Print

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

[smjjames]

It's stil going through the proccess though, it's not law yet.

[MrRoboto75]

If HIV/AIDS testing were free, maybe.  But its typically not.

[Criptfeind]

Um, I don't know the specifics of the law here, but "Under current law, if a person who knows they are infected with HIV" seems to imply it's for people that know that they have HIV. Knowingly spreading disease is a lot different then not knowing and spreading it.

[PTTG??]

Other deadly diseases don't have special laws about them. Do you expect state representatives to be medical experts enough to determine which diseases are sufficiently dangerous to be something like attempted murder?

[TempAcc]

Intentionaly infecting another person with a disease on the level of HIV is equated to grievous bodily harm in some legislations, and yes, it can be considered attempted murder if that was the original intention of the acting party. Hell, in some legislations it doesn't even have to be intentional, as negligence in informing your partner of an infectious condition that you know or even should know your have and/or being negligent in taking measures to avoid transmitting it is also pretty serious. Its not exactly something that should be treated so lightly, ye.

Think about it, you're literally putting your partner(s) in danger of being infected with a dangerous disease that will heavily affect their quality of life and even their offspring, possibly until death. One could say its effects are as serious as cutting someone's arm off, while having a greater reach, since it can also affect the subject's  future children.

[PTTG??]

Then why have a special rule about it? Why not just use existing assault/attempted murder laws?

[TempAcc]

Well, probably because the context in which the infections happen doesn't quite fall into place perfectly into assault/murder laws according to local jurisprudence. You could do that, but legislators prob think that are certain aspects of said conduct that are specific enough to warrant specific legal provision on the matter (ex: infecting someone with a disease that one knows or should know they have, the negligence aspect of it, etc).
Having specific provision on the matter prevents judges from going "well this doesnt completely and exactly fall under the provisions for assault/attempted murder/some other less specific crime so there's no crime here lol, absolved", something not unheard of in legal systems that follow the "common law" format.

[scriver]

What would the crime be if somebody purposefully sent a letter with that disease that I can't remember the name of right now that is really lethal? I feel that some sort of serious assault or murder-like charge should be levelled at every deliberate infection with a lethal disease. Some sort of damages-qualifying crime for infecting people with less severe diseases as well (particularly if they do not go away, like some stds, or develop into other diseases).

[TempAcc]

The general tendency of western legislations seem to go somewhat like this: legal provisions for a crime that involves the conduct of intentionaly (or by being negligent in regards to the disease and possibily of infection) infecting someone with a serious incurable malady of some kind that can or not possibly kill the infected (including but not limited to HIV), and a different albeit related provision for intentionaly (or being negligent, etc) infecting someone with a less serious (not incurable/not deadly) disease/condition.

There is still room for interpretation, of course, since the context in which these things happen varies a lot. No judge would be insane enough to condemn anyone for, say, intentionaly infecting a healthy person with your run of the mill average version of the flu, altough infecting a person who's suffering from a condition that heavily impairs their ability to fight infections and with other serious health issues (to the point that your average flu may actualy seriously endanger their wellbeing) is something that is way more criminally relevant and worthy of punishment.

[PTTG??]

I'm not sure if I want Comey leading the investigation of the Russia connection, seeing how he was pretty much responsible for Trump's victory himself.

[smjjames]

I'm not sure if I want Comey leading the investigation of the Russia connection, seeing how he was pretty much responsible for Trump's victory himself.

The supposedly bipartisan panel doesn't seem very bipartisan, the Republicans pivoted right to the the NSA surveillance stuff on US citizens while the Dems still seem to be trying to be on the probe.

And of course, the Republicans throw out the red herring tweet regarding Clinton

Meanwhile, Trump is trying to distract and do his own spin on the hearing. He's freaking acting like he's guilty. Yes, things MIGHT make him look bad, but he's just making it worse.

Comey is also being rather cagey, partially because of the investigation and partially I guess because of classified information. This whole thing really needs some sort of independent investigator who has no axe to grind or was in any way involved with either campaign.

[Starver]

What would the crime be if somebody purposefully sent a letter with that disease that I can't remember the name of right now that is really lethal?

Anthrax? That's the old favourite (not that it is quite a disease, so much as an infection, but my terminology is probably still inexact), in both weaponised and hoax-weaponised form, it being easy to package spores or harmless-dust-that-might-be-spores, alike.

Not that I know of any mailable versions, but Ebola, something SARS-like, etc (arriving somewhere unsuspected) would be potentially a lot worse during the period that it remained low down on the list of possible ailments causing the initial recipient's sudden incapacity...

[scriver]

Anthrax was the word I was looking for, yeah. Since it's happened in the past that people have sent it with the aim of infecting others.

[Urist Mc Dwarf]

If other deadly diseases are misdemeanors, I see no reason HIV should be different

[palsch]

Did anyone actually read the reasons and defence of the bill? Here is the ACLU on it, but you can summarise the argument pretty quickly;

1) HIV is singled out despite laws already covering other infectious diseases. This would bring it in line with other diseases.

2) The science has changed. HIV is now a manageable chronic condition. If we go by the NHS's information, treated HIV does not reduce life expectancy. In the US it may be an expensive condition to manage, but calling it a death sentence is just wrong, based on information from the bad old days of the 80s and early 90s (the first effective treatments were in around '96). Treated HIV that has reached sufficiently low levels is a much minimal health risk to the carrier (mostly only a risk factor for other diseases) and is extremely unlikely to be transmitted, even through unprotected sex.

3) It creates a perverse incentive for people to avoid being tested if they engage in risky sex or sex work, as knowing exposes them to criminal charges. This makes them more likely to be untreated carriers, therefore more likely to spread it further while risking their own health and it developing further to AIDS.

The ACLU and others have more reasons, but I think those three points are the critical ones. 1 has the secondary effect of removing the discrimination inherent in criminal charges only existing for the disease associated with minorities.


Anyway. This is incredible.

Comey and Rogers answer a leading question from Nunes about the Russia allegations. Nunes asks about something no-one believes happened (direct interference in the vote counts) and forces a negative answer despite the NSA director hedging.

Trump then tweets the video saying it is a denial that there was any Russia interference in the "electoral process".

Rep. Jim Himes then reads the tweet to the FBI and NSA directors and asks if it is accurate. They are pretty much flabbergasted and have to work to avoid calling Trump a liar during the hearing.