Knowingly Spreading HIV No Longer Felony in CA

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Now if you knowingly spread HIV to others, it's no longer a felony. Just a misdemeanor. Apparently they're more worried about people feeling criminalized for having HIV than from keeping people from spreading HIV to sexual partners or donating to blood banks without disclosing HIV. Madness.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-gov-brown-downgrades-from-felony-to-1507331544-htmlstory.html

Quote:Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill Friday that lowers from a felony to a misdemeanor the crime of knowingly exposing a sexual partner to HIV without disclosing the infection.

The measure also applies to those who give blood without telling the blood bank that they are HIV-positive.

Modern medicine allows those with HIV to live longer lives and nearly eliminates the possibility of transmission, according to state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Assemblyman Todd Gloria (D-San Diego), authors of the bill.

“Today California took a major step toward treating HIV as a public health issue, instead of treating people living with HIV as criminals,” Wiener said in a statement. “HIV should be treated like all other serious infectious diseases, and that’s what SB 239 does.”

Supporters of the change said the current law requires an intent to transmit HIV to justify a felony, but others noted cases have been prosecuted where there was no physical contact, so there was an argument intent was lacking.

Brown declined to comment on his action.

HIV has been the only communicable disease for which exposure is a felony under California law. The current law, Wiener argued, may convince people not to be tested for HIV, because without a test they cannot be charged with a felony if they expose a partner to the infection.

“We are going to end new HIV infections, and we will do so not by threatening people with state prison time, but rather by getting people to test and providing them access to care,” Wiener said.

Supporters of the bill said women engaging in prostitution are disproportionately targeted with criminal charges, even in cases where the infection is not transmitted.

Republican lawmakers including Sen. Joel Anderson of Alpine voted against the bill, arguing it puts the public at risk.

“I’m of the mind that if you purposefully inflict another with a disease that alters their lifestyle the rest of their life, puts them on a regimen of medications to maintain any kind of normalcy, it should be a felony,” Anderson said during the floor debate. “It’s absolutely crazy to me that we should go light on this.”

Anderson said the answer could be to extend tougher penalties to those who expose others to other infectious diseases.

[TheUberHuber]

Thats just insane. They are trying to make it equal to all disease I guess but damn.

[GMDino]

So it seems like it will be treated just like all other diseases where an "intent" is needed to be proven.

The original law was probably an overreaction due to to fear so it's ok to level it all out.  If it's not an automatic felony for passing along syphilis knowingly than HIV shouldn't be any different.  Good move.

[Belsnickel]

(10-11-2017, 08:53 AM)GMDino Wrote: So it seems like it will be treated just like all other diseases where an "intent" is needed to be proven.

The original law was probably an overreaction due to to fear so it's ok to level it all out.  If it's not an automatic felony for passing along syphilis knowingly than HIV shouldn't be any different.  Good move.

I waffle on this, because HIV is harder to manage than syphilis. Though it is much more manageable now than it was in the 1980's, for example.

I'm undecided on this one.

[GMDino]

(10-11-2017, 08:54 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I waffle on this, because HIV is harder to manage than syphilis. Though it is much more manageable now than it was in the 1980's, for example.

I'm undecided on this one.

I prefer pancakes.



Not a fan of blueberry though.  Especially with waffles.  


Treatments are different but they both fall under sexually transmitted disease in my book.

HIV/AIDS had a lot of fear attached to it (some of it justified...some of it because it was "the gheys") when it was an epidemic that probably led to over charging.

I'm okay with leveling it with other, similar diseases.  Heck they could have raised all the others to felonies and I'd have been okay with that too.  With the "intent" caveat.

[BmorePat87]

(10-11-2017, 08:53 AM)GMDino Wrote: So it seems like it will be treated just like all other diseases where an "intent" is needed to be proven.

The original law was probably an overreaction due to to fear so it's ok to level it all out.  If it's not an automatic felony for passing along syphilis knowingly than HIV shouldn't be any different.  Good move.

(10-11-2017, 08:54 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I waffle on this, because HIV is harder to manage than syphilis. Though it is much more manageable now than it was in the 1980's, for example.

I'm undecided on this one.

I need to see the exact wording of the legislation, but the word "knowingly" is what makes me disagree with this. Even if you don't intend to infect anyone, giving blood or having sex while knowing you are infected and not disclosing it seems like it should be a serious offense. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-11-2017, 08:53 AM)GMDino Wrote: So it seems like it will be treated just like all other diseases where an "intent" is needed to be proven.

The original law was probably an overreaction due to to fear so it's ok to level it all out.  If it's not an automatic felony for passing along syphilis knowingly than HIV shouldn't be any different.  Good move.

You, unsurprisingly, make a very poor analogy.  Syphilis can be gotten rid of with one round of antibiotics.  HIV is with you for life and requires you to take medication for life.  If you cannot afford said medication then you will likely develop AIDS and you will eventually die.  The difference between being infected with syphilis and HIV is profound and you trivialize it with your specious analogy.

[GMDino]

(10-11-2017, 11:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You, unsurprisingly, make a very poor analogy.  Syphilis can be gotten rid of with one round of antibiotics.  HIV is with you for life and requires you to take medication for life.  If you cannot afford said medication then you will likely develop AIDS and you will eventually die.  The difference between being infected with syphilis and HIV is profound and you trivialize it with your specious analogy.

Sexually transmitted diseases all treated the same.  Either all misdemeanors or all felonies.  Prove intent.

Just the fact ma'am.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-11-2017, 09:41 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I need to see the exact wording of the legislation, but the word "knowingly" is what makes me disagree with this. Even if you don't intend to infect anyone, giving blood or having sex while knowing you are infected and not disclosing it seems like it should be a serious offense. 

Wouldn't someone who receives a transfusion be guaranteed of getting HIV?  If so that seems heinous.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-11-2017, 11:28 AM)GMDino Wrote: Sexually transmitted diseases all treated the same.  Either all misdemeanors or all felonies.  Prove intent.

Just the fact ma'am.

Sure, just point something I said that wasn't factual.  Treating all sexually transmitted diseases the same would imply the effects of all STD's are the same.  Is that what you're trying to claim? 

[GMDino]

(10-11-2017, 11:29 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Wouldn't someone who receives a transfusion be guaranteed of getting HIV?  If so that seems heinous.

I guessing that's why the "intent" part is there.

But the testing is much better than what it was in the 80's from the little I have read on it.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-11-2017, 11:35 AM)GMDino Wrote: I guessing that's why the "intent" part is there.

But the testing is much better than what it was in the 80's from the little I have read on it.

I think the knowledge that you have HIV and donate blood enough to warrant a felony.  I can't imagine why someone would do that.

[BmorePat87]

(10-11-2017, 11:29 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Wouldn't someone who receives a transfusion be guaranteed of getting HIV?  If so that seems heinous.

Yea, that's gross negligence that, like vehicular manslaughter, can be a felony.

I'm not seeing why the intent matters. 

[GMDino]

(10-11-2017, 11:42 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I think the knowledge that you have HIV and donate blood enough to warrant a felony.  I can't imagine why someone would do that.

I'm with you on that.  I would consider that "intent".  You know, you do it anyway without telling anyone.

[BmorePat87]

(10-11-2017, 11:50 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm with you on that.  I would consider that "intent".  You know, you do it anyway without telling anyone.

That seems to contradict your previous posts where you reminded everyone about intent, which I read as you suggesting no criminal intent existed. These are all scenarios where the person knows they have it and knows their actions will likely spread it to the unsuspecting person. 

[GMDino]

(10-11-2017, 11:53 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That seems to contradict your previous posts where you reminded everyone about intent, which I read as you suggesting no criminal intent existed. These are all scenarios where the person knows they have it and knows their actions will likely spread it to the unsuspecting person. 

I'm basing it off the OP:

Quote:“Today California took a major step toward treating HIV as a public health issue, instead of treating people living with HIV as criminals,” Wiener said in a statement. “HIV should be treated like all other serious infectious diseases, and that’s what SB 239 does.”


Supporters of the change said the current law requires an intent to transmit HIV to justify a felony, but others noted cases have been prosecuted where there was no physical contact, so there was an argument intent was lacking.

Seems to me all they did was say it is the same as other infectious diseases and if there is "intent" it can still be a felony.  Like I said:  treat them all the same.

[BmorePat87]

(10-11-2017, 11:55 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm basing it off the OP:




Seems to me all they did was say it is the same as other infectious diseases and if there is "intent" it can still be a felony.  Like I said:  treat them all the same.

but like SSF said, can they all be treated the same?

Something that will be a part of your daily life for the rest of your life should be a felony. (Hepatitis, Herpes, HPV, HIV)

Something that I can get rid of should be a misdemeanor.  (chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, crabs)


It's like saying that gross negligence that results in paralysis should be treated the same as gross negligence that results in a sprained ankle. 

[GMDino]

(10-11-2017, 11:59 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: but like SSF said, can they all be treated the same?

Something that will be a part of your daily life for the rest of your life should be a felony. (Hepatitis, Herpes, HPV, HIV)

Something that I can get rid of should be a misdemeanor.  (chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, crabs)


It's like saying that gross negligence that results in paralysis should be treated the same as gross negligence that results in a sprained ankle. 

How is hepatitis, herpes, etc treated under CA law?  If HIV was the only one treated differently before they are all treated the same now.

Each case will be unique.  And "can" be treated as a felony still.  That wasn't taken off the table according to the OP.  It just was automatically a felony.

I don't have a problem with that personally.

And I said make them all felonies or don't.  Given your post make all the permanent ones felonies or don't.  It's all the same to me if they are treated the same way.

[BmorePat87]

(10-11-2017, 12:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: How is hepatitis, herpes, etc treated under CA law?  If HIV was the only one treated differently before they are all treated the same now.

Each case will be unique.  And "can" be treated as a felony still.  That wasn't taken off the table according to the OP.  It just was automatically a felony.

I don't have a problem with that personally.

And I said make them all felonies or don't.  Given your post make all the permanent ones felonies or don't.  It's all the same to me if they are treated the same way.

There's a further argument to make over the severity of HIV compared to Herpes/HPV/Hepatitis and the fact that HPV, despite being incurable, is mostly harmless to people. It really depends on the type. Obviously, certain things are worse than others and need to be treated based on their severity. If the severity determines the punishment, not stigmas, then I would be happy.

But stigmas and the punishment of other things aside, making this a misdemeanor is a joke. I guess other things should be a felony. The fact that knowingly giving someone herpes is only a misdemeanor doesn't mean we should make something as heinous as knowingly infecting people with HIV a misdemeanor.

[GMDino]

(10-11-2017, 12:14 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There's a further argument to make over the severity of HIV compared to Herpes/HPV/Hepatitis and the fact that HPV, despite being incurable, is mostly harmless to people. It really depends on the type. Obviously, certain things are worse than others and need to be treated based on their severity. If the severity determines the punishment, not stigmas, then I would be happy.

But stigmas and the punishment of other things aside, making this a misdemeanor is a joke. I guess other things should be a felony. The fact that knowingly giving someone herpes is only a misdemeanor doesn't mean we should make something as heinous as knowingly infecting people with HIV a misdemeanor.

Right. Make more of them felonies, make all of them felonies, whatever.  Only having one as a felony was a reaction to the epidemic and it being more of a death sentence than it is today.