More

Laws Target People With HIV: AIDS Patient's Spit Deemed Deadly Weapon

Decriminalizing Hiv

First Posted: 01/03/12 08:57 AM ET Updated: 01/03/12 12:40 PM ET

By DAVID CRARY/ The Associated Press

NEW YORK -- A man in Texas is serving a 35-year prison sentence for spitting at a police officer – because he has the virus that causes AIDS and his saliva was deemed a deadly weapon. In Michigan, an HIV-positive man who allegedly bit a neighbor during an argument faced a bioterrorism charge.

Charges for the same acts would have been far less severe if the defendants had been virus-free. Now, a coalition of advocacy groups – backed by an outspoken champion in Congress – is ratcheting up a campaign to press for review and possible repeal of criminal statutes specifically targeting HIV-positive people.

"These laws are archaic," said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif. "They're criminalizing a population of people who should not be criminalized."

Lee introduced a bill in September that would provide states with incentives and support to reform criminal laws aimed at people with HIV. Lee assumes the bill has little chance of passage while Republicans control the House, but hopes it will help raise awareness about the state laws.

"It's very important to start these debates, to get governors and legislators to look at it," she said in a telephone interview.

Thirty-four states have criminal laws that punish people for exposing another person to HIV, according to the advocacy groups working with Lee. Prosecutions occur even in the absence of actual HIV transmission, and the laws generally do not consider use of a condom as a defense, the groups said.

Many of the laws were enacted early in the AIDS epidemic, when fear of the disease's deadliness was at its highest and before advances in understanding how HIV was transmitted. The laws have not been revised even though AIDS – thanks to the development of medication regimens – is no longer viewed as a death sentence.

Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorney's Association, suggested that most prosecutors would oppose Lee's bill and argue that the laws remain necessary to deter HIV-positive people from reckless or irresponsible behavior.

"Notwithstanding that we've made tremendous medical advances, I don't know anyone who'd want to be infected with HIV and go through the treatment regimen," he said.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, HIV is spread primarily by unprotected sex with an HIV-positive person, sharing of tainted needles or syringes, and births by an HIV-infected mother.

HIV is not spread by saliva, tears or sweat, and there are no documented cases of it being transmitted by spitting, according to the CDC. As for biting, the CDC says there is no transmission risk if the skin is not broken; in a "very small number of cases," transmission did occur when a bite drew blood and caused severe tissue damage.

While prosecutors defend the HIV laws as appropriate for certain cases, some activists argue that criminalization of exposure to HIV can backfire and actually fuel the spread of the disease.

They note that under most of the state laws, people who don't know they have HIV are less culpable than those who do know. This fact could deter some people from learning their HIV status, and thus preclude some HIV-positive people from getting treatment.

A better approach, the advocates say, is to encourage responsibility and disclosure without the underlying threat of arrest and prosecution.

The Obama administration's National AIDS Strategy, released in July 2010, echoes those concerns, saying some of the state laws "may make people less willing to disclose their status by making people feel at even greater risk of discrimination."

"It may be appropriate for legislators to reconsider whether existing laws continue to further the public interest," the strategy says. "In many instances, the continued existence and enforcement of these types of laws run counter to scientific evidence."

Advocates for changes in the laws say many people have served long prison terms and been forced to register as sex offenders for conduct that posed no meaningful risk of HIV transmission. Catherine Hanssens of the Center for HIV Law and Policy, one of the key groups in the advocacy coalition, blames the longevity of the laws on "a seemingly invincible ignorance" about transmission.

Annual surveys by the Kaiser Family Foundation have documented this phenomenon. According to this year's survey, 1 in 3 Americans has a basic misunderstanding about HIV transmission – believing, for example, that one can get HIV from sharing a drinking glass or swimming in a pool with someone with HIV.

"We need to educate people," Hanssens said. "Before we change the laws, we have to change their minds."

As part of an initiative called the Positive Justice Project, Hanssens' center recently documented scores of cases since 2008 in which people were prosecuted on charges specifically related to being HIV-positive.

Among the cases:

_In March 2010, an HIV-positive man in Michigan faced bioterrorism charges of using HIV as a weapon after he allegedly bit a neighbor on the lip during an argument. Three months later, a judge threw out that charge; the defendant, Daniel Allen, was placed on 11 months of probation for assault.

_In Iowa, an HIV-positive man, Nick Rhoades, received a 25-year sentence in 2009 for failing to disclose his HIV status prior to a one-time consensual sexual encounter during which the virus was not transmitted. Rhoades' sentence was eventually suspended, but he was nonetheless required to register as a sex offender.

_In 2008, a homeless man with HIV, Willie Campbell, received a 35-year sentence for spitting at a Dallas police officer because under Texas law his saliva was considered a deadly weapon. Local health officials said the risk of HIV transmission from saliva was extremely low, but the prosecutor in the case said the tough sentence was warranted.

"No matter how minuscule, there is some risk," said Jenni Morse. "That means there is the possibility of causing serious bodily injury or death."

In Ohio, there have been several recent cases of people being charged with felonious assault under an 11-year-old state law making it a crime for anyone diagnosed with HIV or AIDS to have sex without disclosing that status to their partner. The law applies regardless of whether HIV is transmitted.

"If you participate in any sex act, no matter how major or minor, you must tell your partner you are HIV-positive before having sex – even if you are practicing safer sex!" warns a fact sheet distributed by Ohio health groups.

In an ongoing case in Cincinnati, former professional wrestler Andre Davis faces the possibility of decades in prison after being convicted in November of 14 counts of assault for having sex with women without telling them he'd tested positive for HIV. His sentencing is set for Jan. 6.

In accordance with the judge's instructions, it was never established at the trial whether any of the women actually became infected with HIV through contact with Davis, whose wrestling stage names included "Gangsta of Love."

Davis' attorney, Greg Cohen, said the law regarding HIV and felonious assault is "fear-based" and flawed because it doesn't require proof that there was any attempt to cause harm. He has said he may file an appeal.

"You can't just assume someone intended to harm someone else just by sleeping with them," Cohen said in a telephone interview.

However, prosecutor Amy Tranter, in closing arguments at last month's trial, said Davis should go to prison for a long time.

"He's shown no remorse, no responsibility for anything that he's done," she said.

William McColl, political director of the Washington-based advocacy group AIDS United, believes criminal prosecutions should be avoided in HIV-related cases except possibly for the rare instances when an HIV-positive person deliberately seeks to transmit the virus to someone else.

In the more common cases where an HIV-positive sexual partner had no malicious intent and there is a dispute about whether the HIV status was disclosed, prosecution is probably inappropriate, McColl said.

Advocacy groups recommend that people with HIV – to guard themselves against prosecution – should find ways to document that they disclosed their status to sexual partners. This could entail making a video of a disclosure conversation, having the partner sign a letter confirming the disclosure, or having the partner join in a discussion with a health professional.

"When you are in love, or in the heat of the moment, it may seem impossible to do any of these things," advises the Positive Justice Project. "But remember that these are the tools that may help you fight an arrest or conviction."

For advocacy groups working on behalf of HIV-positive people, the criminalization laws represent a negative side of a mixed picture. Overall, activists are heartened by progress in combatting HIV-related discrimination, whether by private employers or the federal government.

However, everyday discrimination does persist despite the Americans with Disabilities Act, which extends its anti-discrimination protections to people with HIV. In Pennsylvania, for example, a 13-year-old boy recently was denied admission to a private school because he is HIV-positive.

___

Online:

___

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CRIME

By DAVID CRARY/ The Associated Press NEW YORK -- A man in Texas is serving a 35-year prison sentence for spitting at a police officer – because he has the virus that causes AIDS and his saliva wa...
By DAVID CRARY/ The Associated Press NEW YORK -- A man in Texas is serving a 35-year prison sentence for spitting at a police officer – because he has the virus that causes AIDS and his saliva wa...
Filed by Michael McLaughlin  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 70
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
raker
07:11 PM on 01/11/2012
Leave it to the anti-science yahoos. HIV is not transmitted by saliva.
01:25 PM on 01/04/2012
HAHAHAHA,WAIT,WAIT HOLD THE PHONE GRACIE .
a few days ago you publish a story about some knucklehead intentionally attempting to spread aids,
now its okay for some fool who through acts of his own doing got aids, and is attempting to harm others doing thier own job(spitting on police), and you want to make that okay? ARE YOU STUPID?
OKAY, then its all right for the officer when he later develops aids to come back and extract retribution with a good, old fashioned, beatdown, followed by a curb stomping, for the death sentence you have imposed on him RIGHT? and yes as a general rule its still a death sentence, just as cancer is , and at the least a lifetime of endless medications that also are a death sentence for the organs , thereby the patient.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rayano 86
11:31 AM on 01/05/2012
HIV isn't spread through saliva. If he had HEP C you could call it bio terroism.
03:42 PM on 01/05/2012
your medical degree is from where?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
westcoastsc
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhe
10:28 AM on 01/04/2012
Saliva has long been known to completely disable the HIV virus. I'm tired of laws based on everything but science. For example, studies show that marijuana smokers are generally safer drivers than non-marijuana smokers. Another example, we are throwing back small fish for conservation, but all studies show that we should be throwing back the larger fish and keeping the smaller. Larger fish reach senescence and produce much more and better quality spawn than immature fish. Also, younger fish taste better and have less toxins. I'm tired of the backwardness of laws when it comes to science.
noahmarder
Exposing the regressive lies, one by one
01:07 AM on 01/04/2012
For all of those who criticize these laws, would you have the same reaction to being bitten by an HIV positive person versus an HIV negative person? I will agree that 35 years for spitting on an officer is overly harsh in light of the fact that simple contact with the saliva of an HIV positive person hasn't been shown to be a viable method of virus transmission. On the other hand, biting, or failing to warn unsuspecting sexual partners is absolutely battery with a deadly weapon. To be fair though, these sorts of laws should apply to any serious communicable disease. Singling out HIV is unfair.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rayano 86
12:47 PM on 01/05/2012
You can't transfer HIV through biting someone. In order to possible do you, the person biting would have to have a significant amount of blood in their mouth ( from major surgery or loss of multiple teeth or severing of their tongue) and they would have to break the skin and cause mix the blood together
noahmarder
Exposing the regressive lies, one by one
02:18 PM on 01/05/2012
The biter would have to have SOME blood in his mouth in order to risk transmitting HIV. If the person has gum disease, the blood can be produced merely from biting hard. The person can also bite his own tongue. Also, a canker sore (or another sore or injury) could cause there to be some blood in the mouth. The biggest difference between biting and spitting is that biting causes a wound in the victim through which HIV can be spread, while spitting on someone's skin does not.
11:33 PM on 01/03/2012
There's the HIV guy in Mich. who claims to have had sex w as many people as he could to viciously expose them to the disease. I am not differentiating between spit/sperm fluids, they are the same weapons. The poor nurses that have to put up w this danger everyday.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
plepgeat
My micro-bio was empty.
01:16 AM on 01/04/2012
Wrong. You're wrong.
10:50 AM on 01/04/2012
How am I wrong. You're typing this at 1am, get some sleep !
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rockysparks
there's no law against being annoying.
03:30 AM on 01/04/2012
As long as they single out HIV positive people over others with communicable STDs, it's discrimination.
09:06 AM on 01/04/2012
How is it discrimination if acted solely on a purpose of malice. Discrimination hogwash!
10:21 AM on 01/04/2012
Yes, of course. I was talking about when police are called to a crime scene.
08:08 PM on 01/03/2012
The problem with the timing of trying to repeal this is just last week it came out that a man purposely infected hundreds of men and women with aids with the purpose to kill them. It's a good point that someone with HIV or AIDS shouldn't be targeted but at the same time those things can kill. Maybe a compromise can be a bill modification so it only targets violent situations. After all, if the dentist says, "no spit" it's very different then biting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/30/david-dean-smith-michigan-hiv-grand-rapids_n_1177103.html
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Samantha Monteleone
I hold on, & I feel strong, & I know that I can.
07:45 PM on 01/03/2012
So, Barbara, let me ask you this: Do you feel that HIV-positive people should be able to bite, spit on, and transfer their virus in other ways to someone else if they deem it necessary? Giving someone a deadly virus that will kill them is not criminal to you?

Grow up and get a reality check. Anything used as a deadly weapon- EVEN A DEADLY DISEASE- should be considered a crime.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rockysparks
there's no law against being annoying.
03:32 AM on 01/04/2012
Are they singling out people with HIV or are they applying the law to all people with communicable STDS, Samantha?
07:07 PM on 01/03/2012
Although I am HIV positive...I do feel these laws are justified. A person carrying the virus is aware of the fact that it is deadly and purposely direcing it at some one who is viraus-free as a means to have them contract is attempted murder. Put them behind bars.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Samantha Monteleone
I hold on, & I feel strong, & I know that I can.
07:46 PM on 01/03/2012
I agree.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:02 PM on 01/03/2012
Poz here too, agreed!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
proudloudlib
"I'm not deaf. I'm ignoring you."
04:38 PM on 01/03/2012
The liberal in me agrees that most of these laws are antiquated and unjustified. But there have been people who intentionally exposed others to the virus. You can bet that if I had sex with someone who knew they were positive and did not tell me, we wouldn't need the police: I would handle that myself, and they would just wish they had the cops there to protect them. And that would be true regardless of the actual transmission or lack of transmission of the virus. But spitting? I don't think so. (Who spits on people? That is just gross, and not something that would ever even occur to me.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Parade Keegan
I Can Hear You
05:35 PM on 01/03/2012
I agree to and if the perpetrator knows they're HIV/AIDS/TB, etc. positive and they knowingly expose people to infected pathogens they are criminals!!! They should be charged as criminals. Being ill IS NOT THE A CRIME which is why it's not on drivers licenses, car registrations and HIV/Aids victims dont have to notify/register with their "local authority when they relocate nor is anyone required TO WEAR AN ARMBAND! Some people need to get to the real issue.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:27 PM on 01/03/2012
"These laws are archaic," said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif. "They're criminalizing a population of people who should not be criminalized."

Did this joker say it with a straight face? How absurd can you be? Using a known pathogen as a means to assault or intimidate should indeed be criminalized. This nonsense that saliva never transmits HIV is obviously belied by the nonsense about bites transmitting HIV in a "very small number of cases". Do the short math- saliva can transmit HIV if it enters an open wound, such as during a fight where someone gets spit on. Saying it's no big deal because you probably won't get infected is a child's excuse. The kind of common sense adults are supposed to use dictates that "probably won't" means there's ample risk when the stake is potentially death.
photo
Red45
We can turn the tide
04:23 PM on 01/03/2012
Has anyone ever actually gotten AIDS from being spat on?
photo
Squiriferous
Back off, man. I'm a scientist.
06:07 PM on 01/03/2012
It's in the article and the answer is no. But I wonder: what if the AIDS saliva made contact with the eye?
photo
Red45
We can turn the tide
06:17 PM on 01/03/2012
Looks like we have pretty much the same question. Does saliva carry HIV and can it be transferred to another person via that saliva?
photo
jeffrey678
You don't happen to make it. You make it happen.
04:02 PM on 01/03/2012
People just won't get tested.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michele Bennington
Comfort the Affllicted, Afflict the Comfortable
04:01 PM on 01/03/2012
There is an enzyme in saliva that is a natural barrier to the virus. Mosquitos carrry the same virus which is one reason they can't transmit the virus. If anyone needs further proof that saliva is not responsible for HIV transmission....well, there would be a whole lot less of us here.

This is science, supported by decades of research. Not a popular subject, science, I know - in Texas. However.

I would have to agree with Catherine Hanssens from the Center for HIV and Law, " a seemingly invinceable ingorance" still, after 30 years surrounds this virus. I can't think of any other reason than fear and hate for criminalizing people with a virus.

But the most telling piece of this article was the statement from advocates...if we put a layer of criminality on top of this already stigmatized virus we are setting ourselves up for higher rates of HIV.

It is already gut wrenching for a person to disclose their status to family, friends and partners. Think of how much more difficult it will be for someone with the added tag of "bio-terrorist" to their diagnosis.

Plus, if someone thinks they may have been exposed to the virus, and are fearful of getting tested, (which is very common) these kind of backward, ignorant laws will just be one more reason not to get tested.

I'm just baffled by it all...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gfgarv
but you are Blanche! You are...
04:27 PM on 01/03/2012
I agree with you for the most part, I do feel if you know that you are HIV positive or are living with AIDS that you need to disclose it to anyone BEFORE having sex. It is up to the partner to decide if they want to take the chance.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michele Bennington
Comfort the Affllicted, Afflict the Comfortable
04:50 PM on 01/03/2012
I agree, all things being equal.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kara Oneil
reading, and writing keeps our minds alive.
03:18 PM on 01/03/2012
Hmmm. seems somewhat controversial. I think if you are trying to infect someone, then yes, it should be criminal. Although, you take that chance when you go to bed with someone you don't really know, or you shoot up. I would also like to know about what type of charges should the hospitals, or blood banks get when they spread the disease through lax of screening. Should that be involuntary manslaughter, or should it be murder? I think they are opening a big can of worms here. I know if I went to the hospital, and was given dirty blood, I would be very upset, because you are trusting them with your life, and they are in charge of your care.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michele Bennington
Comfort the Affllicted, Afflict the Comfortable
04:34 PM on 01/03/2012
Good point...
02:33 PM on 01/03/2012
"A man in Texas is serving a 35-year prison sentence for spitting at a police officer – because he has the virus that causes AIDS and his saliva was deemed a deadly weapon."

Only in Texas... the chances of getting HIV from spit are tiny.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hank10303
Reality Check
03:46 PM on 01/03/2012
undefined
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gfgarv
but you are Blanche! You are...
04:29 PM on 01/03/2012
Taken from above:
"HIV is not spread by saliva, tears or sweat, and there are no documented cases of it being transmitted by spitting, according to the CDC."