Well, I think there's a difference between what someone ought to do ethically, and what someone is required to do legally.

What deterrent do you think this law had in the first place? I would bet every dollar I own that the majority of people, including the people in PaRD, didn't even know about California's HIV criminalization laws or SB 239 prior to Brown signing it.

bump



not even close

I don't even believe this is a topic ....again.

If you know you have a sexually transmitted disease, and have unprotected sex with another and do not inform them beforehand, you should go to jail.
NOT doing so is so obviously malicious...it's not even funny.

If you want to have unprotected sex with someone, and you know you have a sexually transmitted disease....tell them beforehand. If they still want to have sex, then no problem.


What's next in California? Making rape legal, because to do otherwise might psychologically harm the rapist? This whole thing is insane.

The deterrence was that it was illegal & punishable with a felony charge, pretty big deterrent in my opinion. We under the social contract deem some unethical acts so reprehensible that we agree they need to be made illegal. This one is pretty bad imo.

I know if i was a victim and this happened to me i would be furious. If this happened to me and then i found out the justice system didn't do anything about it or had some slap on the wrist punishment, meanwhile i'm stuck with a life long & expensive condition for the rest of my life i might consider violence against the aggressor. Maybe bash their skull in? I mean after all, we have very good treatment for brain damage and this person could live a fairly normal life with only a grand or two out of pocket for regular treatment for the rest of their life, no biggy yo.



There is ground breaking psychological treatment for the victim for only $100/hour for the rest of their life. It's totally fine. Oh, and i'm sure future rapists will think twice because...?


This post was edited by ofthevoid on Oct 8 2017 04:59pm

I suppose I'm just being a stickler for semantics, but can it truly be a deterrence if most everyone doesn't even know that it exists? I think it more apt that it's merely a punishment, and not a deterrence, and the anecdote of how you'd feel if something like this happened to you I think reflects the punishment/vengeance aspect.





I think there's valid criticisms of this change in the laws, and that comparisons can be fairly made in order to further a point, but the comparison between this change and rape laws is a false comparison.

You mean black people?

Pick your comparison.

How about companies that get sued for knowingly selling a bad product which harms others in some way?



/e I wonder how the CDC feels about this? If they think this is a good idea.

This post was edited by Ghot on Oct 8 2017 05:39pm

That's not how justice works. Just because i don't know a law does not somehow excuse me from facing the repercussions when i break said law. Punishment is an aspect of justice that needs to be fulfilled. Not punishing an aggressor robs society & the victim of justice.

This law is atrocious and does nothing to provide justice for a victim, it simply disregards a victim even exists which is even a greater injustice. Normalizing unethical & aggressive behavior is not going to benefit anyone.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Oct 8 2017 05:43pm

I'm not saying that ignorance of the law should provide immunity from the law at all. I'm just saying that the current laws don't accomplish anything as a "deterrent", but rather are purely punitive (as a description).

Further, they are punished, with a misdemeanor. So it's more a matter of you feeling that the punishment that will be present is insufficient, not that one doesn't exist at all.

But that's not the topic of discussion.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Oct 8 2017 06:19pm