Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California

You have a very dismissive attitude about it. Considering the transgender illness only affects a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people, we seem to make a very big deal of it.

Its less about the actual numbers and more about the mentality of ultra left states like California. Intentionally infecting anyone of any lifetime disease should be a felony, much less one that reduces someones life span significantly.

 

I agree with you, that it should still be a felony. I'm not sure why you keep restating the statement upon which we both agree.

It's kind of like if they said attacking people with a sword would now be a misdemeanor. I don't agree with it, but I also realize that there aren't a lot of people swords who were just waiting to go out and attack people, and they finally will be able to do that.

Attacking people with a sword, car, HIV, gun etc. should all be a felony. I think we can agree with that.

 

Really? Dumping every liberal into a pile of your own creation, aren't you? I think the change is absurd, and I'm a liberal person. I seriously doubt if I'm alone. This is an example of a misguided attempt to "make things less complicated" for those with HIV. While I feel for those who have it, not telling anyone that you do before sex is, or should be, a seriously criminal act. Making it a felony does that.

 

I think every liberal that's posted in this thread has agreed it should be a felony.

 

Yes, you said it should be a felony, but you're also the only one who said its not that big of a deal since it doesnt happen enough for it to matter. This only proves you will try to rationalize anything your team does.

 

If I tried to rationalize it, I would have found a way to support reducing it to a misdemeanor. I never said it didn't matter, I said it wasn't that big of a deal and listed the logic behind it. Do you disagree with my logic? Do you believe there are a large number of people with HIV who were hoping that infecting people on purpose wouldn't be a felony so they could finally go out there and infect a lot of people, now that it's a misdemeanor?

 

Did anyone look at WHY this was being considered? The argument was not that it's not horrific and thus shouldn't be punished. The argument was that people weren't getting tested in order to avoid any chance of a felony - if you don't get tested, it's not a crime to infect someone since you officially didn't know you had it. The idea is that making it a less severe crime makes it more likely people to get tested and thus reduce the transmission of HIV. It's about changing incentives.

It's similar to the rape logic in Texas. Several years back, lawmakers wanted to make rape a death penalty crime along with murder. Seems reasonable on the surface (who doesn't hate rapists), but a big problem with that is that would incentivize rapists to also murder their victims because a dead person tells no tales, and the penalty if caught is the same.

The question is whether the priority is punishing crime or preventing crime in the first place. California is arguing that changing the punishment would prevent more crime. No idea if that's true or not.

 

I guess I'd want to see the data show all these cases of people you suspect knew had HIV but didn't get tested to avoid facing felony charges for not disclosing then. If it's a large pool of people that are doing this, then I can sort of see a justification in that it circumvents the purpose of the law in the first place but I think the number of people that do this is probably as small as the number of people who were intentionally infecting people with HIV. That could just be naivety on my part to assume it's a very tiny population of the HIV/AIDs community that have malicious intent in spreading the disease. Regardless, I hope the reality is this doesn't cause an epidemic in its spread across our population. I think we can all agree on that. Right now, without seeing any data supporting the claim that people were just avoiding testing to confirm HIV contraction, I still think it should remain a felony.

 

Astro you nailed it my brother!!

 

Death penalty for rape is not remotely reasonable to me so its not even a logical comparison.

The problem with your logic is that if a person is irresponsible enough to not get test for their own health benefit and risk exposing others are going to be the same exact people who will not disclose it to future partners even if they are aware of it if there are no significant consequence.

 

Do you know what the probability of getting aids from normal sex is?

 

Sure - and I'm not arguing on the merits of the policy. I don't have much knowledge/background on the subject, and I'm not sure what research has been done on this group of people (I suspect no one else here does either). My point is that everyone is lambasting them for the wrong reasons - this is an attempt to reduce HIV transmission in the state by treating it as a public health problem and looking at solutions from that perspective. It's not about thinking that knowingly transmitting HIV isn't a big deal or whatever by switching it from felony to misdemeanor.

 

WTF

 

Cali strikes again.

https://www.themaven.net/bluelivesm...ers-from-sex-offenders-Y_6iMg3zbE-i7BGR2lgb2Q

 

stupid law that should be eliminated. Those things wouldn't stop a pedo.

 

I don't understand why right-wing posters are trying to use this to tar liberals.

 

It wasn't all of Cali that passed that, it was the city council of one of the conservative havens that passed it. I would like to get that conservative City Council out of there just as much as anyone else.

 

I find many laws absurd, but I disagree in this case. Laws are not meant to stop people. They are there to create friction from those who might break the law and to punish those who do.

If pedo's are suppose to to stay away from children, why would we repeal a law that lets pedo's attract children?

 

because it punishes sex offenders for simply decorating their home for Halloween. If its not gonna stop a pedo then whats the purpose for such an act? i don't know what 'create friction' is suppose to mean. Telling them not to answer the door for kids is one thing, not decorating your yard seems extreme.

 

I do agree they should have a right to decorate their yard. I would say if they demand the right to keep their light on, then they should post a sign that clearly states they are not participating in Halloween.

Im not one who likes to punish people based on past crimes, but pedophilia is usually not a choice (a ha!). Temptation should be removed which is why they are generally forbidden from going around children in the first place.

When it comes to laws, you have 3 people:
-Those who will not engage in the said activity regardless if it was legal or not legal. If (literally) nobody engaged in said activity, we would never need a law and consequence.
-Those who will break the law, regardless of consequence.
-Those who would engage in the said activity depending on the consequence. As stated, laws are not meant to stop people, but only to discourage them (resistance/friction) by setting forth a parameter of consequences.