When many of us hear the term “HIV” there is an immediate sense of caution that is invoked. However, the stigma around the condition can be cleared by acknowledging the true nature of the illness. In a simple sense, HIV is classified as an autoimmune disease that develops into AIDS, an affliction which debilitates one’s ability to fight infections. The disease is commonly sexually transmitted, but can also be passed through the spread of infected blood. For the most part, many of us recognize and acknowledge the fact that, if we are infected, we cannot and should not knowingly infect others.
However, the fact of the matter is that there is still a powerful minority that chooses to do the exact opposite. It is appalling to find that there are individuals who intentionally transmit the virus as some form of heinous cellular assault.
While it should be noted that a majority of HIV positive individuals recognize the daunting implication of infecting others, as they are unfortunately infected themselves, the minority of chemical terrorists that infect others knowingly cannot be ignored. The effects of their actions ultimately multiply as HIV positive individuals infect many who are unknowing of the condition. These people who were infected may go on to spread the disease to others, without even knowing they are infected. This is a level of danger that is especially hazardous, as these victims will not pursue treatment. How could they, when they do not know of their condition?
In some cases, the assailant of such a crime might even go on to brag about their actions. According to the L.A Times, in the case against Thomas Guerra, there were 11,000 seized snippets of audio clips and text messages that displayed his flagrant and horrendous boasting. His boyfriend, after being informed of his HIV positive condition, contacted the police. His partner went on to say, “I was hours away from proposing to this individual…I don’t know who I had fallen in love with. There are many people who are being hurt and could potentially still be hurt. It needs to stop.” Even with the intense emotional and physical trauma he has inflicted, he was only sentenced to six months in prison. This hardly seems to be adequate as a punishment.
To date, there are laws in place that criminally convict those that knowingly infect others. These laws do not apply to those that have accidentally or unknowingly infected others. The major purpose of these laws would ultimately curb the heinous actions of those that blight others. On the other hand, there have been recent motions to remove these laws, posed by the SB 239 Act in California Legislature. Essentially, the purpose of this law would be to remove statutes criminalizing the spread of HIV through unprotected sex to prevent discriminatory sentences.
To some extent, this motion has some agreeable proposals. It is not a little known fact that people with HIV do receive some form of discrimination. People that are burdened with this terrible disease will often have inaccurate information associated with them. Lies about contact through hugging and kissing often lead to others playing keep away, and causes unnecessary harm. However, the motion offers no alternative laws to criminalize intentional infection.
While this law protects victims of HIV discrimination, it fails to apprehend HIV aggressors.
Even so, it is reasonable to believe that the majority of responsible HIV positive individuals who hold no villainous intent to hurt others would disclose their condition to potential partners.
Outside the realm of pure necessity, people have rights to keep their condition their own concern when not pursuing malicious actions. As this is the case, those who may be wrongfully convicted would most likely have evidence in their favor to disprove false allegations. The possibility of a botched sentencing is relatively low when the accused pursued a due and genuinely honest course of action.
It should also be considered that there is no mention of implementing other protective laws. In this case, would it truly be wise to remove a single protective law altogether without a single alternative in view?