California - No Longer a Felony to knowingly expose people to HIV

[Sparko]

California: No Longer A Felony To Knowingly Expose Others To HIV
California Democrats don't want to treat people with HIV "as criminals."

California has somehow become even more radical in its "soft on crime" approach. The state has now lessened the punishment for knowingly exposing someone else to HIV.

Now, if you knowingly expose a partner to HIV in California, the crime is a mere misdemeanor rather than a felony. Per The Los Angeles Times:

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.

Moreover, the measure is expanded to knowingly giving HIV-positive blood to a blood bank.

The extreme move is, of course, being made under the guise of tolerance.

"Today California took a major step toward treating HIV as a public health issue, instead of treating people living with HIV as criminals," said Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener. "HIV should be treated like all other serious infectious diseases, and that’s what SB 239 does."

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22060/...-prestigiacomo

================================================== ====
================================================== =======


Note this is KNOWINGLY exposing people to HIV. Who other than a criminal would knowingly expose people to HIV?

unbelievable.

Don't have sex or get blood in California.

[TheWall]

Facepalm.

[seer]

Another reason why liberalism will KILL you!

[Adrift]

Are there other diseases that are treated this way? That is, are there other diseases that you can give people knowingly and it's not considered a felony offense?

[EvoUK]

I suppose the answer to that question would be asking about the effect of said disease. I don't think it's a felony to give someone crabs, but if treated it's unlikely to kill you.

[Sparko]

Are there other diseases that are treated this way? That is, are there other diseases that you can give people knowingly and it's not considered a felony offense?

maybe non-lethal ones, like a cold or flu. I would think it would at least be considered aggravated assault if not attempted murder with HIV. Even if it is not always lethal now, it does make you have to live your entire life on specialized and very expensive medication and pretty much can ruin your life.

[seer]

Are there other diseases that are treated this way? That is, are there other diseases that you can give people knowingly and it's not considered a felony offense?

Other deadly diseases? I don't know.

[Adrift]

maybe non-lethal ones, like a cold or flu. I would think it would at least be considered aggravated assault if not attempted murder with HIV. Even if it is not always lethal now, it does make you have to live your entire life on specialized and very expensive medication and pretty much can ruin your life.

So, like, if someone had, say, something like syphilis, or, something more deadly like...ebola or something (just throwing anything out there), and you knowingly exposed someone to that, would that result in a federal offence or is it some lesser offence? If a lesser offence, maybe what they're attempting to do is put HIV on the same legal level, though what they should be doing is raising those other diseases to the level that HIV is on...course, figuring the exact demarcation might be tricky. I suppose if it's known that the disease is lethal is one way, but then, depending on the person, the flu could be lethal. No doubt this new bill also has something to do with the perception of HIV/AIDS and the gay community. Probably attempting to lesson the demonization of the illness by going about it the entirely wrong way.

[Darth Executor]

what makes you think the felony required a specific HIV law in the first place? We don't have murder laws for every possible weapon. and the whole point of this law is to normalize homosexuality anyway. since lots of gays have aids they complain about being "mistreated" by, say, not being allowed to donate blood. and thanks to all the third world savages California imported, their progressive block is pretty much impossible to dislodge from power, so they can do whatever they want.

[Sparko]

So, like, if someone had, say, something like syphilis, or, something more deadly like...ebola or something (just throwing anything out there), and you knowingly exposed someone to that, would that result in a federal offence or is it some lesser offence? If a lesser offence, maybe what they're attempting to do is put HIV on the same legal level, though what they should be doing is raising those other diseases to the level that HIV is on...course, figuring the exact demarcation might be tricky. I suppose if it's known that the disease is lethal is one way, but then, depending on the person, the flu could be lethal. No doubt this new bill also has something to do with the perception of HIV/AIDS and the gay community. Probably attempting to lesson the demonization of the illness by going about it the entirely wrong way.

apparently it varies by state and disease. Most STDs can be completely cured with simple treatments, others can't. https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...-penalties.htm

I think anything that is potentially lethal and/or requires an entire lifestyle change / lifetime treatments should be a felony. Accidental exposure? No. Intentional exposure, yes. Especially if you are giving to a blood bank where you are exposing many people. To me, that is terrorism.

[Adrift]

apparently it varies by state and disease. Most STDs can be completely cured with simple treatments, others can't. https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...-penalties.htm

I think anything that is potentially lethal and/or requires an entire lifestyle change / lifetime treatments should be a felony. Accidental exposure? No. Intentional exposure, yes. Especially if you are giving to a blood bank where you are exposing many people. To me, that is terrorism.

Yeah, that sounds more logical than lessening the offence of HIV. I don't know if I'd mark it as terrorism, but it's definitely on the level of poisoning someone, which I imagine is also a felony.

[TheWall]

This is terrifying.

[Terraceth]

So, like, if someone had, say, something like syphilis, or, something more deadly like...ebola or something (just throwing anything out there), and you knowingly exposed someone to that, would that result in a federal offence or is it some lesser offence? If a lesser offence, maybe what they're attempting to do is put HIV on the same legal level, though what they should be doing is raising those other diseases to the level that HIV is on...course, figuring the exact demarcation might be tricky.

Apparently, HIV is the only communicable disease for which exposure is a felony under California law, so it does seem to be just changing it to be on the same level as all the other diseases. I suppose someone could plausibly argue that the proper solution would be to increase the penalties for other diseases rather than lower HIV, but it is ultimately a standardization.

[Teallaura]

Are there other diseases that are treated this way? That is, are there other diseases that you can give people knowingly and it's not considered a felony offense?

HIV is unique in being a felony - but that has to do with it being viral and incurable.

To be fair, treatment has advanced to the point that HIV can be controlled indefinitely. HOWEVER, exposure, even to another HIV positive person, still carries the very real risk of death (arguably higher in the immuno-compromised).

Syphilis would be the strongest counter example. Syphilis is curable - unlike HIV - but you can (and in most states will) be arrested and treated if you refuse to comply with treatment. You can also be arrested if you fail to comply with testing - although in that case you'd probably have to be a named contact (never seen this one tried in court). You can be held for up to 30 days - the time necessary for oral treatment. Once treatment is completed, you can no longer be held (interesting questions about confirming efficacy but for the most part that is pretty well done before release - just depends on the course of treatment).

Prior to curing syphilis, I'm not aware of any laws that required revealing the infection but since turning on the lights and taking a look would accomplish that with males and sometimes females, the need for legal protection wasn't as great. Also, public health is a late comer to the legal scene - I'm not sure anyone even considered the criminal side prior to the 1940's.

[Teallaura]

So, like, if someone had, say, something like syphilis, or, something more deadly like...ebola or something (just throwing anything out there), and you knowingly exposed someone to that, would that result in a federal offence or is it some lesser offence? If a lesser offence, maybe what they're attempting to do is put HIV on the same legal level, though what they should be doing is raising those other diseases to the level that HIV is on...course, figuring the exact demarcation might be tricky. I suppose if it's known that the disease is lethal is one way, but then, depending on the person, the flu could be lethal. No doubt this new bill also has something to do with the perception of HIV/AIDS and the gay community. Probably attempting to lesson the demonization of the illness by going about it the entirely wrong way.

There was opposition to criminal penalty when HIV first became identifiable. HIV isn't like the flu - there is a nearly zero survival rate without intervention. Ebola has a similar survival rate but most people know when they have been in contact with a deceased person or in an area of outbreak so the need to inform them is less.

The deadly part is the blood banks - people who are already vulnerable due to illness or injury do NOT need the added insult of HIV infection. Blood banks can respond (and likely will) with viral loads - but then viral loads need to be added to the reporting requirements as positive tests.