Missouri Man Charged with spreading HIV to over 300 people

[emailking]

To be fair, that is not necessarily malicious. Just criminally stupid. This man should be charged for the 15 or so people he had unprotected sex with, not for the other 285 people.

I'm OK with him getting 225 years.

[emailking]

Sickening

What's sickening?  The fact the title of this thread is a lie or the fact as usual the forum either a) didn't read the story or b) got sex ed in Texas and is clueless about STIs?

I have no idea how the OP came to his ludicrous conclusion and I am amazed that everyone else just shrugged their shoulders and went along with it.  Worst part is most of the offenders are red avatars.  Guys actually read the articles and if you don't understand them please ask someone to explain them instead of just going into infantile hysterics.  This stuff is serious and irrational fear mongering is what allowed the HIV epidemic to get out of control in the US in the first place.

I've read the article. The only thing that could be misleading is the "spread" claim as we don't know how many who were exposed actually contracted HIV. This is somewhat splitting hairs as the point is that he knowingly exposed them to it. Otherwise there is nothing false about the OP, and there is nothing in the article that would mitigate this man's culpability in the crimes.

[emailking]

Splitting hairs?!

I don't know if this is a reading comprehension problem or an issue with basic math or science.  Perhaps it's all of the above.  Read this ONE very short paragraph from the article...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How does 15 to 20=HUNDREDS!!!

And the article says"instances."  It does not say "partners."  So we don't know whether this occurred with 15-20 people or 5 people with an average of 3 "instances" each.

Or maybe people just don't know how HIV is transmitted.  Given that a lot of the posters are American that is probably the case.  Anyway there is no scientific or rational reason for the vast majority of these people to even give this two seconds thought.

Here's a plan.  If people don't want to learn about STIs and safe sex then why don't they just abstain from having dudes stick their junk into their anus and mouth?  I've gone my whole life abstaining from that kind of behavior.  I'm living proof it's possible.  I just think it is pure evil to ask that someone else be thrown in jail because you don't want to go to school.  Snowden lover's take note... this is an example of real tyranny.  Learn to recognize it.

Yes it is splitting hairs. It's not a problem of reading comprehension or scientific capabilities. You can get HIV from protected sex. All it does it reduce the liklihood. (That's why you may want to know if your partner has HIV before having protected sex with him/her.)  If you weren't aware of that, maybe you're the one who needs to learn about STDs.

[emailking]

Yes it is splitting hairs. It's not a problem of reading comprehension or scientific capabilities. You can get HIV from protected sex. All it does it reduce the liklihood. (That's why you may want to know if your partner has HIV before having protected sex with him/her.)  If you weren't aware of that, maybe you're the one who needs to learn about STDs.

Yes and you can be killed on the road by a sleepy driver.  Should all sleepy drivers be automatically given 15 years in prison even if they've never so much as gotten into a fender bender?  I just want to know why you are having a disproportionate reaction to HIV.  Keep in mind twice as many people die in auto accidents each year than die from HIV in the United States.  I haven't crunched the numbers but if you carve out a lot of the high risk activity and just consider protected sex I'm pretty sure even the annual incidence of HIV is still lower than the number of MVA fatalities.

Everything you do in life has a risk associated with it.  You can't give 15 years to every single person that lies and exposes you to a risk (a risk mind you no one seems to be able to objectively quantify despite being on the second page of posts).  The punishment has to be proportionate to the crime.  Even people that drive the wrong way down a highway at 80 mph with a BAC twice the legal limit and swerving all over the lane don't get an automatic 15 years and that is a heck of a lot more risky than a single contact of protected sex with someone who is merely HIV+.

If this was a straight forward issue why can't anyone quantify the risk and defend their position properly?  Why was there a need to tell an incredibly dumb and transparent lie in the title of the thread?  Anyone that knows the real risks involved would know it would take a herculean effort to "spread HIV to over 300 people."  I thought they were going to say the guy worked at a blood bank or something.  If you are having protected sex 93+% of the time (conservative estimate from the "data" in the article) it is mathematically impossible to "spread HIV to over 300 people" in a ten year time frame.  You would have to be a sex worker that doesn't use condoms on 1 out of every 16 customers or something crazy like that.  Frankly I can't even do the math to figure out what scenario would make the title make any sense.  But I guess "Gay man gives HIV to 300+ people in ten years" is a better internet draw than "Gay man has 15 to 20 instances of unprotected sex over 10 years... like a lot of gay men do."

I would be OK with a harsh but reduced sentence for knowingly exposing someone to HIV without their consent if you used a condom. As I said, I'm OK with him being sentenced to 225 years for the 15 instances in which he did not use a condom.

I don't really like the sleepy driver analogy because everyone on the road knows you can get in an accident and die. Everybody has driven with less than 100% alertness. As a society we have decided not to criminalize this, save for the case in which you are so tried that you actually fall asleep at the wheel.

On the other hand, you would not expect to contract HIV from a sexual encounter in which your partner specifically denies having any knowledge of being infected with STDs.

I don't agree with you that the title is a lie. Is it literally true? No, but it accurately conveys the severity of what the guy did. I don't dispute any of your numbers, but I don't care about them. And I especially don't understand why you decided this was a good thread to rant about misleading titles and not reading articles. The guy should obviously go to prison whether it's 15 or 300, protected or unprotected. There appears to be no malicious intent by the OP. It's not a political story with "spin" applied. It's just some eye-opening random news. I've read many threads on this site where I ahd a reaction simialr to yours, but not this one.

[emailking]

Hmm...the forum gave me a warning that this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days and I should consider starting a new topic. I'm pretty sure that's a bug...

The fact that society has decided to let sleepy drivers off the hook and go ballistic about HIV+ people (regardless of the circumstances) doesn't mean the law makes sense, is just, nor Constitutional.

It doesn't, although I agree with the law in this case.

I don't even know what to say.  emailking, you would seriously rely on someone's self reported status when deciding what to do with you dick?!  Speak for yourself man.  If some random drunk gay guy said "come over here and let me stick it in your rear, I promise I don't have HIV" are you going to trust that?!

That's a "blame the victim" mantra. I almost never agree with these. Even if you do not ask, if the partner fails to reveal his/her known HIV status, the blame falls squarely and solely on said partner; and I believe a harsh punishment is justified. If his/her known HIV status is requested and the partner lies in the negative, I think that should exacerbate the punishment.

Dude!  1 in 5!  You're okay with playing Russian roulette with those odds but you think having a single instance of protected sex with an HIV positive person should result in "harsh" punishment for that person?!

Even if it was 4 out of 5 I would think so.

Your method gives a free pass to the people most likely to infect you and jails the HIV+ people who are least likely to infect you.

In the situation where a known infected is having sex with someone who does not believe they are infected, the only way an infection could even happen is from the known infected (HIV+) individual to the individual of unknown status.

I don't agree with you that the title is a lie. Is it literally true? No, but it accurately conveys the severity of what the guy did.

Things that are not true are classically refereed to as lies.

No, for it to be a lie you have to intentionally make a false statement. You may be accusing the OP of that, I am not.

[emailking]

The bottom line is you obviously don't care about math, science, logic, the federal budget, nor the Constitution.

Link, I can assure you all care about all of those things. I am trained in math and science. My everyday job revolves around them and is dependent on the federal budget (sequester has affected me). I've taken graduate level mathematical logic. I spend an hour or 2 a day on the national news. I've read the Constitution in whole a few times and in part many more. I'm just not being as pedantic as you about an "Oh did you hear this?" post. Link, I think we may need to agree to disagree on this.

Which of course is your choice.

 

To care or not to care is not a choice. It is what it is.


If you really want the subject changed, maybe you should PM the OP. S/he may not be reading this thread anymore.