stigma?  These laws certainly haven't prevented the spread of HIV.

Regards,

Henry

[marky]

For those who are interested here is the law and the definition of "Intimate Contact" in iowa: 
A person commits criminal transmission of HIV if the person, knowing of his or her HIV positive status: engages in intimate contact with another person; transfers, donates or provides blood, tissue, semen, organs, or other potentially infectious bodily fluids for administration (e.g., transfusion) to another person; or in any way transfers to another person any nonsterile intravenous or intramuscular drug paraphernalia previously used by the person infected with HIV. “Intimate contact” means the intentional exposure of the body of one person to a bodily fluid of another person in a manner that could result in the transmission of HIV. Actual transmission of HIV is not a necessary element of this crime. It is an affirmative defense that the person exposed to HIV knew of the other person's HIV positive status, knew that the action of exposure could result in transmission of HIV, and consented to the action of exposure with that knowledge.

So, it you have to show "intent" and that your body fluid can result in transmission.  I guess if you bottom your off the hook? LOL......

For those that want a link to ALL states HIV criminal transmission laws go to http://www.lambdalegal.org/our-work/publications/general/state-criminal-statutes-hiv.htm

[schnitzer]

Curious: has anyone ever been charged in a case of non-disclosure but protected using condoms?

[David_CA]

The Lambda link above didn't work for me.  This one does, though http://www.lambdalegal.org/our-work/publications/general/state-criminal-statutes-hiv.html. 

Catch this one (from Palin's home state of Alaska):  "...the defendant had been previously diagnosed as having or having tested positive for HIV, and the offense either (A) involved penetration, or (B) exposed the victim to a risk or a fear that the offense could result in the transmission of HIV."  I put the section I'm referencing in bold.  Who gets to decide if a fear that the offense could result in transmission?  You see all sorts of 'fears' in the AAI section. 

In Arkansas, one can be convicted of a felony "...by engaging in sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, anal intercourse, or any other intrusion..."  Is there no requirement for HIV transmission laws to be based on fact and science?

I'm glad to see that NC doesn't have any of these ignorance-based laws.

David

[Ann]

Browsing through the Lambda list, I found that we pozzies cannot get married - we can't even get laid - in Oklahoma:

It is a felony for any person, after becoming infected with a venereal disease and before being pronounced cured by a physician in writing, to marry any other person or to expose any other person by the act of copulation or sexual intercourse to such venereal disease or to liability to contract the venereal disease. (“Venereal disease” is defined to include diseases which may be transmitted from one person to another through or by means of sexual intercourse and found and declared by medical science or accredited schools of medicine to be infectious or contagious).

FFS!

I suppose the liability  bit means something along the lines of "no, protected intercourse is out too, because condoms are liable  to break."

FFS!!!

Anybody here from Oklahoma?

 

[J.R.E.]

Browsing through the Lambda list, I found that we pozzies cannot get married - we can't even get laid - in Oklahoma:

Anybody here from Oklahoma?

I would say that Oklahoma is not "OK"   


Ray

[mecch]

this thread is bringing me down....

[attachment deleted by admin]