These groups need to be shut down and the people in prison!

[Benvolio]

The laws vary by state, but for the most part we don't criminalize STDs as a society nor do we criminalize behaviors just because we don't agree with them (even if they are blatantly stupid behaviors). Most public health law is built around educating people and preventing the spread of disease to the unsuspecting. If someone is consciously making a choice, there's no law that would punish those who make the choice for whatever reason.

Look at my post # 5 wherein I point to other instances in which we criminalize self injuring activities. Laws making it unlawful to infect someone are not likely to make an exception for consensual infection.

 

[KaraBulut]

Depends where. Infecting someone with HIV can be criminal behaviour in Canada. This would be the case where the person lied about their status, and took no measures to reduce the risk of transmission. The law wants to see informed consent. It is likely that someone seeking a disease would have their capacity to consent questioned.

Most of the test cases in the US have been similar to cases that I have read about in the Canada. The primary crime was felonious assault and HIV was used to extend the assault to aggravated status. The cases in the US have been primarily rape or battery/assault cases where the perpetrator was convicted of a crime but was also HIV+. There have been a few cases that had a statutory element when one of the persons was a minor (and therefore not able to consent) but for the most part, the core allegation was assault, battery or sexual assault.

There was one case a few years back that demonstrates how problematic these laws can be. In this case, two men had consensual sex with a condom. Afterward, one of the men heard through a friend that his sex partner might have HIV. He pressed charges, even though he acknowledged that the encounter was consensual, he was not infected with HIV as a result of the encounter, the person with HIV did not have a detectable viral load and they had used protection. Unfortunately, the defendant in the case plead guilty on advice of counsel under the impression that he would get a light sentence. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison, instead.

Most of the laws on the books date back to the hysteria of the early 1980s when little was known about HIV transmission. Most of the gay organizations in the US favor eliminating laws that single out HIV positive people, including immigration laws that discriminate against HIV positive people. Many of the HIV-related social service and healthcare organizations also support repeal of these laws.

 

[bankside]

Most of the test cases in the US have been similar to cases that I have read about in the Canada. The primary crime was felonious assault and HIV was used to extend the assault to aggravated status. The cases in the US have been primarily rape or battery/assault cases where the perpetrator was convicted of a crime but was also HIV+. There have been a few cases that had a statutory element when one of the persons was a minor (and therefore not able to consent) but for the most part, the core allegation was assault, battery or sexual assault.

There was one case a few years back that demonstrates how problematic these laws can be. In this case, two men had consensual sex with a condom. Afterward, one of the men heard through a friend that his sex partner might have HIV. He pressed charges, even though he acknowledged that the encounter was consensual, he was not infected with HIV as a result of the encounter, the person with HIV did not have a detectable viral load and they had used protection. Unfortunately, the defendant in the case plead guilty on advice of counsel under the impression that he would get a light sentence. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison, instead.

The sentence does not seem proportionate, but in principle, I don't think a person has a right to lie about their HIV infection status if they know it, and if they are asked. It is a condition of consent in my mind, and lying should be presumed to invalidate consent: i.e. it becomes sexual assault. If 25 years is the penalty for rape, then at least it was applied consistently.

By the way I don't see this as applying to gay sex only. I'd support charges in other areas where people realise the consequences of spreading disease and yet don't care.

Apart from criminal behaviour, and just talking about varying appetites for risk...I'm also a huge supporter of national singler-payer health care with no out of pocket costs (which I basically have in my country), but in cases where risk-taking can be accurately attributed, I'd support additional fees. So if you want to go back-country heli-skiing offpiste, a health insurance fee should apply.

 

[nafhoosier]

The sentence does not seem proportionate, but in principle, I don't think a person has a right to lie about their HIV infection status if they know it, and if they are asked. It is a condition of consent in my mind, and lying should be presumed to invalidate consent: i.e. it becomes sexual assault. If 25 years is the penalty for rape, then at least it was applied consistently.

Ridiculous.

If you are hooking up with a freaking stranger than you are accepting the risk (even with a condom) that you can catch an STD! What is so hard to understand here? You cannot trust a stranger.... period. Wear a freaking condom to reduce the risk close to zero, or just don't have sex at all with those you don't really know well if you are going to press charges over something like this. Think before you put a strangers dick in your mouth or in your ass for crying out loud. When you are mentally conscious enough (not passed out or drugged or raped of by force of course) to consent to sex then your health is YOUR responsibility.

If someone gained the trust of another person over a long period of time and under reasonable circumstances the victim had the right to have their guard down, then yes, I see that being punishable.

But this "I expect strangers to disclose their status accurately" is so awfully naive. it's what really ends up getting people hurt and infected in the long run.

 

[medic1]

Here in Scotland, we can only prosecute someone, who is setting out to infect others, without disclosing their status. There have been
successful cases.
When it comes to "bug-chasers", The HIV positive person is not breaking the law, as he has already informed his partner, and his partner
has refused any safe-sex routes.

 

[KaraBulut]

The sentence does not seem proportionate, but in principle, I don't think a person has a right to lie about their HIV infection status if they know it, and if they are asked. It is a condition of consent in my mind, and lying should be presumed to invalidate consent: i.e. it becomes sexual assault. If 25 years is the penalty for rape, then at least it was applied consistently..

This particular law (in the state of Iowa) is extremely broad. Under the court's interpretation, anyone who is positive and has sex of any type is a felon. Again, this case (Rhoades v. Iowa) was consensual and the HIV+ person used a condom and did not infect the other party. The law is targeted at people who have HIV to criminalize any sexual activity by HIV+ people.

Note that in #5, if the other person knows that the person is HIV+, the law doesn't apply, so this specifically excludes the bug-chaser scenario:

709C.1 CRIMINAL TRANSMISSION OF HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS.
1. A person commits criminal transmission of the human
immunodeficiency virus if the person, knowing that the person's human
immunodeficiency virus status is positive, does any of the following:

a. Engages in intimate contact with another person.
b. Transfers, donates, or provides the person's blood,
tissue, semen, organs, or other potentially infectious bodily fluids
for transfusion, transplantation, insemination, or other
administration to another person.
c. Dispenses, delivers, exchanges, sells, or in any other way
transfers to another person any nonsterile intravenous or
intramuscular drug paraphernalia previously used by the person
infected with the human immunodeficiency virus.
2. For the purposes of this section:
a. "Human immunodeficiency virus" means the human
immunodeficiency virus identified as the causative agent of acquired
immune deficiency syndrome.
b. "Intimate contact" means the intentional exposure of the
body of one person to a bodily fluid of another person in a manner
that could result in the transmission of the human immunodeficiency
virus.
c. "Intravenous or intramuscular drug paraphernalia" means
any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is peculiar to
and marketed for use in injecting a substance into or withdrawing a
bodily fluid from the human body.
3. Criminal transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus is a
class "B" felony.
4. This section shall not be construed to require that an
infection with the human immunodeficiency virus has occurred for a
person to have committed criminal transmission of the human
immunodeficiency virus.
5. It is an affirmative defense that the person exposed to the
human immunodeficiency virus knew that the infected person had a
positive human immunodeficiency virus status at the time of the
action of exposure, knew that the action of exposure could result in
transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus, and consented to
the action of exposure with that knowledge.

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

Well, it's not just about straight people and gay sex.

Until recently, the most rapidly growing segment of HIV+ people in the US was heterosexual women (particularly black and latina women). The demographics are changing though and we expect to see gay men return as the most rapidly growing population in the US.

Outside the US, MSM are not the largest population of HIV+ people. Outside the US, HIV is the leading cause of death for women in their childbearing years.

Yet, 30 years into the epidemic, when someone brings up the issue of punishment for reckless sexual behavior- it's always focused upon men who have sex with men (MSM). No one ever suggests punishing straight people who "spread HIV".



Surprisingly, the research about behavior is showing that what we call "bug-chasers" are an extremely small percentage of the MSM who are seroconverting. What the research is saying is that the majority of guys who are testing positive:

1. Met their sexual partners on the internet
2. Knowingly engaged in unsafe sex
3. Did not know the HIV status of their partner

And as always, there does seem to be a connection between HIV transmission and alcohol and recreational drug use.

Similar data would show some basic similarities to the 750,000 teenage pregnancies in the USA. Though the reasons are different its because of unsafe sex, and both can and do wreck peoples lives. Point is people will engage in unprotected sex.