Criminalizing HIV is Criminal

Heeeeeeeeeyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm so glad to read you are back :))) it was sad when your blog was eliminated from the list, so glad you are back with us, you are such a big inspiration!!!! :))) hugs!!

Hi,

Thank you for this. I was really shocked by the Iowa decision and hoping someone would talk about it. What really upset me there was that there was no talk about what seemed to me to be the crucial questions--did they use a condom? What exactly did they do? The judge's comparison to shooting someone was absurd and the so-called "victim" didn't even get HIV. Finally, the "victim"'s question "are you clean?" was offensive. If anyone asked me that I would assume he was asking whether I had taken a shower recently and I would answer in the affirmative. I went to your Daily Beast column and wrote a comment--I was pretty depressed by the other comments there. Is there something we can do about this Iowa case? That young guy should not be going to jail for 25 years or even 25 days, but I think we need more details before we can lodge an effective protest.

Regan, I read the article and was truly disappointed.

You gave no weight to the act of intent; what a grave error. Our laws distinguish between killing someone by accident or killing someone with premeditation. If someone comes into my home and dies when the chandelier breaks and crashes down on their head, I'm certainly not going to be imprisoned for that. Now, if I rigged the chandelier...that's intent.

There is a distinct difference in contracting HIV from a partner who was unaware of their positive status than from a partner who absolutely knew they'd tested positive and kept that fact from you - whether you asked or not. That's called being responsible with a dangerous weapon - no differently than if you own a gun.

I'm saddened that your objectivity has been compromised because, on a very visceral level, you're unable to reconcile the idea that something surfing through your bloodstream could land you in the penitentiary by withholding said information and causing irreparable harm to someone else.

You're more responsible than that, I hope.

Hanna,

Your comments show very little interest in the real world where people who claim to be HIV negative (translation, people who haven't bothered to get tested) think that a good method of safe sex consists in saying something like "are you clean?" or putting "HIV Neg, UB2" or simply not saying anything and assuming nobody with HIV wants a sex life anymore (we're all suffering in leper colonies, aren't we?) Now, if someone says "are you clean?" I say "of course I am"--after all, I always shower before sex. How dare anyone use the word "clean" to mean without HIV? Are we dirty now? Those people (and, almost as bad, the ones who put "ddfree" on their websites, blithely lumping people with HIV (diseased people) in with drug addicts) deserve what they get.

Now, smart people know that the way to avoid HIV (and the many other diseases out there that for some reason haven't become the center of neurosis and hysteria) is to use protection. Not sleeping with someone who knows he has HIV, is honest about it, and is going to use protection, but sleeping with everyone else (which includes lots of people who have it and lie, or think they don't have it but do) is idiotic. The worst thing in HIV prevention today is the idiotic idea that safety lies in asking questions. It lies in using a condom.

Since HIV is not today a fatal illness is most people who get it, it is absurd to use the word murder in connection with it. Secondly, since everyone knows the potential to get HIV and the way to prevent it, putting the blame on the person with HIV is ridiculous.

If someone with HIV has safe sex and uses a condom, the chances of his spreading it to anyone else are miniscule. Comparing that to raping and beating someone up is preposterous. Get a grip.

Christopher, it's telling that short a rational comment, you compare apples to oranges.

You've failed to address the very simple issue at hand: Is it criminal to KNOW you tested positive for HIV, not disclose to a sexual partner and have unprotected sex with them? That's it buddy, that's the entire point - that was the question - that was the article - that was the issue!

Clearly you believe the person who didn't insist on the condom deserves what he/she gets. And maybe they do. But, likewise, the HIV positive individual who KNOWINGLY exposes another individual to a potentially fatal virus by not disclosing in advance of having unprotected sex deserves prison.

There are countless "risks" we all take - whether it's having unprotected sex with someone believing their word that they've never tested positive for HIV or choosing to stroll down a dark alley in a shady part of town in the middle of the night. Those are stupid choices people make, I'll grant you that. And it's fair to say it's tough to feel much pity on someone for behaving so stupidly when it blows up on them. BUT, the perpetrator of harm walks away unscathed in your version (and Regan's). The one who KNOWINGLY causes the harm, the one who takes advantage of someone else's naivety (or stupidity) is given a free pass.

It only leaves me to wonder why anyone would support such behavior. Is it that you want that free pass? Is it that you want the freedom to tell sexual partners you've tested negative for HIV and have unprotected sex with them anyway? And then you can justify the act by claiming THEY were stupid enough to believe you?

WOW! Poz is definitely going down a frightening ideological path on this one.

I have to share this with mainstream media - I think they'd appreciate the rhetoric coming from Poz's executive staff.

To be fair, the case that excited my anger was not the same one which Regan is talking about here and we may be talking somewhat at cross-purposes. I was (and am)angry about the Iowa case specifically because no mention was made either of what the two men did (more about that in a minute) or of whether they used a condom. As far as I know, they used a condom and did something that would have been minamally dangerous even without one. We do know that the so-called victim did not get HIV. Secondly, the man was sentenced to jail for 25 years, which is far more than he would have gotten for something genuinely dangerous like driving drunk. Thirdly, the judge made the wildly invalid comparison of the man to a drive-by shooter. I assume that a drive-by shooter is bound to kill a few people. How likely the man in this case was to hurt his partner depends, again, on whether they used a condom and what they did; the very fact that those essential matters were not even discussed indicates a highly irrational form of judgement. Finally, the fact that the young man involved in the case honestly told the court about what had happened (and presumably told the so-called 'victim' as well--or else how would the guy have known?) did not seem to count for anything.

Now, in the real world, account would be taken of three things. Most importantly, what did they do? Giving oral sex carries no danger. Receiving carries a very minute danger. Recieving anal sex without a condom carries some danger, and giving without a condom obviously involves a great danger. Simply to say "sex" and lump all of those highly different activities in one category. Secondly, did they use a condom? Here is where I agree that my comments may not have been very relevant to Regan's post, since she is discussing a case where they had unprotected sex. And I agree with you that to have HIV and have unprotected sex with someone--whatever was said--is immoral. In fact, that act is of so much greater importance than the question of
"disclosure" that the latter question pales in comparison, and our American obsession with
"disclosure" seems like lunacy. Supposing I told someone that I had HIV and he still wanted to have unprotected sex and I agreed--does that make it acceptable? I'm still doing something that can give someone a serious health problem. On the other hand, if I don't say anything but use a condom I'm being about as dangerous as someone walking down a street. So why the obsession with disclosure rather than protection?

The other aspect of the Iowa case which hit a nerve with me was the so-called 'victim's statement "I had clearly asked him if he was clean". Anyone who uses the word 'clean' as a synonym for not having HIV is depraved and deserves what he gets. What am I supposed to answer to such a question? "No, I'm dirty?"

There are many complexities here (with all due respect for the desire of the simple-minded to reduce everything to the simplistic) and what we need at this moment is to find some sanity. Hanna and her fellow injectors of hysteria into the discourse are to that extent a menace. For example, Regan is right to point out the discrepancy between HIV and the many other unpleasant illnesses which can be transmitted sexually. Why is no one online asking potential sex partners whether they have hepatitis? Or whether they have Herpes? And why has no one ever gone to jail for transmitting such things as those, even though we surely all agree that it is immoral to do so? As far back as we can recall people have given other people venereal diseases (Boswell had a very unpleasant few months with syphilis which a woman had given him, and he wrote her an angry letter in response) but to this day nobody has gone to jail for it. Only hysteria explains it, and only someone whose mind was formed in 1989 and has somehow not developed since then is subject to such hysteria. Let's stop spreading it.

Christopher, those who don't agree with you are simple-minded? Okay, that seems like a sound, intellectual argument. Ignoring that for a moment...

I believe just as strongly that someone positive for Hepatitis should be held legally responsible for not disclosing in advance of unprotected sex as I do if they knew they were positive for HIV. Either infection can be lethal.

And the issue about disclosure has nothing to do with having protected sex - it has to do solely with having UNPROTECTED sex, get it? If you insist on using a condom with your partner(s), then you are NOT obligated to disclose your HIV status. You can even lie and say you are negative when you're positive. And if you do decide to disclose that you're positive and your partner insists s/he doesn't care, then go for it. I have no beef about someone knowingly having high-risk sex with an HIV positive individual. My only problem lies in an individual who KNOWS they're HIV positive and then lies (either by denying the HIV or omitting that fact) to their partner and has UNPROTECTED sex with them.

Is it hurtful and inarticulate to ask someone if they're "clean," instead of asking if they've tested positive for HIV? Yes, it is. But if having your feelings hurt gives you a free pass to intentionally expose someone else to HIV or hepatitis, then that says a LOT of awful things about your character in the first place. I guess you believe the person who hurts your feelings deserves a potentially homicidal response.

And that's one of the many places where we differ.

If the government is going to be involved at all, the laws must be CLEAR. They must not marginalize or stigmatize people, and they must be fair. If there has to be a law, it should read as follows:

1. It shall be unlawful for anyone with a sexually transmitted condition, as defined herein, to knowingly and intentionally fail to disclose that he or she has that condition to a partner immediately prior to engaging in any sexual activity with that partner that carries an unreasonable and scientifically established risk of transmitting the condition.

2. Notwithstanding the above, if anyone with a sexually communicated condition knowingly and intentionally fails to disclose that he or she has that condition to a partner immediately prior to engaging in any sexual activity, without actually transmitting such condition, such conduct shall not be punishable by law.

3. Section 1 shall not apply to anyone engaging in sexual activity for payment or in any commercial establishment or other public venue where sexual activity between consenting adults occurs.

4. The following conditions are sexually communicated conditions:

* BV - Bacterial Vaginosis

* Chlamydia and LGV

* Gonorrhea

* Hepatitis (viral)

* Herpes, Genital

* HPV - Human Papillomavirus Infection

* PID - Pelvic Inflammatory Disease

* Syphilis

* Trichomoniasis

* Human Immunodeficiency Virus

All of these conditions are sexually communicated, and if you know that you have one, it’s unfair to subject someone else to it without telling them about it. Period.

This doesn’t relieve our partners from their responsibilities; when human beings engage in unsafe sex we are always taking some risks, but if we are going to criminalize human sexual behavior at all, the laws should be intelligently written and based on established scientific facts.

The above language would limit the stigma of having HIV or whatever, and protect uninfected individuals without imposing an unfair burden on others. What is a "reasonable risk" of transmission? Hey, if you have HIV, or chlamydia or whatever, it's your obligation to find out how you might give it to someone else. If you screw up (yeah yeah, I know its a bad pun) but no one gets hurt, it shouldn't be the government's business and you shouldn't be punished by any government agency or authority. If you have "safe sex" and don't disclose, it should not be criminal because you are not engaging in conduct that is unreasonably dangerous. If you have sex for money, you assume the risk because the underlying assumption throughout human history has always been that people engaging in paid sex have no obligation to their partner other than a measure of respect. If you have unsafe sex in a sex bar its reasonable to expect that you may catch more than a cold.

I think a lot of what David says is fair and reasonable.

As for Hanna, I am happy to hear her say that "And the issue about disclosure has nothing to do with having protected sex - it has to do solely with having UNPROTECTED sex, get it? If you insist on using a condom with your partner(s), then you are NOT obligated to disclose your HIV status."

If this is how she feels, she is at least in advance of the law in a number of places, as in many of the cases in which people have been prosecuted whether condoms were used or not was not even mentioned.

Now can we actually talk about the Iowa case--specifically, whether there is something we can do to protest or appeal against this apparent injustice? I say "apparent" because there are a number of details I cannot find--namely the crucial information, whether they used protection, and what in fact they did. But even if the worst were true, for a guy to get 25 years when his partner didn't even get HIV from him is an outrage.

Personally,and sad as it might be I would not disagree with the decision. He knew his status - he knew the risks, he knew the implications. Until people with HIV accept their responsibilities and stop whinging that it someone else's fault the disease will thrive. I've been poz for over 4.5 years. don't like it - but accept it as a result of reckless behaviour. Though i was insured by taking precaution but obviously didn't do enough. Hard as it is I accept that. Now have to live with the consequences. Would never now not reveal my status before any form of sexual encounter. Those that don't (and, crucially, know their status) should accept the consequences of the law wherever they are based.
Sorry if this seems cruel but until people take responsbility for their actions this world will simply get worse!!

folk should try to not be so harsh when it comes to this topic

yes it is very serious and could determine life or death, but let's face hard cold facts here
if someone has issues with disclosing, it means very simply that the person is insecure, afraid and certainly not prepared for the HIV/AIDS associated stigma and discrimination

this is the only reason why HIV+ folk have problems disclosing

if an HIV+ person who knows their status has sex without disclosing, then I believe that this person is definitely going through some issues with mental disability...AND I DO NOT SAY THIS IN JEST.

studies have proven that discrimination can surely cause depression and more gravely - serious mental disabilities.

it is my assumption that no HIV+ person in their 'right mind' would ever intentionally hurt another person by having unprotected sex and infecting them.

it completely amazes me that no law-maker acknowledges this fact...and it is a fact.

Criminalizing HIV is wrong and as foolish as it is to blame the cigarette companies for your cancer...when in doubt folk should use condoms!! And unless one SEES test results, then one is IN DOUBT.

Criminalization of HIV is an emotionally conjured up piece of legislation

I was infected by my late husband; and immediately after finding out my status - I tore up every photograph of him (since I was emotionally 'charged' up). After that though, I realized that he had damn near lost his mind with fear and stress and I knew he was suffering from very real mental disabilities.

remember - mental illnesses do not manifest themselves with oozing blood, short breath or broken bones...the sufferers look normal as can be...it is a hidden disease.

what we need to fight is HIV/AIDS related stigma and discrimination...this is the type of legislature that will most definitely combat HIV transmission by folk who know their status.

We need more laws that will in the long run, help us disclose more readily.

Don't get me wrong here - someone who was infected by another who knew their status should of course have recourse, but the law should be sure to assess the defendant's state of mind thoroughly, before passing judgment; and that assessment needs to be done by psychological experts who are schooled in the intricacies of HIV/AIDS realities.

there is an underlying general assumption all over the world that people living with HIV/AIDS are ALL a danger to society and are "out to infect everyone". there is also the assumption that we are sex crazed fiends...and criminalization of HIV makes that scenario worse for us.

My thing has always been - that there should be a condom law like the seatbelt law

Brown eyes and the rest:

For the last time, IF someone knows they tested positive for HIV, they OWE one single thing towards their sexual partners: Condom use. If, however, they want to participate in UNPROTECTED sex, then why lie and not tell the partner of your HIV+ status if you did not mean to cause them harm?

If an HIV positive person is going to insist on condom use from a partner, then no, s/he has no responsibility to disclose HIV status. And if s/he discloses HIV+ status and partner is fine not using a condom, then fine.

How could anyone with a modicum of morality or decency in their hearts EVER have UNPROTECTED sex with a partner without first telling that person that s/he is HIV positive?

AGAIN, an HIV positive individual does not EVER need to disclose HIV status, as long as s/he insists on using a condom.

Doing otherwise, proves the HIV+ person had malicious intent to cause life-threatening harm.

Browneyes, you assume I'm not HIV positive and I assume you want a free pass to expose unwitting partners to HIV through unprotected sex without fear of prosecution. Otherwise, why would you try to defend such vile individuals?

Hanna stated: For the last time, IF someone knows they tested positive for HIV, they OWE one single thing towards their sexual partners: Condom use.

NO!!! There are TWO things that are owed to one's partners. Yes, condom use. But also something FAR more important.. the TRUTH.

Condoms are not 100% safe. There is no such thing as safe sex... only SAFER sex. And if someone who knows that they are the carrier of a fatal, communicable disease is going to run even a small chance of transmitting that disease to a partner, then their partner deserves to know the risk.

If a person knows that their sexual partner is HIV+ and chooses to engage in sexual conduct with that partner then the person has assumed the risks involved and shares equally in the responsibility of any consequences of that activity. If, however, an individual knowing lies to their sexual partner about their status, then that individual has not only defrauded their partner but has also, in my opinion, assumed full responsibility... including any legal ramifications, such as legal responsibility for the partner's death if said partner contracts HIV and eventually dies as a result.

You tell me you are thirsty. I give you a chilled glass of something sweet and tasty. I don't tell you that it is poison, but you wanted something to drink and you didn't specifically ASK me if it was poison...So, I guess it is okay to poison you?

Great article. I have written a few on this topic myself:

Criminalizing HIV may only fuel the epidemic:
http://www.xtra.ca/public/viewstory.aspx?AFF_TYPE=1&STORY_ID=5153&PUB_TEMPLATE_ID=7

Transcending the poz/neg divide:
http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Transcending_the_pozneg_divide-6478.aspx

Actually, it came out in the courtroom that the HIV+ man wore a condom for insertive anal sex, but then he sucked the "victim's"penis. The reporter mentioned in the blog was present during the trial at the invitation of the "victim" and published an article that included few facts and much gossip.

Criminalization would probably be called for if there was even a modicum of truth in the HIV equals AIDS hypothesis. But is there? See....http://tinyurl.com/csuyfd

Peter--where did you get this information? We need the source. If this is true then the case is as bad as I thougtht--he used a condom and gave oral sex which involves no danger at all. So we have a moron for a judge and another gay man who probably hates himself and life....

As for anonymous, your story about the poison is preposterous. Nobody gives someone else poison. But if you're going around having casual sex you know that lots of people out there have HIV and other things which are as bad (although nobody seems to be getting hysterical about them.) How can you compare the two? Besides, if

Regan is absolutely right. What nobody mentions here, what happens if you reveal your status to a potential partner, they decline, then tell everyone your status? I've seen it happen. Who protects you? Should they be arrested for that? I chose not to have sex and I have literally let years of my youth pass me by because I have a career that is very important to me. You have no idea how hard and disappointing this has been. No relationships, no boyfriends and literally no sex. In the African American and Latino communities HIV is the absolute WORST thing you can have. You are IMMEDIATELY ostracized. Your options, keep it to yourself and suffer in silence or tell and have everyone either pity you or despise you. Just in case you bring up Magic Johnson, he has the perfect cushion (or excuse!), a wife... HIV is acceptable in the Black community as long as you are not gay (laugh). I'm at the point in my life where I have decided to have a relationship because I am tired of living like this. But I am amazed that these laws are merely based on one person's word against another and that no DNA evidence or proof is required? This literally means, if I am pissed at someone who I know is Positive, I can press charges against them and say we had sex and they didn't reveal it and there is literally no proof required on my part? I can even still be negative? Something is very wrong with that. These laws were created as Regan said when America was in sheer panic about the disease and they need to be updated.

The bottom line is we don't need HIV specific laws to punish people for knowingly exposing someone to HIV. That's why POZ has called for decriminalizing HIV transmission. You can charge someone for reckless endangerment, but singling out HIV, and not HPV (which can cause cervical and anal cancer) or hepatitis, which also has serious long-term health implications, fuels stigma around HIV.

And stigma is fueling the epidemic. People are still afraid to get tested because of fear of the stigma that HIV brings. It's estimated that 21% of HIV positive people don't know their status, and GMHC estimates that up to 70% of HIV transmissions are by people unaware of their status during the first 2 years after infection. Even more transmissions are by people unaware of their status 5 years later or more. And nearly all of the other transmissions are by people who know their status, but are not on medication, and thus their viral load is much higher than it would be if they were on HAART. According to HIV specialists, people with HIV who are undetectable thanks to effective medication are believed to be responsible for hardly any new infections, regardless of disclosure to partners.

So the real issue here that we should all be pushing for is universal access to testing and access to treatment so that once people know their status, they can decide if they want to or need to go on HAART. HIV specialists believe this would dramatically reduce new transmissions.

In most of the cases where people are being prosecuted for "exposing" others to HIV, they did not infect the other person. Check out www.criminalhivtransmission.blogspot.com to see case after case of people being prosecuted and sentenced by idiotic judges who know nothing about HIV. Most of the people convicted are black or latino. Racism and poverty are major factors in these criminal cases. Lots of people are being sentenced for spitting at police officers and prison guards even though of course there was no risk of infection, and no transmission occurred.

So, here we are 30 years into this epidemic, about 1 million Americans infected since HIV testing began in 1985, and about 250 people (mainly black or latino) convicted and given hefty prison sentences (death sentences more likely) for knowingly exposing others to HIV (although not in most cases infecting them). Is this a good use of our criminal justice system? It may be good front page news in the NY Post when some "AIDS Monster" comes along but it has done nothing to slow the epidemic. The 32 states with HIV criminalization law have higher rates of new infections than the 28 states that don't criminalize HIV. Nearly every state in the South criminalizes HIV exposure, and this is where the epidemic is spreading most rapidly.

If we decriminalize HIV and tell people -- poz and neg -- that they must take equal responsibility for their behavior and their sexual health, we may see people practicing safer sex on a regular basis.

Hello. i just wanted to throw my 2 cents in about convicting someone who knowingly ifects someone .. i am glad to see the courts convicting people who knowingly infect someone with the HIV/AIDS virus .. haveing hiv myself. i tell everyone i have it. i think people who have the virus should tell all their sexual partners .. even if the other person does not ask . i got infected from a friend of mine .. and when i came down with it i told him so he could get checked . and he told me that he thought he had it when we messed around but didnt know for sure then he got his results and he had been positive for a while .. it was my fault for not wearing a condom. but i thought it was a million and 1 chance i could get it because i was the giving persone and not the receiving person. but i guess i was a little to big for him and made him bleed a little, well. thats how i was infected .. there are a few people thats deliberately go around to infect people and i think that is totally wrong. in todays world people should ask. but even if they ask and that person says no he/she is clean. and you get hiv. then what ? ? just let them get away with it ? i just wish people would be upfront and honest about having a deadly disease .. hiv is not a fun thing to live with .. but it happened so i just have to deal with it .

EVERYONE should protect themselves, it should never lie in the hands of another person. If you're going to be promiscuous, you should wear a condom. Obviously, both guys were promiscuous, as you can tell by the online chatting and hooking up for sex. I think its a shame the guy was sentenced to prison. Lets say the guy had been "clean" (not positive) and it all went the same way. HOW THE HELL DOES HE KNOW HES CLEAN? Give me a break.. its insane. You should always protect yourself and just act like everyone is positive. I hope the victim doesnt have sex for up to 6 months without a condom because thats how long it can take to show up in the body, and since condoms are no full proof hes pretty much on a dry spell for 6 long months, and from what I've read, he seems to like sex without condoms (promiscuous)

He will end up with HIV himself and its his fault (promiscuous), no other person. PROTECT YOURSELF!!! Stop blaming other people for being stupid. Oh, and btw HIV DOES NOT KILL, and if people are going to prision for transmitting it, than so should people who transmitt herpes or any STD.

It takes two people to have sex and both parties need to take responsibility for their own safety. As it stands now, the person with HIV is bearing full responsibility for hiv transmission when two people (normally adults) are involved. There is too much education available to the general public for people to be having unprotected sex.

Regan,

Do you know of any political action that is going on right now to help people who have been prosecuted with these ignorant laws. Is there anything that we can do to help??

No one was harmed in this case. I also have never heard of one case that someone was infect by tears or saliva. Not one!!

Please post information that we can start change.

Thanks

Doesn't the bottom get put in prison for being so stupid? Meeting someone online and having casual sex without getting proof that the partner is hiv negative? using or not using condoms?

Lying about HIV is stupid - but just trusting a stranger who may or may not even know their status is really DUMB!

Philippe Padieu, 53 of Frisco, Texas was just convicted of 6 counts of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon for knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly infecting 6 women with HIV. He will soon begin a 45 year prison term. I am one of the women involved in this case, which used DNA evidence to help support the link between Philippe and all six women. I agree with you that HIV/AIDS - in general - should not be criminalized, but I want to go on record saying Mr. Padieu gave us no other choice but to seek prosecution. He blatantly and repeatedly lied about his condition. This is even more painful for those of us who were in a long term relationship with him. When it was discovered he was infecting as many women as he possibly could, he defied court orders to cease and desist, as well as to notify his partners and use protection. Exactly one day after the court orders he was back at his old game. We could not stand idly by - so we took action to stop him. I hope this is an extreme and rare case, but the law must intervene when a sociopath like Philippe is on the prowl. I live every day with regret - in hindsight, I wish that I had not been so gullible and trusting. We all learned from this experience -Now I would like to do more to educate women about prevention, and empower them to insist their partners use a condom. I would also like to advocate routine testing. Meanwhile I stand by the prosecution of Philippe Padieu and am glad he has been removed from society. I think everyone involved got a life sentence: He is paying a price for what he did and so are we. We will forever be known as dumb, deserving, sluts and whores - but at least we were brave enough to face the people throwing stones to keep him from shooting bullets.

My case worker was just here today and we discussed this. I couldn't believe how she WHOLE HEARTEDLY expressed that anyone who does not get written letter stating they have told their status to a potential partner or exposes another to HIV should spend 30 years in prison.

I repeat - I said you will get 25 years even if a CONDOM WAS USED and NO TRANSMISSION came about. Just knowingly exposing them will put you away. That is pretty rough.

Anal sex was the way....