What the heck is going on in California?

[Elijah John]

I first heard this story on Tucker Carlson's show, that California has lessened the penalty of knowingly inflicting HIV on another to a misdemeanor. The California lawmaker on Carlson's show defended the move on the grounds that AIDs is not as deadly as it once was.

I did a Google search to confirm, because I just could not believe such a defiance of common sense and common decency was possible, even in California. But sure enough, the lessening of the penalty in that state is a fact:

http://southfloridagaynews.com/National ... g-hiv.html

Unless I missed it, AIDS is still a very very serious disease, and still potentially deadly. And costly, at the very least, to cure.

For debate,

1) Is it ethical to knowingly inflict AIDs on someone who doesn't have it?

2) How serious a crime should this be?

3) Is this insanity the natural consequence of Liberalism carried to extremes?

4) Should homosexuals and other vulnerable groups be exempt from acting responsibly?

Or do they get special consideration by virtue of being a favored minority, at least in California?

[Furrowed Brow]

1) Is it ethical to knowingly inflict AIDs on someone who doesn't have it?

Depending on context it falls somewhere between shoddy to despicable.

2) How serious a crime should this be?

If joe runs up to Moe a complete stranger going about their business and injects him with HIV - then probably a sentence equal to UK Category 1 grievously bodily harm.

But we are not really talking about that kind of scenario are we as it avoids the question of the responsibilities and culpabalities of the sexual act. I think this next case is more to the point.

Mohammed Dica (Kenyan) was the first person in the UK brought to trail for deliberately infecting another person with HIV. He infected two lovers. He was found guilty of "biological grievous bodily harm". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3190626.stm The original sentence was eight years jail. The sentence also reflects Dica infected two woman. It would likely have been a lesser sentence if it was just one. Dica appealed and at a retrial and the eight year sentence was reduced to four and a half years. The trial hinged on the point whether Dica's two lovers had or had not consented to the risk. In the end the charge was "recklessly inflicting serious bodily harm".

We can argue the length of sentence but it seems right to criminalise an act where one party deliberately withholds information that would allow the other party to make a different decision to avoid serious harm. But each case needs to be looked at on its owns merits and life is often more complicated.

In 2005 a 20 year old woman was convicted of recklessly infecting her boyfriend. But the circumstances appear a lot less clear cut than Dica. The woman met the man in a nightclub and sex initially involved a condom. But they started living together and stopped using condoms. She claimed they were trying for a baby. At this point she is diagnosed with HIV and she failed to inform the boyfriend. She received a two and a half year youth custody sentence.

This latter example I think draws out the problem of criminalising HIV infection. Why did the young woman delay informing her boyfriend? And the answer is clearly fear and probably a degree of immaturity and denial, and a dash of recklessness too. In cases like this the arguments about not stigmatising the disease begin to weigh heavily. She infected her partner before Dica's case hit the news. So at this point in history people were not being jailed for infecting partners but there was clearly high levels of social stigma and fear surrounding the HIV virus. We want people to act responsibly - the question is what is the best policy to encourage responsible behaviour. Trying to induce fear with sanction and sentencing is often shown not to be the best policy when forming social policy. Put it this way if sentences of 10 years or 20 years were the norm and the young woman found out she was HIV, with that kind of stigma and penalty hanging over her I have little doubt she would have been more fearful and more likely to stay silent. Whilst the UK legal systems seems to have treated the anonymous woman on the softer end of the scale I doubt this case should have been treated as a crime. Some kind of social intervention certainly. And in a sense that is probably what a youth custody sentence amounts to. But I read the details of a case like this one and the arguments for not criminalising HIV infection become more cogent.

3) Is this insanity the natural consequence of Liberalism carried to extremes?

Not really. Suspect the motivation is to promote a policy that will lead to a reduction in HIV contraction. It remains to be seen if this policy will have an affect on the numbers who contract HIV. If the numbers go up then clearly it would be a stupid policy. If the numbers remain roughly the same then it would be a pointless policy. If the numbers go down the morality of the policy would have some justification.

4) Should homosexuals and other vulnerable groups be exempt from acting responsibly?

Of course not. But encouraging and demanding responsibility can be done many ways. The stick is just one tool.

I'd also point out that the majority of the cases that came to court in the UK were heterosexual cases and any legal precedent applies to everyone. The tone of the questions already makes it a gay problem or a law for special groups. It is not. Anyone might be infected by a wife, husband, lover and so the same laws applies to everyone. If the UK followed California and liberalised in the way it criminalised or did not criminalise spreading infection that too would apply to everyone.

So let me ask the question this way. Imagine a couple happily married for 20 years. The wife has a blood transfusion and contracts HIV. Because of fear, stigma, ignorance and a degree of immaturity combined with being in denial she does not immediately tell her husband she is infected. They continue to have unprotected sex. Eventually after three months she plucks up the courage to tell her husband but he is now already infected himself. It was never her intention to infect him but she is guilty of weak mindedness. Is the wife a criminal requiring sanction with the full force of the criminal justice system?

The first hypothetical scenario I offered was Joe injecting Moe. It is a clear cut case of Joe wanting to infect Moe. The real world case of Dica is not so clear cut on this point. He was clearly reckless with other peoples lives but then the hypothetical woman who infects her husband after a blood transfusions is also being reckless. I've painted her as fearful and in denial - true Dica looks like a shoddy individual but what if he was fearful and in denial. So let's change the last hypothetical and see if your answer changes to another hypothetical.

The sister of the blood transfusion woman just discussed has also been married for twenty years. In many senses it has been a happy marriage but this sister has also had many affairs. In the same car crash as her sister she also has a blood transfusion and contracts HIV. She too is fearful and in denial and a little immature. Her fears and motivations are the same as the first sister. In the next three months she infects her husband and her two other lovers. Is she any worse and more criminal or more guilty than her sister who just infects her husband?

You will arrive at your own conclusion but I question whether one public policy or law addresses all the different circumstances. Moreover if the law is willing to prosecute to the max every case is that really beneficial to public health? Is a climate of fear and harsh sanction helpful to cases like the anonymous woman who infected her boyfriend or the hypothetical woman with the blood transfusion. I think not but offer no firm answers. I do know the issue is fraught and complicated.

Or do they get special consideration by virtue of being a favored minority, at least in California?

The law applies to everyone does it not? Or are you saying that if a gay person deliberately spreads HIV that will receive a lesser sanction than a heterosexual person deliberately spreading HIV? Or is your point that the decision has absolutely nothing to do with public health and is purely idealogical? In which case will you change your stance if the new policy proves a success with a decline in HIV infection rates?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 9 by Rufus21]

It's still a crime, yes, but he point is the penalty was lessened. Should the deliberate infliction of a very serious and potential deadly disease be trivialized in the name of "Gay rights"? Should the deliberate or reckless infliction of serious bodily harm be rewarded only with a slap on the wrist?

Apparently so, in California. Let's see how well that plays in the rest of the country. Again, the Democrats just keep giving rhetorical gifts to the Republicans. Distrust of the police, the erosion of law and order, screaming college students, aid and comfort to America's enemies (Iran, China-North Korea, Russia) destruction of American heritage, (statues of Lee and Columbus in the name of Political Correctness.), unfettered immigration, dreamers blocking traffic...keep it up, and say hello to another term for President Trump. The Left is clueless.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 10 by Furrowed Brow]

I appreciate your thoughtful and well considered reply. But I think you are making it too complicated. Perhaps it is complicated, but if so I hope fair minded neutral judges sort it out. But alas, California is in the 9th district's jurisdiction, so forgive me for being a bit pessimistic.

[otseng]

I’m not trying to be a jerk here, I honestly want to offer you some advice. You are obviously very emotional about this and you have been given some bad information by a very unreliable source. I would suggest that you take a little break from Fox news. Take a break from the "war on coal", the "war on religion", the "war on women", the "war on terror", the "war on marriage", the "war on meat", the "war on success", the "war on the poor", the "war on Christmas" or whatever war they’re trying to invent this week. Obviously they are trying to work people into a frenzy over nothing at all. Take a deep breath, clear your head and come back to the real world.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making personal comments about others.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Rufus21]

It's still a crime, yes, but he point is the penalty was lessened. Should the deliberate infliction of a very serious and potential deadly disease be trivialized in the name of "Gay rights"? Should the deliberate or reckless infliction of serious bodily harm be rewarded only with a slap on the wrist?

The way you are using the term "lessened" is a little misleading. Most likely it was explained to you in a biased way from an unreliable source.

The punishment for transmitting AIDS is now comparable to all other similar infectious diseases. It had previously been much harsher because there were no treatments for it and it created a huge panic. Now that the disease is preventable and treatable the laws are becoming more consistent. It is not being "lessened" below any other similar diseases, it is being reduced to the same level where it belongs. Think of it as a "correction".

And this has almost nothing to do with gay rights. As others have pointed out, this really doesn't affect the LGBT community at all.

On a side note, I do want to apologize for my comments in my last post. As I said, I really wasn't trying to be rude or offensive. I know that you are a smart person from reading your other posts. This thread obviously came from an emotional place, and I have seen how Fox News tries to incite people over issues that don't exist. Time and time again I have seen them promote false conspiracy theories, spread misleading information and even downright lies. I sincerely apologize if my advice offended you.

Again, the Democrats just keep giving rhetorical gifts to the Republicans. Distrust of the police, the erosion of law and order, screaming college students, aid and comfort to America's enemies (Iran, China-North Korea, Russia) destruction of American heritage, (statues of Lee and Columbus in the name of Political Correctness.), unfettered immigration, dreamers blocking traffic...keep it up, and say hello to another term for President Trump. The Left is clueless.

This is exactly the type of thing that I was talking about. I think that you would have a very different opinion if you researched a few less biased sources.