Should HIV be decriminalized?

[Cutedelicategay]

Read a news article that President Biden is planning to decriminalize HIV. That means person responsible for spreading HIV will not be criminally responsible. If this is indeed true it will create a bigger problem not only within the gay community but also straight community. People will use this virus to seek revenge. Infection rates will spike. It will be a medical disaster. Health costs will go up. Current law of holding HIV positive individuals criminally responsible for their actions is a major prevention strategy along with condoms and Prep. With that gone I think it will be a medical and social disaster. 

Your thoughts please? The idea is to stir a respectful discussion and not name calling. 

[Fprefect570]

The origin of the law was used to criminalize the lgbtq community almost exclusively. It is certainly moral to disclose your status but if your barebacking with someone and it’s not mentioned you should assume is poz. A lot of the people who have been prosecuted have been charged with attempted murder and are sentenced to 10 years plus in prison. I think you are over estimating the amount of cases are because of “revenge” or for malicious intent. 

[analluv27]

The problem how I see it, due to criminalizing people are afraid to get tested. Do they prosecute someone for knowing passing on hepatitis? Any other sti’s ? Growing up and witnessing the start of the AID’s epidemic to the current state, I can understand why at first the push of criminalization which was not grounded by safety but fear. Fear that what was first thought to be a “gay” disease. But a disease that is indiscriminate. Yet after decades of science and fact it’s still looked upon as a “gay” disease. So how can we protect heterosexuality? We lock them up. Now in my lifetime I’ve heard more of partners killing the other due to HIV infection than passing it on as a revenge tactic. All in all that’s my two cents

[Alias]

So the main problem with the laws (all adapted by all states because of a Ryan White Act mandate) was they weren’t actually aimed at intentionally transmitting the virus. It was just a requirement that you disclose that you had HIV if you’d ever tested positive. 
 

No such laws exist for hepatitis, syphilis, herpes, etcetera. And there’s a damn good reason those laws don’t exist: The only legal defense is ignorance. No positive test results, no prosecution. 
 

Well that’s a damn good way to discourage testing. 
 

I think there should be a law against intentional transmission without consent, if that’s what is actually intended. And maybe failure to disclose if you are not on medication and you engage in high risk sex. But it shouldn’t just be HIV, it should encompass the other sexually transmitted infections and non-sexual infections as well.  
 

Truth is that the HIV criminalization laws were passed in a time of panic and when gay sex was criminal in  a lot of states.  It was also a time when HIV was still very difficult to treat, and long before PreP was available.  Those laws need to go. 

[GermanFucker]

As I have said mainy times before on this forum: I believe that there should be no special laws for HIV transmission, but that infliction of bodily harm should be penalized (or not) by the same legal standards no matter the cause of the bodily harm. In that a number of aspects needs to be considered:

- impact on the person: HIV is a manageable disease, you can grow old with HIV no problem. Just like you can with an amputated foot. In most cases it makes no difference to the everyday quality of life. But there might still be areas where there are restrictions or stigmas. Being HIV positive can e.g. be a problem for a thoracic surgeon, just like missing one foot might be for a ballett dancer.

- culpability of the "perpetrator": If you cut off you're neighbor's foot with an axe, that is certainly intentional and warrants a harsher sentence. If your neighbor loses his foot because he was your passenger in a car accident, where you failed to metion that you're drunk, you are at least negligent. In both cases - driving intoxicated and having unprotected sex when one party is aware of a clear and present transmission risk - disclosure is necessary. If not, one shouldn't complain if one is being sued for negligence.

- informed consent: HIV criminalization laws sometimes even insisted on punishment, when both parties were fully aware in advance of the risks involved. Some laws required punishment even if the other party suffered no harm / no virus was transmitted, whereas in comparable circumstances that don't revolve around HIV it would not be punishable and merely considered a life lesson. Some laws required an unreasonable amount of disclosure, even if reasonably there is no risk of transmission at all. I believe all this is wrong.

In short: Laws singling out HIV as a special case or HIV-positive persons as a special group are archaic and non-sensical. There should be no discrimination. But that means that there also should be no postive discriminations / priviledges for HIV. Inflicting a certain type of bodily harm as a result of a certain intention / state of mind should neither be judged harsher nor more lenient because HIV is involved.

If a certain set of actions / failure to act is considered an accident when it comes to e.g. traffic, is should also be considered and accident when it comes to sex. If it is considered negligence in other contexts, it should be seen as the same when it comes to HIV. If there is malignant intent, you shouldn't go unpunished because you used a virus as a means of inflicting harm instead of an axe.

So if decrimininalizing HIV means removing special HIV-specific laws from the books and instead using the same set of guidelines, rules and laws as with other life risks and infractions against one's bodily integrity, then I'm all for it.

If it means a blanked exemption from liability in each and every case, then I disagree. As i said in other discussions here: If you say that intentionally pozzing unsuspecting others should never be punishable under ANY circumstances, because the other guy could have used prep or a condom, but at the same time think you should be able to sue your employer if poor working conditions give you cancer, than that is hypocrisy / a double standard (after all you could have found yourself a different job, right?). Each situation is different and we need to consider and weigh aspects like the actual outcome, intent / state of mind and level of consent. What we should not care about is whether we're talking about asbestos, syphillis or HIV.

 

 

Edited January 26, 2021 by GermanFucker

[Close2MyBro]

California has already lowered the penalty for knowingly transmitting HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in prison. I believe they said said the bill was designed to “modernize” the law in line with advancements in medical treatment for HIV and changing social perceptions of the disease. I know that there are strong opinions on each side but I believe that some form of modernization was needed now that HIV is not the killer disease that it once was.

[GermanFucker]

  On 1/26/2021 at 10:01 PM, Fprefect570 said:

It is certainly moral to disclose your status but if your barebacking with someone and it’s not mentioned you should assume is poz.

Expand  

Disagree. That is just such a big city gay thing to say. That's true within a very limited context, but a failure of imagination when it comes to a multitude of substantially different life circumstances. If you're a young dumb kid from some farming town that hasn't even defined his own sexuality to himself and mistake a more experienced guy having fun with you for love, the last thing on your mind is safer sex and you will certainly make no such assumption.

The burden of using one's brain should not be put on one party (i.e. the HIV-negative party) exclusively. IMHO the standard must always be: can I REASONABLY assume that the other guy is fully aware of all the implications of what is about to happen and is sufficiently informed to to know what he's doing? A guy that consciouly went to a gay sauna to take loads in the steam room. Sure. The 18year old high school senior getting bred behind the bleachers because curiosity got the better of him? Not so much.

 

  On 1/26/2021 at 10:01 PM, Fprefect570 said:

A lot of the people who have been prosecuted have been charged with attempted murder and are sentenced to 10 years plus in prison.

Expand  

And that is wrong

  On 1/26/2021 at 10:01 PM, Fprefect570 said:

 I think you are over estimating the amount of cases are because of “revenge” or for malicious intent. 

Expand  

Do I agree that most cases of HIV transmission (i.e. accidents) and sex between sero-discordant partners (where no infection took place) should not be touched by the law? Sure. But at the same time extreme cases do exist, where legal scrutiny is valid.

Take a friend of mine: Another guy pozzed him on purpose. Being unsuspecting, my friend did not doubt him when the other guy said he was neg, so my friend did not get tested in time. As a fast progressor he got cancer when his immune system collapsed. He's undetectable now, but the the combination of the cancer and agressive chemo have left him with a serious disability. His legs are basically fucked.

I believe this example warrants legal consequences. Not because of the HIV, but because of the combination of lying, malicious intent and inflicting serious bodily harm.

For these extreme cases there should be the appropriate legal tools. But again, these should be the same as with dangerous machinery, environmental toxins or other STDs. They shoud not be HIV-SPECIFIC.

[DarkroomTaker]

TBH, there are some posts on here where people have stated that they purposly go and infect people with Aids/HIV etc, which obviously I am ignorant to still understand the thought process behind this.

I bareback , lead a risky life, take chances, may get infected, which is my choice. But if I knew someone had gone out to purposly infect me, then yes I would say keep it as a punishable crime and dont take away choice.

If a strsight guy rapes a woman, infects her with HIV, is he just charged with Rape and let off for infecting her.

Too many unanswered questions to make a quick decision.

Btw, this is only my view.

Edited January 26, 2021 by DarkroomTaker

[analluv27]

  On 1/26/2021 at 11:23 PM, GermanFucker said:

Disagree. That is just such a big city gay thing to say. That's true within a very limited context, but a failure of imagination when it comes to a multitude of substantially different life circumstances. If you're a young dumb kid from some farming town that hasn't even defined his own sexuality to himself and mistake a more experienced guy having fun with you for love, the last thing on your mind is safer sex and you will certainly make no such assumption.

The burden of using one's brain should not be put on one party (i.e. the HIV-negative party) exclusively. IMHO the standard must always be: can I REASONABLY assume that the other guy is fully aware of all the implications of what is about to happen and is sufficiently informed to to know what he's doing? A guy that consciouly went to a gay sauna to take loads in the steam room. Sure. The 18year old high school senior getting bred behind the bleachers because curiosity got the better of him? Not so much.

 

And that is wrong

Do I agree that most cases of HIV transmission (i.e. accidents) and sex between sero-discordant partners (where no infection took place) should not be touched by the law? Sure. But at the same time extreme cases do exist, where legal scrutiny is valid.

Take a friend of mine: Another guy pozzed him on purpose. Being unsuspecting, my friend did not doubt him when the other guy said he was neg, so my friend did not get tested in time. As a fast progressor he got cancer when his immune system collapsed. He's undetectable now, but the the combination of the cancer and agressive chemo have left him with a serious disability. His legs are basically fucked.

I believe this example warrants legal consequences. Not because of the HIV, but because of the combination of lying, malicious intent and inflicting serious bodily harm.

For these extreme cases there should be the appropriate legal tools. But again, these should be the same as with dangerous machinery, environmental toxins or other STDs. They shoud not be HIV-SPECIFIC.

Expand  

You explained what I was trying to say and so much better than I did. 

[Alias]

  On 1/26/2021 at 11:16 PM, Close2MyBro said:

California has already lowered the penalty for knowingly transmitting HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in prison. I believe they said said the bill was designed to “modernize” the law in line with advancements in medical treatment for HIV and changing social perceptions of the disease. I know that there are strong opinions on each side but I believe that some form of modernization was needed now that HIV is not the killer disease that it once was.

Expand  

Michigan modernized its transmission laws at well. Still a felony if you intend to transmit or if transmission results from anal or vaginal sex. Otherwise nondisclosure is just a misdemeanor.  It's also a defense to prosecution if you're on treatment and have a suppressed viral load. 

 

But having a condom used is no defense.  Which is strange; the Michigan law is probably the moderate position among gay guys. Undetectable but no condom? Ok. Detectable but condom? Still illegal without disclosure

[GermanFucker]

  On 1/26/2021 at 11:25 PM, DarkroomTaker said:

TBH, there are some posts on here where people have stated that they purposly go and infect people with Aids/HIV etc, which obviously I am ignorant to still understand the thought process behind this.

 

Expand  

You want the real answer?

The thought process is mostly TROLLING. Collins defines trolling as follows: "If you troll someone, you deliberately try to upset them or start an argument with them, especially by posting offensive or unkind things on the internet." I.e. the point is to be as outreageous as possible in order to elicit a (-n emotional) reaction. Even among sexual deviants there is a high likelyhood you encounter basically moral people (e.g.: Even if you enjoy swapping STDs, you wouldn't involve others who don't share your fetish), wo react either with outrage or are torn between being aroused and admitting to finding evil things enticing. Either way: a win for the troll, who by bragging about infecting others on purpose was sucessful in eliciting an emtional response.

If you do a stylometric analysis of a number of these posts, you will find, that many of these stories come from the same real-life person, albeit posting under different aliases. Heck, there are many threads on this board where one troll is bascially talking to himself using 4 different aliases. Having been here on the forum for a decade, I remember users who presented themselves as alpha-pozzers and who were admired by many, only to be unmasked as total frauds 4 years later. 

So with most stories, you should better assume that they are fake. Just as I am sure there are a signifcant number of true stories here as well (I am probably deluding myself believing that I can spot the difference).

I mentioned my friend who got pozzed on purpose by another guy. True story. But the other guy didn't brag about it on some internet forum. I have been to bareback gangbangs where the bottom ended up poz (not my doing). It's not like the this stuff isn't real. It's just waaaay more intricate and complicated in real life that some tall tales make it look.