Prison term for spreading HIV, applies to escorts too?

[+ dutchmuch]

A San Diego man who prosecutors say knowingly spread HIV -- the virus that can cause AIDS -- was sentenced Monday to six months in prison. Thomas Miguel Guerra, 30, was found guilty by a judge of violating a California health code requiring people who are HIV-positive to disclose their status to sex partners, KNSD-TV reported.

 

This was the first time a case of willful HIV transmission has been prosecuted in San Diego County since the law was adopted 20 years ago. Prosecutors claimed that Guerra hid his HIV-positive status from his now ex-boyfriend and urged his partner to have unprotected sex with him. Guerra and his ex-boyfriend, who was unnamed, had started dating in April 2013. The victim tested positive for HIV in May of that year, the Associated Press reported.

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/san-diego-man-hiv-willfully-spread-virus-5-things-know-about-thomas-miguel-guerra-1909015

[marylander1940]

A San Diego man who prosecutors say knowingly spread HIV -- the virus that can cause AIDS -- was sentenced Monday to six months in prison. Thomas Miguel Guerra, 30, was found guilty by a judge of violating a California health code requiring people who are HIV-positive to disclose their status to sex partners, KNSD-TV reported.

 

This was the first time a case of willful HIV transmission has been prosecuted in San Diego County since the law was adopted 20 years ago. Prosecutors claimed that Guerra hid his HIV-positive status from his now ex-boyfriend and urged his partner to have unprotected sex with him. Guerra and his ex-boyfriend, who was unnamed, had started dating in April 2013. The victim tested positive for HIV in May of that year, the Associated Press reported.

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/san-diego-man-hiv-willfully-spread-virus-5-things-know-about-thomas-miguel-guerra-1909015

 

if I had a dollar in my pocket for every time I've heard someone told me: "my bf had it and didn't tell me..." I would have at least 100 bills.

[+ Gar1eth]

I know a guy too. If he were telling me the truth, he got it unknowingly from his partner too.

 

Gman

[+ Chris Eisenhower]

I'm confused about your headline.

[maninsoma]

If the question is could an escort be similarly prosecuted if he falsely held himself out as HIV negative and then urged his clients to have unprotected sex with him, I believe the answer is "yes." Would the verdict and/or sentence be the same given that the relationship would be one of escort/client and not "significant other?" Maybe not. Maybe the escort wouldn't even be found guilty because if a client claimed he was persuaded by one escort to have unprotected sex based solely on that escort's self-disclosure that he was HIV negative, it would certainly raise the question about how many other escorts that same client might have also had bareback sex with. Because of this, I tend to think it's unlikely that an escort would even be charged with such a crime if it involved only one client. I do seem to recall that in some state (Wisconsin, maybe?) someone was recently charged with a similar crime who, while not an escort, "got around" a lot and had infected numerous young men after encouraging them to have unprotected sex with him based on his assertion that he was HIV negative.

 

And, for the record, if you want to discover that some escorts do, in fact, outright lie about their HIV status all you need to do is create a BBRT account and see the escorts who list they are "positive" or "undetectable" there who state they give and or take loads in the ass who claim to be negative and have "safe sex only" on other, more mainstream websites.

[marylander1940]

BB?

[marylander1940]

I know a guy too. If he were telling me the truth, he got it unknowingly from his partner too.

 

Gman

 

How does he know it?

 

I would just stick to condoms.

[Steven_Draker]

[sincitymix]

If the question is could an escort be similarly prosecuted if he falsely held himself out as HIV negative and then urged his clients to have unprotected sex with him, I believe the answer is "yes." Would the verdict and/or sentence be the same given that the relationship would be one of escort/client and not "significant other?" Maybe not. Maybe the escort wouldn't even be found guilty because if a client claimed he was persuaded by one escort to have unprotected sex based solely on that escort's self-disclosure that he was HIV negative, it would certainly raise the question about how many other escorts that same client might have also had bareback sex with. Because of this, I tend to think it's unlikely that an escort would even be charged with such a crime if it involved only one client. I do seem to recall that in some state (Wisconsin, maybe?) someone was recently charged with a similar crime who, while not an escort, "got around" a lot and had infected numerous young men after encouraging them to have unprotected sex with him based on his assertion that he was HIV negative.

 

And, for the record, if you want to discover that some escorts do, in fact, outright lie about their HIV status all you need to do is create a BBRT account and see the escorts who list they are "positive" or "undetectable" there who state they give and or take loads in the ass who claim to be negative and have "safe sex only" on other, more mainstream websites.

I knew a guy who is positive, he even had it on his dating profiles as positive, then one day he changed it to negative. I asked him why. he said " No one wants to date or fuck me when I'm listed as positive, now that I'm on meds and my viral load is undetectable, I'm negative, and can BB and no one will know."

 

I of course, said he was being a stupid fuck. 1. being undetectable does not mean negative. 2. your lying to your partners 3. If you bring your "fresh young ass" around us (us being his friends and acquaintances), we might inadvertently mention you are +, thinking you already told him. 4. its just wrong. 5. its just wrong. 6. its just wrong.

 

He called me a nasty, hateful, jealous bitch. He did not want to be my friend anymore since I did not support him in his quest for love, and he had no room in his life for haters.

[anotherjohnindupont]

I knew a guy who is positive, he even had it on his dating profiles as positive, then one day he changed it to negative. I asked him why. he said " No one wants to date or fuck me when I'm listed as positive, now that I'm on meds and my viral load is undetectable, I'm negative, and can BB and no one will know."

 

I of course, said he was being a stupid fuck. 1. being undetectable does not mean negative. 2. your lying to your partners 3. If you bring your "fresh young ass" around us (us being his friends and acquaintances), we might inadvertently mention you are +, thinking you already told him. 4. its just wrong. 5. its just wrong. 6. its just wrong.

 

He called me a nasty, hateful, jealous bitch. He did not want to be my friend anymore since I did not support him in his quest for love, and he had no room in his life for haters.

 

And he's out there spreading it. Amazing! I am glad you try to make him reason but he already made a huge mistake in his life and got infected with hiv.

[anotherjohnindupont]

To prevent misunderstandings ...

 

My previous post may give the impression that I support how HIV+ people are being stigmatized, but that's not the case.

 

After watching the video clip "HIV is not a crime" I find there's a lot of HIV fobia. I must have had sex with 300 HIV+ men and I didn't catch it. I find that the HIV fobia we see can sometimes be very exaggerated.

 

Anton.

 

Just keep using condoms.

[ZhenXBear]

I feel compelled to say something about this.

 

The short multi-person film interview in HIV is not a Crime that Steven posted was interesting. The thing that perplexed me about the film is the occasional subtitle about the person's viral load being undetectable and that this somehow provided rationalization for not disclosing their HIV status. Having a significant amount of involvement in Clinical Laboratory Medicine over the years, this surprised me. While clinical diagnostic testing has improved greatly in both sensitivity and specificity for the detection of HIV, as well as the linearity for detecting the low end of the number of copies of the virus that are present, there is a distinct difference between being serologically negative for the virus and being on a successful combination ART therapy and having an undetectable viral load. Clinical studies have shown that when ART medication is withheld that the viral load increases again, because the body always contains a reservoir of HIV infected CD4 cells, and it may also dwell in tissue macrophages and the lymphatic system.

 

That being said, while a person who has undetectable HIV viral loads is significantly less likely to transmit HIV to their sexual partners, there is still a certain amount of risk involved. Is this risk higher than the risk of dying in your daily commute to work? Likely no. In any case, the potential partner of the HIV positive person should be given the choice about whether or not they wish to take that risk; it should never be made for them.

[caliguy]

A San Diego man who prosecutors say knowingly spread HIV -- the virus that can cause AIDS -- was sentenced Monday to six months in prison. Thomas Miguel Guerra, 30, was found guilty by a judge of violating a California health code requiring people who are HIV-positive to disclose their status to sex partners, KNSD-TV reported.

 

This was the first time a case of willful HIV transmission has been prosecuted in San Diego County since the law was adopted 20 years ago. Prosecutors claimed that Guerra hid his HIV-positive status from his now ex-boyfriend and urged his partner to have unprotected sex with him. Guerra and his ex-boyfriend, who was unnamed, had started dating in April 2013. The victim tested positive for HIV in May of that year, the Associated Press reported.

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/san-diego-man-hiv-willfully-spread-virus-5-things-know-about-thomas-miguel-guerra-1909015

He was also caught bragging and joking about it among friends and social media as I recall. Was very easy to prosecute intent.

[ZhenXBear]

He was also caught bragging and joking about it among friends and social media as I recall. Was very easy to prosecute intent.

 

That's beyond repulsive and sociopathic. Six years would have been more fitting in this particular case; Wanting to harm someone is unconscionable.

[Steven_Draker]

That being said, while a person who has undetectable HIV viral loads is significantly less likely to transmit HIV to their sexual partners, there is still a certain amount of risk involved.

 

 

I don't think that's the bulk of the problem. The bulk of the problem is people who don't know they're infected ...

 

 

 

60% OF HIV+ YOUNG PEOPLE DON’T KNOW THEY’RE INFECTED

What Are We Doing Wrong?

While there’s been many gains against HIV in recent years, the truth is, this disease is still impacting young people at rapid rates.

 

“Nearly 10,000 young people were diagnosed with HIV in 2013,” Congresswoman Barbara Lee, a longtime activist in the fight against HIV/AIDS, told MTV News. “25% of new infections in 2010 were in young people ages 13-24. More than half of HIV positive young people do not know their status. Also, black youth accounted for 57% of all new HIV infections [in young people] in 2010. In 2013, only 85% of school health education programs covered HIV, and that’s a decline from 92% in 1997.”

 

24-year-old Brandon King, who is HIV positive, is part of AIDS Alabama’s ELITE Project to help gay men of color. King notes that one of the most frustrating things about the disease is that no one talks about it.

 

“I think it all starts with a conversation,” King told MTV News. “I think the conversation should come in a not-forceful way, but like, ‘Hey, I’m your homeboy. I’m your homegirl. I just want to watch out for you.’” Preaching, he says, isn’t going to cut it.

 

Part of Congresswoman Lee’s solution is pushing for comprehensive sex education in school. “I have legislation, H.R. 1706, and I’ve introduced it over and over again. I’m continuing to build support for it. I’d urge young people to go see their members of Congress, because we need strong grassroots support from people who can call their members of Congress and ask them to cosponsor this bill.”

 

http://mtv.mtvnimages.com/uri/mgid:file:http:shared:mtv.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/tumblr_nfx5bzEQYr1ru5h8co1_500-1428599520.gif

 

 

 

King himself wasn’t thrilled with the sex education he received in school. He agrees with the Congresswoman about the need to switch up what we’re doing for sex ed. “I know in our state, in Alabama, the last time I remember having sex ed class was middle school, like sixth or seventh grade,” he said. “In high school, you didn’t did get much of it unless you took the general health class. Even then all they taught you was abstinence. When I got to college, it was pretty much scare tactics from the health department.”

 

Part of King’s job with ELITE is to find creative ways to talk to young people about HIV. “I go to the barber shop,” he said. “I’ll be in the chair and I’ll have a conversation with my barber and let him know what I do with my job and then he starts asking me questions and people overhear. The next thing you know, you’ve started a whole conversation about HIV in our community in the barber shop.”

 

more: One Woman Put A Condom On Her Leg To Make A Sizeable Statement About Safe Sex

 

Any conversation helps, and King says he likes seeing the media starting to take on HIV more–though many stories still aren’t being represented adequately. He says he’s noticed that many people assume that only certain groups contract HIV, which is simply not true. “I think shows like ‘How To Get Away with Murder’ and ‘Looking’ have done a great job of bringing HIV into the forefront,” he said. “I think we need more stories that cover the visibility of the spectrum, like stories of women with HIV, trans women with HIV, gay black men with HIV. If you’re trying to get the message out there, people have to relate to the message. There are so many more stories that need to be told, and I think they can start conversation and encourage people to get tested.”

 

“It’s important for young people to receive medically accurate and age appropriate information about HIV, and to get politically involved,” Congresswoman Lee said. “We need federal funding for a lot of these [sex ed] programs, and we’re not going to get federal funding if you don’t get your members of Congress to support the efforts of young people. I know for a fact that we want to see an AIDS-free generation. Young people can certainly get motivated and galvanized around this issue. Get people registered to vote and show up at the polls. Engage in peaceful protest. Don’t think if you voted one time, that’s it. Keep your issues in front of the Congress and local and state officials.”

 

King also thinks we need to get out there and take action. “I think it’s everyone’s responsibility to personally say something, even if you don’t know anybody who is positive,” he said. “Even if you reach one person, that’s a job well done.”

 

http://mtv.mtvnimages.com/uri/mgid:file:http:shared:mtv.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/tumblr_nj61pnJGLK1u9ryiho1_500-1428599826.gif

 

There’s lots of misinformation going around, but you should know that HIV is treatable–it’s now possible for those with HIV to live a long, healthy life. And the sooner you get to the doctor, the sooner they’ll be able to help you. There is no shame in buying condoms, getting tested, or asking your doctor for help.

 

For more information, visit It’s Your Sex Life.

 

This story was originally published on MTV.com

 

source: http://stayingalivefoundation.org/blog/2015/04/60-of-hiv-young-people-dont-know-theyre-infected-what-are-we-doing-wrong/

[ZhenXBear]

I don't think that's the bulk of the problem. The bulk of the problem is people who don't know they're infected ...

I would most assuredly agree, Steven. I just found it odd that the short film bothered to mention viral load at all, since it should have no baring on disclosure.

 

Education still remains our first line of defense against infection. As your posted article states, we've made great strides in containing the virus. Our two biggest areas in the most immediate future that need addressed are prevention and the social stigmas associated with HIV as a cure continues to be explored.

 

I often speculate whether or not the increases in transmissions today are due in part to the relative success of ART medicines and if people complacently view HIV treatments like treating hypertension or hyperlipidemia. This makes it all the more difficult to explain when genomic testing reveals they've contracted a multi-drug resistant strain of HIV that doesn't respond to treatment.

[Michael Wayne]

the elephant In the room here in this whole situation is the current bareback epidemic sweeping the USA. I blame the porn industry. People want to imitate EXACTLY what is portrayed on the screen and that means no condoms. I have watched the biz and sex in general change over my career. People now want to play Russian Roulette with their lives. People don't even ask about status! I think in the case of criminal prosecution one question would be "did u even ask his status." My old high school football coach always told us to , "never ASSume anything cause it makes u an ASS."

[Amoco]

So let me get this straight....

 

The OP headlines a thread by discussing a case in which someone consciously witheld his medical status from his over, which in turn, ultimately led to the lover becoming positive. The question he posed was whether or not an escort, as a professional sex worker exposed to numerous clients, has a right to expose others to a potentially dangerous disease by continuing to have unprotected sex and withholding the truth around their HIV status.

 

From the escorts:

 

- Chris, one of the brightest guys I know, doesn't understand the question.

- Steven, who is always so supportive and insightful regarding other's positions, posts a video that has to do with stigmatizing and criminalizing people who are positive, but unless I'm missing something, says nothing about escorts knowingly withholding their positive status and exposing clients. The fact that it's treatable is moot.

- Mikey's answer is my favorite: He blames all this bareback stuff on the porn industry!

 

Can anyone tell me why a professional sex worker who is positive and has unprotected sex with a client should NOT be prosecuted? And what if we flipped it around...what if a fine upstanding citizen hired you guys, told you he was negative, bare backed you every day for a week, and then you find out he's positive - should he be prosecuted?

 

On what planet does anyone have the right to consciously expose other people to danger?

[doitb4ugo]

I would humbly suggests that if this is a criminally cuplpable offense that both parties (i.e., the guy with HIV and the guy who had unprotected sex with him) share the punishment for this crime. It is not like the infected individual wasn't on the other end of this equation at some point in the past. I believe the AIDS-SPEAK phrase here is " It takes 2 to turn a bad decision into AIDS."

 

It's really up to each person to decide not to be one of this years 50,000 new HIV cases:

• play russian roulette and hope for the best
  
• abstain from sex
  
• not having sex with high risk groups-homosexuals, drug users, etc
  
• always using safer sex practices - condoms for anal & oral sex.
  
• initiate a PrEP program for yourself and continue safer sex practices
  

For some stats:

https://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/

[wisconsinguy]

I would humbly suggests that if this is a criminally cuplpable offense that both parties (i.e., the guy with HIV and the guy who had unprotected sex with him) share the punishment for this crime. It is not like the infected individual wasn't on the other end of this equation at some point in the past. I believe the AIDS-SPEAK phrase here is " It takes 2 to turn a bad decision into AIDS."

I was a doing a very quick search on prosecution of individuals that knowingly are STD positive and spread the illness. There are about 34 states that have some laws that allow for prosecution of such an offense. Interesting was that Iowa rescinded it's law last year, with a revision. A person cannot be prosecuted for spreading an STD unless it can proven the reason has "insidious" reasons in it's motives. I think that flowed nicely into what you were saying, doitb4ugo. It cited the major reason being that we all know the importance of protection. It becomes the responsibility of all partners to be safe.

 

I also looked for states that have prosecuted. Wis was brought up, and I could not find anything in particular. There have been other locals other San Diego that have used the law. Just need a little time to find them!

[+ WmClarke]

I often speculate whether or not the increases in transmissions today are due in part to the relative success of ART medicines and if people complacently view HIV treatments like treating hypertension or hyperlipidemia. This makes it all the more difficult to explain when genomic testing reveals they've contracted a multi-drug resistant strain of HIV that doesn't respond to treatment.

 

I know someone with that exact attitude. He once actually told me,"It's no big deal. If I get HIV I'll just take meds."

[ZhenXBear]

Definitely a lot of discussion on this topic, en light of the criminal case and the short film. I do, however, believe that Mikey has a valid point; when I was a teenager raging with hormones video media depicting gay sex wasn't even available on the internet. Today's youth grow up with pornography being literally a google search away. If they're questioning or have not come to terms with their sexuality then porn sites and gay chat rooms are likely the only avenues they have to define "social norms" within the gay subculture. This would be especially true for young people growing up in the more rural areas of the country where being gay may not be outwardly accepted. When they take all of these preconceived ideas formed from their adolescence and advance them into mainstream society it's likely a recipe for risky behavior as they may assume that what they've always seen in gay media is "normal sexual behavior". It's not like there's a disclaimer that says "The following unprotected sexual scenes occur only under controlled medical supervision. This is fiction. Do not try this at home." I think that some gay social media and it's authors have done much to fuel the perceived Eros surrounding unprotected sex.

 

In regards to the legality of HIV transmission, this seems to vary from State to State on how the law is written. I almost wish they'd address it in a uniform federal code under the auspices of the CDC to at least provide consistency. Even the most carefully protected sex cares risk. I fully believe that if a person is HIV positive, and regardless of whether or not the sex is protected or unprotected, they should be required to disclose their HIV status to any person prior to engaging in sexual activity.

 

I'm very vehement about this and here's why: I once had a friend years ago who was 18 and coming to terms with his sexuality. I was probably about 32 at the time, and still working in the clinical laboratory. Due to chance and a number of other circumstances I was the person who performed a serological ELISA HIV test on him that ended up being positive. I also had to be the person to sit down with a social worker and tell him that he was HIV positive. It was a painful, heart wrenching experience that I will never forget. Over the course of the next several months, he played the "When did this happen?!" scenario over and over again in his mind, as he always had safe sex or so he said at least and it continuously returned to one specific event: He had protected sex with a guy whom he masturbated to completion. When the guy came some of the semen got in his eye and he had to wash it out. He wore contacts. Was this the actual event that was the defining moment? I can't tell you for certain. It did, however, make me a strong advocate for required disclosure. The person having sex with an HIV positive individual should be given the right to assess the risk, regardless of whether or not the sex is protected or unprotected, because even the most carefully planned sexual activity carries risk; those risks are statistically higher with serologically positive people than serologically negative people, if even by a few decimal places.

[doitb4ugo]

It is probably not coincidental that men with HIV see things a bit differently than many who have not beeen victims of the virus themselves. If we desire to raise the rate of undiagnosed HIV (CDC estimates that 14% of those living with HIV- 160,300 are currently undiagnosed), we are going about it the correct way.

 

If fear of getting HIV is not an effective deterrent for sex with strangers, __________________________. (fill in the blank)

[Nvr2Thick]

Over the course of the next several months, he played the "When did this happen?!" scenario over and over again in his mind, as he always had safe sex or so he said at least and it continuously returned to one specific event: He had protected sex with a guy whom he masturbated to completion. When the guy came some of the semen got in his eye and he had to wash it out. He wore contacts. Was this the actual event that was the defining moment? I can't tell you for certain. It did, however, make me a strong advocate for required disclosure. The person having sex with an HIV positive individual should be given the right to assess the risk, regardless of whether or not the sex is protected or unprotected, because even the most carefully planned sexual activity carries risk; those risks are statistically higher with serologically positive people than serologically negative people, if even by a few decimal places.

 

As you're assessing risks with four different potential sex partners, discussing things maturely and "honestly" this is what you know:

 

1) He's HIV+ and tells you so.

2) Admits he never or rarely gets tested. If he has been tested it's been years, but he says he was negative.

3) Says he last tested negative recently, but has had sexual partners since his last test. Says he always plays safe.

4) He says he always plays safe, tests regularly, insists he's HIV-, shows you the printed results of his last test, and claims to have not had a sex partner since that test.

 

As you've noted, the risks are higher with HIV+ people than with HIV- people. With potential partner 1 your risk assessment is all about what you do in his presence and the measures you put in place to reduce exposure to the virus.

 

Partners 2 - 4 all could be HIV+ as well. Even if partners 2 and 3 are truthful they each could have been infected, and they just don't know yet. Think about the permutations of lies that increase the risk. Any one of these last three could be lying about whether they've been tested at all, their promiscuity, their safe sex practices, knowledge of the status of past partners...

 

To me, disclosure creates a false sense of accomplishment. With partner 1 risk assessment is all about the effectiveness of safe sex practices, and the relative risk of certain acts (if any). With partners 2 - 4 risk assessment is about your partner's credibility coupled with the likelihood that he could have been exposed to the virus based on an unmanageable variety of unknowns.

 

What are the odds that your friend who got shot in the eye would have been protected by disclosure? What are the odds that his masturbation partner was knowingly positive? Was it, "if only he'd told me?" or "if only he knew to tell me"?

 

I'd be afraid that the concept of mandatory disclosure would discourage testing and increase our undiagnosed rates. If someone tests positive he has to disclose, and he's likely to have to reduce his dating pool to bug chasers, safe-playing HIV+ guys, and the few guys who view HIV+ and unknown status as equal risk. If someone prefers not to disclose then not knowing his status is the best defense.

[jimboivyo]

solving this is easy: use a rubber. don't rely on a pill or someone else who says they're 'clean'