A new short documentary film (below) released for World AIDS Day by the HIV advocacy group SERO Project has a sobering message: People living with the virus in the United States continue to be prosecuted and jailed because of their HIV status.
HIV Criminalization: Masking Fear and Discrimination explains that “non-disclosure” statutes are being used as a weapon of homophobia and racism and serve no public safety function. It features Ken Pinkela, a gay military man who was prosecuted and eventually relieved from duty because he was accused of not disclosing his status to an alleged sexual partner.
Pinkela denies the charges, and although the accuser eventually recanted his story, Pinkela’s dismissal remained.
Many of those who have been prosecuted have been given jail sentences spanning into decades, whether or not anyone was actually infected.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
“HIV criminalization may be the defining moral issue of our time as HIV activists,” said SERO Project founder Sean Strub. “State statutes throughout the country that persecute people based solely on a viral status poses a serious threat to both public health and individual civil liberties. Masking Fear and Discrimination serves as an excellent primer on the topic of HIV criminalization, particularly for those who are new to this growing concern. For advocates and health professionals in the field, it is essential viewing.”
The documentary was directed by filmmaker Christopher King and produced by Queerty contributor Mark S. King.
Sero is a network of people with HIV and allies fighting for freedom from stigma and injustice. Sero is particularly focused on ending inappropriate criminal prosecutions of people with HIV, including for non-disclosure of their HIV status, potential or perceived HIV exposure or HIV transmission.
ErikO
Sorry if you have HIV and lie about it or just don’t tell your sexual partners, you should go to prison.
Heywood Jablowme
@ErikO: As usual you didn’t bother to read the article. A lot of times the one who’s lying is the accuser.
Baba Booey Fafa Fooey
@ErikO: people with HIV who had no viral load and used protection with their partners were prosecuted for not disclosing their status, with prosecutors (and juries) often relying upon the word of the accuser.
I’m guilty of not reading too. It happens.
JerseyMike
detectable or undetectable, People should know who they are sleeping with. When someone ask you your status you need to tell the truth. When you sleep with someone without asking status or sleep with someone unprotected, that’s your fault. This should not be criminal unless its rape. Taking HIV test will let you know someones status. Its OUR responsibility to protect OURSELVES not some random stranger that we decide is hot and looks clean.. SMH
ChrisK
@Baba Booey Fafa Fooey: Trust me. All the shithead did was read the title and agree with it.
SportGuy
If a potential sexual partner ask you your status and you lie, then yes you should go to jail.
ChrisK
@SportGuy: He said/he said. How would you convict someone though? Would you just go by their word?
ChrisK
@SportGuy: ..and once again for the non readers here..
“Ken Pinkela, a gay military man who was prosecuted and eventually relieved from duty because he was accused of not disclosing his status to an alleged sexual partner.
Pinkela denies the charges, and although the accuser eventually recanted his story, Pinkela’s dismissal remained.”
Aromaeus
You are more likely to get infected by someone who claims they are negative because they don’t get tested regularly. All measures like this do is make it so people are more likely to forgo testing because if they do end up infecting someone they can feign ignorance because they just didn’t know. Your best best is to just assume everyone you sleep with has something so you do everything you can to protect yourself. This is one issue where I feel the personal responsibility argument actually has merit.
Danny279
They are going to prison because they didn’t disclose. Period. If there is so little risk, then they should have absolutely no problem disclosing their status and explaining how they are on anti-retroviral therapy. This will give their partner the opportunity to give informed consent and, since the risk is so trivial, the disclosure shouldn’t matter. Of course, the reason that they do not disclose is precisely because they know that it does matter to their partner and their partner might not consent to sex if they had full knowledge. For these people, getting sex is more important than respecting their partner’s right to informed consent. And hilariously, Sean Strub talks about this as “the defining moral issue of our time.” He wouldn’t know morality if it bit him on his behind.
BTW, anti-retroviral therapy does reduce risk substantially, but it does not completely eliminate it. The risk is reduced to about 1/22 of what it would be without ARV. It the partner’s decision whether to accept the reduced risk or not.
JerseyMike
@Danny279: People don’t disclose.. ok.. Isn’t it my responsibility to find out before I sleep with a stranger. Isn’t it my responsibility before get into relationship with a person to get tested with that person. Both parties are responsible. We have to be vigilant about our own health. If I don’t care about my health by not asking, by sleeping with random strangers, why should that stranger care.
ErikO
@JerseyMike: Very true. @Danny279: Exactly.
Heywood Jablowme
@ErikO: It’s weird that you’re agreeing with JerseyMike when he essentially contradicts what you JUST wrote.
@ErikO: @Danny279:
Laws like these cause people to avoid getting tested at all! Because if they have never tested positive, there is no reason to prosecute. As policy, that is incredibly dangerous and creates a far worse HIV problem in the long run.
Also, if infection does NOT occur and the “victim” tests negative – as in all the cases in this article – what possible reason is there for a prison term? (Never mind one of “decades.”)
Is there something about this very basic point that you guys are simply too unintelligent to understand? This is not about how morally superior you think you are.
@Danny279: “The risk is reduced to about 1/22 of what it would be without ARV.” CITATION PLEASE! That’s bullsh*t. Where did you come up with that (improbably precise) figure?
Me2
If someone knowingly witholds their status and passes the virus on to their partner, he/she should be prosecuted. But this is definitely not a “one size fits all” solution. I personally believe that we as individuals bear most of the responsibility of protecting ourselves.
ChrisK
@Heywood Jablowme: Ha. You can tell Erik0 just reads the first part which actually agrees with him. Reading the whole jerseymike comment actually does contradict him unless he now beleives people shouldn’t be imprisoned. Lol
ChrisK
@Heywood Jablowme: According to Poz.com the risk is reduced by 96%. That was a very big study too.
ChrisK
https://www.poz.com/article/hiv-treatmentasprevention-hptn052-20423-2123
Paco
Influenza is airborne and can be fatal. People should be jailed and charged with attempted murder for not getting vaccinated and spreading such a potentially deadly virus. Why target one communicable disease as a crime and not all of them?
ChrisK
@Paco: Cuz it’s got the gay in it or at least perceived to be by the bigots.
Danny279
@JerseyMike: The law imposes no “responsibility” on the negative person because that person cannot infect anyone else, and to the extent that he faces harm himself, he already has an incentive to make inquiries of his partner. However, his failure to do so is irrelevant to the liability of the positive individual for failing to disclose. The legal obligation of the HIV+ individual to disclose is independent of any “responsibility” that his partner may have to himself. By way of analogy, you might have a “responsibility” to your own health and well-being not to accept food from strangers, but if you do so anyway, it doesn’t give legal license for others to poison you.
Heywood: Patel Pragna, et al, “Estimating Per-Act HIV Transmission Risk: A Systematic Review,” AIDS (2014)