Knowingly exposing others to HIV no longer a felony in Cali

[Kramania]

Yep.

Additional sauce.

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.

So yeah, apparently Jerry Brown and his Democrat state legislature don't consider knowingly transmitting HIV to be a crime worthy of anything other than a misdemeanor charge. I don't really understand the point of doing this. It seems that it might only encourage people who have HIV to have sex without disclosing that they have it because the penalty isn't all that severe. And this will do literally nothing to lower the rate of HIV infection in California. In fact it seems like it might only exacerbate the problem.

Thoughts?

[The Alexanderians]

Hate to be the one to say this but can you offer more sources to strengthen the op? I like having more sources it's a better way to form arguments from.

[Kramania]

Hate to be the one to say this but can you offer more sources to strengthen the op? I like having more sources it's a better way to form arguments from.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/07/health/california-hiv-bill-signed/index.html

[Shofercia]

Are the Democrats seriously trying to not get reelected? Is this shit for real?

[Crockerland]

California is the laughingstock of the Union.

Unless they're doing this to intentionally turn people away from the Democrat party even more than they already have, in which case this is a very intelligent move.

[Shofercia]

(Image)

California is the laughingstock of the Union.

Unless they're doing this to intentionally turn people away from the Democrat party even more than they already have, in which case this is a very intelligent move.

We're usually nowhere near that bad. But yeah, this fucking law is the laughing stock of the Union.

[Fartsniffage]

What a bunch of shit. Fucking terrible law.

[Herador]

...why though?

At work so I can't go over the actual bill but was this legislation for this thing specifically or was it a consequence of a bill's wording?

Fucking dumb either way, but it would enter a whole new realm of retardation if it was stand alone.

[Sanctissima]

...why though?

At work so I can't go over the actual bill but was this legislation for this thing specifically or was it a consequence of a bill's wording?

Fucking dumb either way, but it would enter a whole new realm of retardation if it was stand alone.

Probably some really misguided effort to pay lip service to the LGBT movement.

Once you go sufficiently far down the ideological rabbit hole, few of one's actions can be rationally explained anymore.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The march of sexual liberalism continues. Please kill me.

[The Alexanderians]

Hate to be the one to say this but can you offer more sources to strengthen the op? I like having more sources it's a better way to form arguments from.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/07/health/california-hiv-bill-signed/index.html

Thank you good sir or madam. On my own I've seen some say on this too... Quite disturbing since from what I understand this is not the only thing that really should be considered a heinous crime that's getting downgraded...

[Albrenia]

Why...

I'm as much for 'sexual liberalism' as the next lefty, but intentionally infecting people with potentially deadly diseases should be a crime. Not telling people about it as you do so should be even more of a crime.

[Crockerland]

(Image)

California is the laughingstock of the Union.

Unless they're doing this to intentionally turn people away from the Democrat party even more than they already have, in which case this is a very intelligent move.

We're usually nowhere near that bad.

haha, that's a really good one.

[Soyouso]

I already lost my faith in humanity, you can't take anymore! NSG took all of it. All of it! Took everything I got, I tells ya!

[The Parkus Empire]

Why...

I'm as much for 'sexual liberalism' as the next lefty, but intentionally infecting people with potentially deadly diseases should be a crime. Not telling people about it as you do so should be even more of a crime.

Progress. Some weirdos even think STDs should be a source of pride, and asking your partner about them is shaming them.

[Galloism]

We're usually nowhere near that bad.

haha, that's a really good one.

Well, a couple of those are really great. the $15/hr minimum wage reflects the high cost of living in california, the judge striking down the high capacity magazine ban is good too, and state's rights people oughtta be happy at California refusing to assist in the enforcement of federal law. I remember them cheering when states refused to expand medicaid.

This is the same thing, right? Right?

[The Parkus Empire]

The march of sexual liberalism continues. Please kill me.

Remember how demonic possession is ultimately about harming or killing the possessed?

[Threlizdun]

While it looks really bad on face value, they specifically stated they were doing this, not because they thought it was okay to expose others to HIV, but because the law was being implemented in a discriminatory manner and may have even been worsening the danger it posed by discouraging people from seeking testing. As they said, HIV is the only disease that currently carries criminal penalties for its spread, and those targeted are disproportionately LGBT and poor, and particularly female prostitutes. Additionally, it has been found that intention in many of these cases were hard to verify, as well as determining if the accused were even the ones responsible for the prosecutor getting infected. The law isn't working, and as they said, actively discouraging people from undergoing testing out of fear of potential prosecution. This is not about the principle of the issue (which still has penalties for willful infection), but on looking at the failures of the previous policy and trying to implement something that may be more effective at promoting public safety and ending selective application of the law.

[Crockerland]

haha, that's a really good one.

Well, a couple of those are really great. the $15/hr minimum wage reflects the high cost of living in california,

Which will obviously increase if businesses are forced to pay their lowest paid workers 15$ an hour.

the judge striking down the high capacity magazine ban is good too,

The ban was the problem.

and state's rights people oughtta be happy at California refusing to assist in the enforcement of federal law. I remember them cheering when states refused to expand medicaid.

This is the same thing, right? Right?

I don't think refusing to assist in the arrest of criminals and refusing to expand a healthcare program are really the same thing, not that anyone actually supports states' rights as a position unless they are on the same side of the argument as the states.

[The Parkus Empire]

While it looks really bad on face value, they specifically stated they were doing this, not because they thought it was okay to expose others to HIV, but because the law was being implemented in a discriminatory manner and may have even been worsening the danger it posed by discouraging people from seeking testing. As they said, HIV is the only disease that currently carries criminal penalties for its spread, and those targeted are disproportionately LGBT and poor, and particularly female prostitutes. Additionally, it has been found that intention in many of these cases were hard to verify, as well as determining if the accused were even the ones responsible for the prosecutor getting infected. The law isn't working, and as they said, actively discouraging people from undergoing testing out of fear of potential prosecution. This is not about the principle of the issue (which still has penalties for willful infection), but on looking at the failures of the previous policy and trying to implement something that may be more effective at promoting public safety and ending selective application of the law.

A lot of speculation and lives being gambled with to fight bigotry here.

[Improved werpland]

https://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/20170515_updating-hiv-criminal-laws-will-improve-public-health

SB 239 does not change California law with respect to disclosure of a person’s HIV status.

Current law does not require disclosure of one’s HIV-positive status prior to sexual activity. While it is true that the current HIV exposure statute applies only if the person did not disclose their HIV-positive status; mere nondisclosure isn’t a violation of the law. Rather, the person must also act with the specific intent to transmit HIV.

SB 239 would not change that.

[Galloism]

Well, a couple of those are really great. the $15/hr minimum wage reflects the high cost of living in california,

Which will obviously increase if businesses are forced to pay their lowest paid workers 15$ an hour.

Not as much as you'd think.

The estimate back in the day was that doubling the minimum wage would raise the price of a big mac by about 20 cents (about an 8% increase).

I haven't looked recently, but it probably hasn't changed all that much.

the judge striking down the high capacity magazine ban is good too,

The ban was the problem.

Agreed.

and state's rights people oughtta be happy at California refusing to assist in the enforcement of federal law. I remember them cheering when states refused to expand medicaid.

This is the same thing, right? Right?

I don't think refusing to assist in the arrest of criminals and refusing to expand a healthcare program are really the same thing, not that anyone actually supports states' rights as a position unless they are on the same side of the argument as the states.

Well, it kinda is. California is basically saying it will not expend money to enforce federal law. Medicaid expansion was a federal law. SCOTUS ruled, essentially, that the state could not be forced to spend money to enforce federal law.

So, logical course of the argument applies here.

Regarding state's rights - yeah, kinda. Nobody believes it's state's rights unless they disagree with whatever the Fed is doing. Which means that nobody really believes it at all. It's an excuse.

[Kramania]

https://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/20170515_updating-hiv-criminal-laws-will-improve-public-health

SB 239 does not change California law with respect to disclosure of a person’s HIV status.

Current law does not require disclosure of one’s HIV-positive status prior to sexual activity. While it is true that the current HIV exposure statute applies only if the person did not disclose their HIV-positive status; mere nondisclosure isn’t a violation of the law. Rather, the person must also act with the specific intent to transmit HIV.

SB 239 would not change that.

Yes, the penalty is being lowered from a felony to a misdemeanor.

I believe I already stated as much in my OP.

[Kramania]

Which will obviously increase if businesses are forced to pay their lowest paid workers 15$ an hour.

Not as much as you'd think.

The estimate back in the day was that doubling the minimum wage would raise the price of a big mac by about 20 cents (about an 8% increase).

I haven't looked recently, but it probably hasn't changed all that much.

The ban was the problem.

Agreed.

I don't think refusing to assist in the arrest of criminals and refusing to expand a healthcare program are really the same thing, not that anyone actually supports states' rights as a position unless they are on the same side of the argument as the states.

Well, it kinda is. California is basically saying it will not expend money to enforce federal law. Medicaid expansion was a federal law. SCOTUS ruled, essentially, that the state could not be forced to spend money to enforce federal law.

So, logical course of the argument applies here.

Regarding state's rights - yeah, kinda. Nobody believes it's state's rights unless they disagree with whatever the Fed is doing. Which means that nobody really believes it at all. It's an excuse.

California needs to be broken up into new states so that San Francisco and Sacramento can no longer punish the rest of the state with uncontrolled liberalness.

[Threlizdun]

While it looks really bad on face value, they specifically stated they were doing this, not because they thought it was okay to expose others to HIV, but because the law was being implemented in a discriminatory manner and may have even been worsening the danger it posed by discouraging people from seeking testing. As they said, HIV is the only disease that currently carries criminal penalties for its spread, and those targeted are disproportionately LGBT and poor, and particularly female prostitutes. Additionally, it has been found that intention in many of these cases were hard to verify, as well as determining if the accused were even the ones responsible for the prosecutor getting infected. The law isn't working, and as they said, actively discouraging people from undergoing testing out of fear of potential prosecution. This is not about the principle of the issue (which still has penalties for willful infection), but on looking at the failures of the previous policy and trying to implement something that may be more effective at promoting public safety and ending selective application of the law.

A lot of speculation and lives being gambled with to fight bigotry here.

Lives are already gambled with when the laws in question are disproportionately used against against the powerless. Public health policies necessitate engagement with the hardest hit communities, not continuation of a legacy of criminalization. The current laws are not working. This is an attempt to actually direct them towards something that can compliment health campaigns directed by the affected communities, rather than hampering such efforts through criminal action.