Knowingly spreading HIV in Cali no longer felony

  • Bama Gymnastics @ NCAA Championship Semi-finals (ESPN2 | TONIGHT - 4/18 @ 8pm CT). We will have a game thread going in the Women's Sports board. Come join us!

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,850
35,155
362
Mountainous Northern California

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,850
35,155
362
Mountainous Northern California
I can see your point there, but what about this?


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Fortunately, we have testing to screen out that blood.

None of what I am saying should be construed as defending the change. I haven't researched it to give an informed opinion on the proper type of crime, felony vs misdemeanor. It should be a crime to knowingly expose or attempt to expose someone without their consent.
 

tattooguy21

Suspended
Aug 14, 2012
3,615
612
132
Fortunately, we have testing to screen out that blood.

None of what I am saying should be construed as defending the change. I haven't researched it to give an informed opinion on the proper type of crime, felony vs misdemeanor. It should be a crime to knowingly expose or attempt to expose someone without their consent.
And that's the thing. I don't think anyone should be allowed to expose others to a known vector without their knowledge/consent. My thoughts on the blood donations are simply the possibility of exposureand cross contaminating "good" blood.

More than anything else, I'm trying to figure out how this improves the quality of life for anyone except the original carrier under the specific scenario of "person a wants to sleep with person b. Person b wouldn't knowingly sleep with someone carrying HIV. Now person a doesn't have to worry about felony repercussions for not disclosing this information."

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

Probius

Hall of Fame
Mar 19, 2004
6,773
2,175
287
43
Birmingham, Alabama
The supporters of the bill say they are worried that people will avoid getting tested for HIV beause they fear prosecution. So, this makes me wonder about something. I wonder if, according to the old law, a man knew he had HIV, and he had sex with a partner without telling the partner that he had HIV, but took the necessary precautions, and he infected his partner, would he be liable to prosecution, or would he have to intend to infect his partner to be prosecuted? This issue brings up so many questions.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,609
39,825
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
The supporters of the bill say they are worried that people will avoid getting tested for HIV beause they fear prosecution. So, this makes me wonder about something. I wonder if, according to the old law, a man knew he had HIV, and he had sex with a partner without telling the partner that he had HIV, but took the necessary precautions, and he infected his partner, would he be liable to prosecution, or would he have to intend to infect his partner to be prosecuted? This issue brings up so many questions.
Really, in the eyes of the law in most cases, you intend the normal consequences of your actions, the "reasonable man" test. Therefore, having sex and infecting someone wouldn't normally require the additional proof that you intended the consequences of infection...
 

LA4Bama

All-SEC
Jan 5, 2015
1,624
0
0
Los Angeles, CA
Really, in the eyes of the law in most cases, you intend the normal consequences of your actions, the "reasonable man" test. Therefore, having sex and infecting someone wouldn't normally require the additional proof that you intended the consequences of infection...
This notion of intention and the normal consequences of sex was challenged in the abortion debate. Some claimed that the intention to have sex did not include (the unintended) consequences of pregnancy. This was asserted even more when contraception was used but failed to prevent the pregnancy. If a woman having protected sex doesn't intend pregnancy, and if she is therefore not responsible for the pregnancy, then the same could be said of the HIV+ man.

BTW, I'm nott defending such reasoningg. Just noting it is not uncommon in some circles.
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
15,644
12,568
282
Atlanta 'Burbs
HIV isn't the automatic death sentence that it once was but it is still a lifetime of pills and medical care that could bankrupt the wealthiest of us. Disclosure should be mandatory and I'd extend that to all infectious and incurable diseases. Buddy of mine caught Hep C "somehow" (never asked for detail) and it is hell to live with forever
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,609
39,825
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
This notion of intention and the normal consequences of sex was challenged in the abortion debate. Some claimed that the intention to have sex did not include (the unintended) consequences of pregnancy. This was asserted even more when contraception was used but failed to prevent the pregnancy. If a woman having protected sex doesn't intend pregnancy, and if she is therefore not responsible for the pregnancy, then the same could be said of the HIV+ man.

BTW, I'm nott defending such reasoningg. Just noting it is not uncommon in some circles.
Offhand, I can't think of any cases where that theory has prevailed in court...
 

LA4Bama

All-SEC
Jan 5, 2015
1,624
0
0
Los Angeles, CA
Offhand, I can't think of any cases where that theory has prevailed in court...
Well, I agree it probably hasn't because, first, it's not a great idea to make that law, and second, Roe sort of made it moot by defining the fetus as merely a potential person. Hard to discuss responsibility to a merely potential thing. Back in '71 when everyone was debating this before Roe, a variety of frameworks were considered. Judith Jarvis Thomson has a well known piece, "A Defense of Abortion". It allows that a fetus is a person but then argues that a woman has less (or even no) responsibility to a fetus unless she intended to get pregnant. It may have no influence in law, but in the mind of the common person, I believe it is quite prevalent.

People like to mock millennials, sometimes not unfairly. I have wondered if one could define the millennial attitude as the generation of people raised with the idea they are not responsible for the natural consequences of their freely chosen actions, so long as they "didn't mean for it to happen". I thought of it again last week; I saw in a student newspaper an article in which a young woman was interviewed about her addiction to alcohol. The headline quotation was, "I never asked to become an addict". I was thinking to myself, what does that have to do with it?
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,609
39,825
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
Well, I agree it probably hasn't because, first, it's not a great idea to make that law, and second, Roe sort of made it moot by defining the fetus as merely a potential person. Hard to discuss responsibility to a merely potential thing. Back in '71 when everyone was debating this before Roe, a variety of frameworks were considered. Judith Jarvis Thomson has a well known piece, "A Defense of Abortion". It allows that a fetus is a person but then argues that a woman has less (or even no) responsibility to a fetus unless she intended to get pregnant. It may have no influence in law, but in the mind of the common person, I believe it is quite prevalent.

People like to mock millennials, sometimes not unfairly. I have wondered if one could define the millennial attitude as the generation of people raised with the idea they are not responsible for the natural consequences of their freely chosen actions, so long as they "didn't mean for it to happen". I thought of it again last week; I saw in a student newspaper an article in which a young woman was interviewed about her addiction to alcohol. The headline quotation was, "I never asked to become an addict". I was thinking to myself, what does that have to do with it?
I know nothing about Thomas, but the argument sounds absurd to me. Nevertheless, liability, civil or criminal, for the reasonably foreseen consequences of one's actions is a bedrock principle of law, cutting across all areas of the law. The CA statute seems to be a repudiation of that principle in the case of HIV...
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.