Jump to content
Ein

Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Captain Karnage said:

and I kinda can't wait to see how TYT will try and defend this

idk but i can tell you that a lot of people think this is a dumb way of destigmatizing HIV and possibly encourages people to not get diagnosed

my only complaint is that right-wing people use this to shit on the left-wing despite red states passing stuff that's about this ludicrous all the time. state congresses are generally the biggest source of dumb legislation and i think someone should take this to court and get a state supreme court to kill it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...So its still illegal, but its a misdemeanor now instead of a felony?

ehhhhh

That doesn't strike me as a necessary change of-law. But it isn't a terribly outrageous one.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2017 at 5:15 PM, eclipse said:

That's nice.

Was this really necessary?

West coast has California so yes.

Giving someone an incurable disease that comes with a $3000-5000 price tag per month to not get AIDS is the same level as jaywalking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, it shouldn't be $3000-5000 in the first place, but I agree with the general statement. I'd sure as fuck be pissed if someone slept with me but didn't inform me of the potential, life-altering risks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ein said:

West coast has California so yes.

Giving someone an incurable disease that comes with a $3000-5000 price tag per month to not get AIDS is the same level as jaywalking.

No, it wasn't.  Even if that's your state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I don't understand the need to stay away from one state or region because of one piece of shitty legislation. You shouldn't move anywhere then because every state has dumb shit in their legislation.

California is just an easy target for conservatives and alt-right Russia-bots like the OP (who still hasn't responded to anything people have said to him elsewhere hmm) because they lost the state in the 80s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are people just...ignoring the sensible posts of this topic? it's been said, firstly, that not even all states have addressed this issue at all. to criticize california in this way just showcases your initial ignorance.

secondly, a reasonable point of discussion has been posted: is the law effective? can it be properly enforced? does it help solve the problem? yet the post has been ignored. i'm talking about res' post btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other states passing their fair share of stupid laws (or not having any laws at all regarding certain areas) doesn't mean you can't criticize California's stupid legislation lol.

The sentiment behind the change seems to be distaste for the criminalization of those who are HIV positive, and they believe downgrading the punishment would encourage people who otherwise wouldn't get tested to get tested. But I'm under the assumption that most people who are HIV positive are responsible and appreciate knowing their status so they don't infect their partners.

Quote

A sex worker can be charged with a felony if he or she is HIV-positive and solicits sex from another person without telling them of their infection, even if the two do not have sex, Wiener said.

It sounds like an amendment to ensure this doesn't continue to happen would be the easier solution? I'm perfectly fine with changing dumb legislation, too.

 

Edited by Agent 707

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other states passing their fair share of stupid laws (or not having any laws at all regarding certain areas) doesn't mean you can't criticize California's stupid legislation lol.

let me make it clear why I brought this up. A) it's California, which is a blue state and extremely unlikely to flip. OP is either extremely conservative or part of the alt-right; he's spent much time soap boxing on the issues of Muslims and anything anti-left for the past year and a half on here, and people along the same vein were doing so to the extent where someone said that they're not moving to California due to this reason (among many others, mind you, but this was the icing on the cake). There is a clear agenda that said OP has and my intention was to draw attention to whether or not this thread is meant for discussion, soapbox, or circle jerk. Given the OP's history, it's the last two, but the next point I wanted to make was

B) State legislatures are getting away with passing dumb ass bills like this all the time (basically unnecessary and will actively harm people to promote an agenda, no matter how good or bad the agenda is) and it's really frustrating to keep hearing about this dumb crap. People need to actively get involved in their local elections and community so things like this don't happen at a local, county, or state level. The broader process deserves our outrage, not individual laws, but if people actually voted in this country maybe we would actually see change.

Anything else is not something I thought of when I was posting this thread. Changing transmission from felony to misdemeanor is really stupid, though they stated in the law that intent to infect is important and that intent can make it a felony (idk how this would even be applied). Furthermore it's been shown time and time again that the legal consequence of a crime is not a deterrent to crime, so it's very likely this law will have much effect to begin with aside from maybe some weird public approval of those suffering from HIV.

Having that said, if people want a directive to destigmatize, you don't have to change the law, you just have to start a conversation. Governors are capable of doing this at the state level and yet they don't. I'm really looking around and I'm trying to see if there is more to this bill, but it doesn't seem like there's much more to it and that's really messed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't really care about the OP's political agenda or leanings, really. Just find the whataboutism silly.

Quote

Anything else is not something I thought of when I was posting this thread. Changing transmission from felony to misdemeanor is really stupid, though they stated in the law that intent to infect is important and that intent can make it a felony (idk how this would even be applied).

This is good.

Quote

Furthermore it's been shown time and time again that the legal consequence of a crime is not a deterrent to crime, so it's very likely this law will have much effect to begin with aside from maybe some weird public approval of those suffering from HIV.


I'm not really convinced it will have the intended effect, honestly. It's a stretch for me to believe people deliberately avoid being tested just so they can avoid being charged for a felony for sleeping and potentially infecting their partners. It's more likely that some people do get tested (people generally want to find out what's wrong with them), but don't want to make the necessary lifestyle changes that it should require (*COUGH*CHARLIESHEEN*COUGH*). Not particularly sympathetic towards those individuals, but thankfully it's likely to be a very small minority.

But who knows, maybe I'm wrong. But I don't think I am and this feels like slapping a band-aid on a serious wound and hoping it works than a serious attempt to dispel the stigma.

 

Edited by Agent 707

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bringing up other states is relevant as context; is it that California is being exceptionally lenient, or is there precedent established elsewhere? As we can see, the change in law actually brings California more in line with federal guidelines, so it's helpful to know that we're not looking at an outlandish anomaly here.

So as a misdemeanor it means it's still illegal, the punishment just isn't as harsh. I haven't been able to go into individual lawsuits but it raises some questions: Was it unjust because sex workers were being prosecuted without being given a chance to divulge to potential clients their status? Is the issue that already vulnerable people were being targeted and given sentences that only made their situations worse, and prevented them from attending to their own health? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Bringing up other states is relevant as context; is it that California is being exceptionally lenient, or is there precedent established elsewhere? As we can see, the change in law actually brings California more in line with federal guidelines, so it's helpful to know that we're not looking at an outlandish anomaly here.


The context here has little bearing on the merit of the law. It's helpfulness isn't... readily apparent to me. So it's closer to the federal norm now. Has this proven to be effective elsewhere in getting people to get tested? idk. THAT would be helpful.

Quote

So as a misdemeanor it means it's still illegal, the punishment just isn't as harsh. I haven't been able to go into individual lawsuits but it raises some questions: Was it unjust because sex workers were being prosecuted without being given a chance to divulge to potential clients their status? Is the issue that already vulnerable people were being targeted and given sentences that only made their situations worse, and prevented them from attending to their own health?


Intent matters, and I think someone has to actually go through the act before they're charged with the crime. But I argue if you're deliberately avoiding being tested so you can avoid being charged with a felony if you transmit the disease, you're already making your own health situation terrible. And others may be paying for your negligence. I don't think they'd be happy to get a misdemeanor, either, at that point -- an it's still an inconvenience and I think that's the problem? It's not likely to limit your accessibility to care as much as a felony would, but it's not really a solution to the problem (it's still a crime).

 

Edited by Agent 707

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Agent 707 said:

Don't really care about the OP's political agenda or leanings, really. Just find the whataboutism silly.

I am just saying that I don't believe this thread was started in good faith so I'm not sure where there's discussion. For people trying to have discussion, it's not going bad...  for everyone else it's either "fuck Cali" or "fuck the guys who transmit diseases but not literally" which is what makes it worth pointing out that OP has some agenda when posting stuff like this and has no intention to defend himself or state a constructive viewpoint.

The only thing that seems to be getting to me is the absence of context. Based on what Res is saying, it seems that what they're doing is actually not particularly outlandish wrt this issue as other states and everyone else fears the law can/will be abused now that they only get misdemeanor as opposed to jail. I also kinda wonder if this has to do with having sex with people while unknowingly having a disease then finding out you may have infected others thought I imagine this was already part of the law. There's such an absence of context and legislative intent that doesn't make me care about this as much as I should and there's not nearly enough in the rest of the thread to make a conclusion either. I'll just look stuff up tonight, about California and HIV.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

are people just...ignoring the sensible posts of this topic? it's been said, firstly, that not even all states have addressed this issue at all. to criticize california in this way just showcases your initial ignorance.

secondly, a reasonable point of discussion has been posted: is the law effective? can it be properly enforced? does it help solve the problem? yet the post has been ignored. i'm talking about res' post btw.

The legislature is NOT why I'm bothered.  I think the legislature is wrong, but yes - every state has dumb legislature.  Though it is important to note that other states may not have this currently as a felony just because their legislation is slow or it isn't a big problem in that state.

What I DO have a problem with, is the verbiage associated with why this is a thing.

"HIV-related stigma is one of our main obstacles to reducing and ultimately eliminating infections," Wiener said. "When you criminalize HIV or stigmatize people who have HIV it encourages people not to get tested, to stay in the shadows, not to be open about their status, not to seek treatment."

Democrats are basically saying here that they don't want to victimize people with HIV so they've downgraded the sentence.  Yes, people with HIV are victims and it's terrible.  But only in California is that an excuse to downgrade their sentence.  That is why the right makes fun of California because the legislature isn't just dumb - the reasoning behind the legislature is dumb.

Maybe I'm a bit old fashion, but it is my belief that if you commit a crime you get in trouble.  You don't get your sentence downgraded because you're a victim. I don't really care if it discourages people from getting treated, it's still a crime.  That's like saying we're going to stop criminalizing drug users because it's preventing them from opening up and seeking help.  Criminals commit crime and go to jail.  It really is quite simple.

Edited by Lushen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Maybe I'm a bit old fashion, but it is my belief that if you commit a crime you get in trouble.  You don't get your sentence downgraded because you're a victim. I don't really care if it discourages people from getting treated, it's still a crime.  That's like saying we're going to stop criminalizing drug users because it's preventing them from opening up and seeking help.  Criminals commit crime and go to jail.  It really is quite simple.

I get the point, and I agree that HIV sufferers need to be treated rather than be allowed to continue harming people, but drug users are victims. They are breaking arbitrary laws exploited to punish minorities and vulnerable people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Maybe I'm a bit old fashion, but it is my belief that if you commit a crime you get in trouble.  You don't get your sentence downgraded because you're a victim. I don't really care if it discourages people from getting treated, it's still a crime.  That's like saying we're going to stop criminalizing drug users because it's preventing them from opening up and seeking help.  Criminals commit crime and go to jail.  It really is quite simple.

No, it's not... and in this case they're still criminals anyway it's a reduced punishment

i downloaded music the other day am I a criminal who should go to jail 

i think you need to stop making general statements lacking in nuance... you seem to believe punishment and not rehabilitation is needed for a free and just society when the actual data tells us the opposite 

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Maybe I'm a bit old fashion, but it is my belief that if you commit a crime you get in trouble.  You don't get your sentence downgraded because you're a victim. I don't really care if it discourages people from getting treated, it's still a crime.  That's like saying we're going to stop criminalizing drug users because it's preventing them from opening up and seeking help.  Criminals commit crime and go to jail.  It really is quite simple.

Probably not the best example. Criminalisation of drug use is a very nuanced topic and nowhere near as much an open-and-shut case as you're implying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

i downloaded music the other day am I a criminal who should go to jail 

If illegally and you're a legal adult, you should get whatever punishment the courts deem just.  And that just punishment should not be based on how many things you're a victim of.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Lushen said:

If illegally and you're a legal adult, you should get whatever punishment the courts deem just.  And that just punishment should not be based on how many things you're a victim of.  

okay so what if the law were amended like they are now

because there is still a consequence, and the action is still illegal, so i don't see the issue that you're arguing. just the fact that it's the law and criminals should be jailed?

and again, de-criminalizing drugs is because it's been shown repeatedly that the drug war is actively harmful towards americans and it disenfranchises many communities. and yes, what you're suggesting is a bad example, because de-criminalizing drugs does allow people to go and seek help.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lord Raven said:

okay so what if the law were amended like they are now

because there is still a consequence, and the action is still illegal, so i don't see the issue that you're arguing. just the fact that it's the law and criminals should be jailed?

I should not have said jailed, but punished.
Criminals commit crimes and are punished.  This generic system should be true.

If the law was amended to some similar verbiage like "Downloading files illegally has been downgraded as a crime because we believe the victimization of downloaders is causing people to not talk about and seek help for their addiction" then yea, I'd have a big problem with the amendment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lushen said:

Criminals commit crimes and are punished.  This generic system should be true.

it shouldn't, and we've argued the concept of recidivism in another thread

1 minute ago, Lushen said:

If the law was amended to some similar verbiage like "Downloading files illegally has been downgraded as a crime because we believe the victimization of downloaders is causing people to not talk about and seek help for their addiction" then yea, I'd have a big problem with the amendment.  

i mean, the idea is that if you knowingly gave someone an std, then they should still be allowed to seek treatment without being imprisoned. in general the movement is that people should be able to request help with their problems without risking imprisonment. do you disagree with this? why? and on what grounds do you think punishment benefits society rather than hurts society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I'm just curious...how many people are actually being convicted under this statute? 

How many HIV positive dudes are going around KNOWINGLY donating blood and having unprotected sex, with intent of spreading their disease?

How much criminal-law deterrent is needed here and how much of a burden is it on the prisons and on probation whether or not we deem persons who break this particular law “felons?”

I practice criminal defense in one of the highest crime cities in the country. The cases that come across my desk: I see drugs. I see homicides. I see sex offenders. I see gun crimes. I see domestic violence. I see child abuse. I see I see shoplifting, robbery, and burglary.  I see pimping and prostitution. I see identity theft and credit card fraud.

Never have I ever seen Defendant is accused of knowingly spreading HIV. Like I know it happens. But it’s just such a rare occurrence compared to the more common issues before the criminal justice system; I don’t think there’s a particularly big problem here that we need a felony level statute to solve.

Although I also don’t think there’s a particularly large segment of offenders under the statute being vigorously pursued or whose status as felons under the law poses a problem for the administration of justice—so again—I just don’t see this as a necessary change of law.    

I did come across this study:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3477954/

It concludes that the New Jersey law criminalizing exposure to HIV is not effective at all in reducing HIV exposure. (it also concludes that half of the state’s HIV positive population isn’t even aware that the law exists, so take that with a grain of salt)

IDK. I’d rather see movement on drug policy and mandatory minimum sentencing.

This just seems like a giant waste of time.

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Lushen said:

The legislature is NOT why I'm bothered.  I think the legislature is wrong, but yes - every state has dumb legislature.  Though it is important to note that other states may not have this currently as a felony just because their legislation is slow or it isn't a big problem in that state.

What I DO have a problem with, is the verbiage associated with why this is a thing.

"HIV-related stigma is one of our main obstacles to reducing and ultimately eliminating infections," Wiener said. "When you criminalize HIV or stigmatize people who have HIV it encourages people not to get tested, to stay in the shadows, not to be open about their status, not to seek treatment."

Democrats are basically saying here that they don't want to victimize people with HIV so they've downgraded the sentence.  Yes, people with HIV are victims and it's terrible.  But only in California is that an excuse to downgrade their sentence.  That is why the right makes fun of California because the legislature isn't just dumb - the reasoning behind the legislature is dumb.

Maybe I'm a bit old fashion, but it is my belief that if you commit a crime you get in trouble.  You don't get your sentence downgraded because you're a victim. I don't really care if it discourages people from getting treated, it's still a crime.  That's like saying we're going to stop criminalizing drug users because it's preventing them from opening up and seeking help.  Criminals commit crime and go to jail.  It really is quite simple.

circumstances are important. people receive lighter sentences all the time in light of the facts (and on the other end, also receive maximum sentences). you aren't stuck in the past, you have a fundamentally flawed view of how the law should work. your last paragraph makes that depressingly apparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

circumstances are important. people receive lighter sentences all the time in light of the facts (and on the other end, also receive maximum sentences). you aren't stuck in the past, you have a fundamentally flawed view of how the law should work. your last paragraph makes that depressingly apparent.

Aye; I'll vouch for that. 

If you hired an attorney to represent you in a criminal matter. And your attorney advised you to plea instead of going to trial. And you followed your attorney's advice and took a plea. And you DIDN'T get a reduced sentence.

Sue your attorney for malpractice, because your attorney dicked you. 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...