Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

It's a  chronic condition that while manageable has a very significant impact in your overall health and quality of life. We're not talking about a cold sore here. Knowingly exposing someone to a grievous, chronic, incurable and life-threatening disease should be a felony, in my opinion, specially/particularily if no preventive measures were taken and said person was uninformed. .

[Frumple]

Maybe, but you can note the points palsch brought up for why maybe having it not is a good idea. Consistency one way or another is good, and preferably the way that causes less transmission. If that's rolling it (back) into the relevant generic law that has it be a misdemeanor, then... okay. I care less about punishing and disenfranchising people for bad, even malicious, decisions than I do about having less people with HIV.

Though if nothing else, you'd want to be making other potentially life threatening diseases count for a felony, too, instead of just having the one special cased. If some classes are going to be felonious, identify that instead of deciding one thing's good for all the rest but not the one.

[palsch]

It's a  chronic condition that while manageable has a very significant impact in your overall health and quality of life. We're not talking about a cold sore here. Knowingly exposing someone to a grievous, chronic, incurable and life-threatening disease should be a felony, in my opinion, specially/particularily if no preventive measures were taken and said person was uninformed. .

Then why it is only the case for HIV? Why are the laws that cover malicious intent to infect/harm someone not sufficient in this one case when they are sufficient for all others?

Try reading over this document which gives ten explored reasons why criminalisation is not the answer. I think it makes a very strong case that such criminalisation is counterproductive, harming both efforts to stop the spread of the disease and those who are exposed to it. And all that for effectively no gain other than some political grandstanding, mostly at the expense of minorities and sex workers.

Just using the first point it is clear that the laws are not a good idea. If the behaviour is genuinely maliciously or recklessly harmful (or endangering) towards another person then it is already prosecutable. If it isn't then why are we prosecuting it? The only reason you need extra laws is if you want to prosecute behaviour that wouldn't normally fall under criminal conduct because it doesn't meet the standards of malicious or reckless behaviour that define how we prosecute people under every other statute out there. The danger from HIV is not so far outside the norm it needs special treatment.

In the UK the CPS have issued guidance on the prosecution of intentional or reckless sexual transmission of infection which invokes a 1861 law on bodily harm as its justification. There have been a number of convictions under the statute for Grievous Bodily Harm for the intentional or reckless transmission of HIV. The US legal system is not so far from the UK's that it couldn't be handled similarly there.

[Rolan7]

Informers are something that's damn near intolerable on a military staff. When I have a moment, I'll look up the relevant red storm rising quote.

- Let's have an attitude check!
I hate this fucking place!
- Let's have a positive attitude check!
I positively hate this fucking place!
- Let's have a negative attitude check!
I don't like this fucking place!
- Let's have a short attitude check!
Fuckit!

(Not the one you're referring to, but my copy of the book is elsewhere as well, so...    Also, I'm sure there's a HfRO quote, either Ramius vs (Political Officer!) Putin, Ramius vs the innocent Doctor Petrov or Ramius vs the 'Cook', according to preference... )

This made me laugh, thanks for sharing!

...not joining the HIV discussion.  Too heavy, too scary.

[ChairmanPoo]

Oh, it shouldn't apply only to HIV. Hepatitis B should also get in (and this one is more important, arguably as it is far more contagious than HIV), as well as syphilis, HPV, and ebola, if you press me.   There's dolus in this scenario: it's a willful crime against public health, and it should be prosecuted. Once again we're not talking about something trivial, but of debilitating and potentially lethal conditions.

Specific laws are needed because it's a specific scenario, just like we have specific laws for rape, assault, and movbing, and don't lump everything into an amorphous "bad stuff" category.

A question for the people opposed to the current state of the law - does the fact that HIV is much more prevalent among homosexual men as compared to other groups have any bearing on your stance? For example, are you concerned that intentionally infecting someone with HIV being classed as a felony could be part of (or cause) anti-homosexual stigma?

Speaking for myself, I was not factoring sexual orientation into the equation at all (if anything, I was thinking of heterosexual couples). I'm unaware as to the particulars of US law in this regard, but I think it's a fairly serious act and should be acted against accordingly

[Max™]

Except for the problem where having it carry such a high risk makes it safer to avoid being tested and have sex anyways, risking your life and the lives of others because it disincentivizes getting tested so harshly for certain groups.

Let's say something happens and you think you got infected with HIV but weren't sure, continued having sex, then your partner gets tested and finds out they have it, they suggest you get tested, you happen to mention you suspected you were infected for a while now, they decide to press charges, what now? Should you have lied and said you were tested before and clean but will get tested now, letting them think they infected you? Shouldn't a law which discourages people from getting important medical tests and raising the risks involved rather than encouraging safer behavior overall be changed?

It's the same way there was an uproar over decriminalizing child prostitution, you get blurb headlines "IT'S LEGAL TO BANG KID HOOKERS IN CALIFORNIA" when it was actually "it's now safe for those kids to seek help getting away from those situations and hey, we could even get them to help us put away the fuckers who started them hooking in the first place!" but that isn't as clickworthy of a headline.


Also, the whole thing with Trump being fact-checked mid-hearing was fantastic, but the same place where I read about it also mentioned Ivanka getting an office and whatnot at the White House without actually holding an official position, and someone suggested Trump wanted to live out his own Lewinsky fantasy... and I can't unread it, so dammit I'm sharing the pain!

[Sheb]

The  African Global Economic and Development Summit organized by University of Southern California had to take place without African citizens after all Africans attendee were denied visas.

[palsch]

A question for the people opposed to the current state of the law - does the fact that HIV is much more prevalent among homosexual men as compared to other groups have any bearing on your stance? For example, are you concerned that intentionally infecting someone with HIV being classed as a felony could be part of (or cause) anti-homosexual stigma?

I think that is a factor, and the ACLU document I posted makes a case that they are discriminatory. In fact the laws are discriminatory within the group of those with HIV, hitting women (43% of charges when they are 13% of carriers) and minorities disproportionately. This makes medical care for those groups even harder and is why medical and community groups that address such issues are coming out against the law (you can see a partial list at the bottom of the article). This is not an irrelevant point, although I do believe the other reasons I've been putting forward make a more compelling case.

I do certainly think that the laws were passed as part of the stigma and are a sign that it persists, given the stringent opposition to repealing them in the face of medical and community advice. I don't think they were ever needed.

EDIT: Another article on this aspect. It has some examples and evidence of discrimination in the laws and their application.

More arguments against such laws from Canada, without the discrimination angle.

Also, the whole thing with Trump being fact-checked mid-hearing was fantastic, but the same place where I read about it also mentioned Ivanka getting an office and whatnot at the White House without actually holding an official position, and someone suggested Trump wanted to live out his own Lewinsky fantasy... and I can't unread it, so dammit I'm sharing the pain!

She is also getting a security clearance and access to government communications according to the story. One more probable but still disturbing argument was that she won't become a federal employee so she won't be covered by disclosure/FOI laws.


Unrelated WTF.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson plans to skip a meeting with NATO foreign ministers next month in order to stay home for a visit by China's president and will go to Russia later in April, U.S. officials said on Monday, disclosing an itinerary that allies may see as giving Moscow priority over them.

Tillerson intends to miss what would have been his first meeting of the 28 NATO allies on April 5-6 in Brussels so that he can attend President Donald Trump's expected April 6-7 talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, four current and former U.S. officials said.

[Arx]

The  African Global Economic and Development Summit organized by University of Southern California had to take place without African citizens after all Africans attendee were denied visas.

Yeah, I saw that as well. And people wonder why the attitude of 'the North'* sometimes bothers me...

*This is a fairly broad category and kinda polarising, I know, but it's difficult to encapsulate the idea of "all the people not living in Africa who are on average doing a lot better than people living in Africa", so I just say the North by analogy to the West.

[Puzzlemaker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZohjYKGZJM

This is a really good video that shows a lot of problems with the media currently.

[smjjames]

Unrelated WTF.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson plans to skip a meeting with NATO foreign ministers next month in order to stay home for a visit by China's president and will go to Russia later in April, U.S. officials said on Monday, disclosing an itinerary that allies may see as giving Moscow priority over them.

Tillerson intends to miss what would have been his first meeting of the 28 NATO allies on April 5-6 in Brussels so that he can attend President Donald Trump's expected April 6-7 talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, four current and former U.S. officials said.

Normally he'd probably send his deputy to either, but nope, there isn't one. Also, pretty classic case of schedule conflict.

[Pwnzerfaust]

Also, pretty classic case of schedule conflict.

In a situation like this, China should get the shaft, not NATO.

[EnigmaticHat]

Trump seems to have missed the memo that diplomacy and military go hand and hand.

[martinuzz]

Unrelated WTF.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson plans to skip a meeting with NATO foreign ministers next month in order to stay home for a visit by China's president and will go to Russia later in April, U.S. officials said on Monday, disclosing an itinerary that allies may see as giving Moscow priority over them.

Tillerson intends to miss what would have been his first meeting of the 28 NATO allies on April 5-6 in Brussels so that he can attend President Donald Trump's expected April 6-7 talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, four current and former U.S. officials said.

Normally he'd probably send his deputy to either, but nope, there isn't one. Also, pretty classic case of schedule conflict.

It's already made front page news over here, with people expressing concern over Trump thinking Russia and China are more important than NATO

[Strife26]

The original purpose of NATO:

to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.

You had *three* jobs people.