Charlie Sheen is HIV positive

[garbon]

Btw, for anyone interested in the topic - this is a few years old now, but I still think worth a glance.

http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/document/2012/BackgroundCurrentLandscapeCriminalisationHIV_Final.pdf

[crazy canuck]

I doubt many people think: "I might have HIV, which is manageable if detected but often fatal otherwise. However, I'm going to forgo testing, because I really like to raw dog, and if I get tested and am positive, I will be in trouble with the law if I raw dog unsuspecting partners." 

I think there is a significant deterrent to getting tested for a number of medical conditions for fear of a whole range of negative consequences.  People not going for help with mental illnesses for fear of the negative consequences is a similar problem.  The main issue for me is the adequacy of existing laws to deal with people who cause intentional or negligent harm on others.  I am not sure why there was a need to single out this particular act out of all the other ways people do harm to others which are already covered by legal sanction and liability.  Especially when it doesn't appear to have, on balance, a salutary effect.

[alfred russel]

I think there is a significant deterrent to getting tested for a number of medical conditions for fear of a whole range of negative consequences.  People not going for help with mental illnesses for fear of the negative consequences is a similar problem.  The main issue for me is the adequacy of existing laws to deal with people who cause intentional or negligent harm on others.  I am not sure why there was a need to single out this particular act out of all the other ways people do harm to others which are already covered by legal sanction and liability.  Especially when it doesn't appear to have, on balance, a salutary effect.

So long as there are other laws on the books that ensure someone knowingly exposing his or her partner to HIV without the partner's knowledge will go to jail for a very long time, then I agree the laws are unnecessary as they are redundant.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yep, agreed--if exposing someone to HIV is criminalized otherwise, then fine. My understanding is that it isn't. Exposing someone to an STD would be a major uphill battle on traditional charges like assault or reckless endangerment. Garbon has already conceded actually infecting someone with HIV deliberately and without their knowledge should be criminalized, so it's weird he's against criminalizing attempting to do that.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think there is a significant deterrent to getting tested for a number of medical conditions for fear of a whole range of negative consequences.  People not going for help with mental illnesses for fear of the negative consequences is a similar problem.  The main issue for me is the adequacy of existing laws to deal with people who cause intentional or negligent harm on others.  I am not sure why there was a need to single out this particular act out of all the other ways people do harm to others which are already covered by legal sanction and liability.  Especially when it doesn't appear to have, on balance, a salutary effect.

I'm sure it was criminalized because of the sensationalized fear of the 80s/early 90s HIV epidemic in America that's largely quieted down when we basically made it a chronic condition by cycling retrovirals. That doesn't mean it's bad law--it may mean the legislature responded to a panic, but that's largely a function, not a bug, of representative democracy. To me it's an example of good law that should be expanded to other STDs.

[Admiral Yi]

One girl I boinked told me she had herpes after I had boinked her.  A thousand times.

[OttoVonBismarck]

You were destined to get herpes anyway.

[Admiral Yi]

I didn't get herpes from her.  She was taking that drug that suppresses the sores.

[Ed Anger]

Still gross

[Martinus]

Yep, agreed--if exposing someone to HIV is criminalized otherwise, then fine. My understanding is that it isn't. Exposing someone to an STD would be a major uphill battle on traditional charges like assault or reckless endangerment. Garbon has already conceded actually infecting someone with HIV deliberately and without their knowledge should be criminalized, so it's weird he's against criminalizing attempting to do that.

Your last sentence shows you do not understand the issue - simply put, obviously, not every case of not disclosing your HIV status to a partner could count as "attempting to infect someone deliberately" (first of all, you could be using a condom; secondly, if your cell count is very low, you are creating no actual danger of infection; thirdly you could be using a sexual technique that carries little to no risk of infection). The laws on disclosure conflate simply not telling your partner about your HIV status with an intention to infect them - whilst there may even not be recklessness or carelessness involved on your part and you may have been acting diligently.

There is also a practical issue of you having no evidence you actually disclosed your HIV status to your partner, if you encounter a vindictive bitch that wants to put you in jail.

[Martinus]

I'm sure it was criminalized because of the sensationalized fear of the 80s/early 90s HIV epidemic in America that's largely quieted down when we basically made it a chronic condition by cycling retrovirals. That doesn't mean it's bad law--it may mean the legislature responded to a panic, but that's largely a function, not a bug, of representative democracy. To me it's an example of good law that should be expanded to other STDs.

This is good law for people who do not understand how HIV infection works.

[Jaron]

Sorry gay people. If you have HIV you can't just walk around having sex because your cell count is low. You are claiming that Russian roulette is safe because there is only one bullet in the gun. The fact is, if its low risk, thats a choice for the non HIV infected to make, not the HIV infected.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I didn't get herpes from her.  She was taking that drug that suppresses the sores.

Now you're the one lying.

[OttoVonBismarck]

This is good law for people who do not understand how HIV infection works.

Any unprotected sexual intercourse has a potential of transmission. Different factors can make it higher or less likely to transmit in a given act of intercourse, but that's true of basically all disease transmissions, none of them are 100%.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yep, agreed--if exposing someone to HIV is criminalized otherwise, then fine. My understanding is that it isn't. Exposing someone to an STD would be a major uphill battle on traditional charges like assault or reckless endangerment. Garbon has already conceded actually infecting someone with HIV deliberately and without their knowledge should be criminalized, so it's weird he's against criminalizing attempting to do that.

Your last sentence shows you do not understand the issue - simply put, obviously, not every case of not disclosing your HIV status to a partner could count as "attempting to infect someone deliberately" (first of all, you could be using a condom; secondly, if your cell count is very low, you are creating no actual danger of infection; thirdly you could be using a sexual technique that carries little to no risk of infection). The laws on disclosure conflate simply not telling your partner about your HIV status with an intention to infect them - whilst there may even not be recklessness or carelessness involved on your part and you may have been acting diligently.

No, diligence requires disclosure, which is what you and garbon don't understand at all. I never said that all undisclosed attempts are "deliberate attempts to infect", so that's a strawman. Garbon's position is that actual infection criminalizations are okay, but non-disclosure where infection does not occur isn't a problem. So under his criteria he's saying that he's okay with a guy who deliberately infects another person facing legal sanction but one who just attempts to, shouldn't. If that's not accurate, then I'll leave it to him to amend his statement, but that is one clear logical extrapolation of his position.

There is also a practical issue of you having no evidence you actually disclosed your HIV status to your partner, if you encounter a vindictive bitch that wants to put you in jail.

The law can often sort through such matters, and if it can't--then the defendant is acquitted or not charged. That's a similar state to rape cases in which it's difficult to prove someone didn't consent to the sex in many cases.