Canada: Guidelines on prosecuting HIV non-disclosure in Ontario to be released

The Divisional Court has ordered the Ministry of the Attorney General to release a set of draft guidelines for prosecuting HIV non-disclosure cases.

An assistant Crown attorney developed the guidelines in the unprecedented 2009 case of Johnson Aziga, an HIV-positive man who was convicted of first-degree murder for failing to disclose his status when he had unprotected sex with two women.

The guidelines were shared throughout the province with Crowns involved in HIV prosecutions and uploaded to their intranet, says Toronto lawyer Marcus McCann, who sought the document as part of a larger Freedom of Information request.

The ministry refused to grant McCann’s request, arguing the guidelines were subject to solicitor-client privilege, but the Information and Privacy Commissioner sided with McCann.

“The fundamental unfairness that motivated me was that MAG has been able to avoid disclosure of this document simply by allowing Crowns to use this document created off the side of the desk without adopting it as official policy,” McCann says.

MAG sought judicial review of the privacy commissioner’s decision, but it was recently rejected by the Divisional Court.

The privacy commissioner, and later the Divisional Court, determined that solicitor-client privilege had actually been waived by the assistant Crown attorney who developed the draft guidelines, as they had been shared with a program manager with the Sexual Health and Harm Reduction of the City of Hamilton.

MAG said the document was shared with the official in order to get her “expert input, advice and assistance in relation to legal advice” in the guidelines, and it said that her input was necessary in order to ensure the document was accurate.

MAG also argued that the commissioner erred by failing to consider whether the ministry and the program manager had common interests, which would have preserved solicitor-client privilege. The ministry said the common interest was the reduction of harm and the protection of society, but the Divisional Court sided with the privacy commissioner, who said that interest was too broad and that the two entities have very different practical mandates.

“The Commissioner’s rejection of the common interest was reasonable. The result is justified, transparent and intelligible,” Justice Carolyn Horkins wrote in the Divisional Court decision, Ontario (Attorney General) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), which was released on Nov. 15.

It is not clear whether the provincial government plans to appeal the decision, but McCann says that if and once the document is released, it could help those being prosecuted in HIV-related cases understand how Crown prosecutors are approaching these matters.

For years, AIDS services organizations have pushed the provincial government to develop an official set of guidelines for prosecuting HIV non-disclosure cases, but with little progress. Between 1989 and 2013, around 155 people were criminally charged in Canada for not disclosing they had HIV and a majority of these prosecutions occurred in Ontario, according to the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

Human rights lawyers say the problem with the lack of official guidelines for these HIV non-disclosure cases is that there is such a wide scope of charges defendants can face, some of which are very serious.

Ryan Peck, the executive director of HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario, says those prosecuted in these cases often face aggravated sexual assault charges, which are used to prosecute serious forced sex acts.

In 2010, a group called the Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law and HIV Exposure launched a campaign calling on MAG to create a set of prosecutorial guidelines. The ministry agreed to do so, but after years of consultations and delays, an official set of guidelines has not materialized yet.

“The current use of the criminal law is simply out of step with science and human rights,” Peck says. A handful of lawyers, including Peck, on the working group were allowed to review draft guidelines in November 2014. It is unclear whether these are the same draft guidelines McCann requested, as the lawyers who reviewed the guidelines are not permitted to discuss their contents.

The lawyers who viewed the draft guidelines asked that the ministry not issue the guidelines, and MAG complied with that request. The working group plans to meet with Attorney General Yasir Naqvi at a “minister’s roundtable” discussion, which is set to take place Dec. 5.

“They appear to be at loggerheads on the issue of not just should prosecutorial guidelines be drafted but what the content of them should be, and it’s my hope that this document being made public will help break that logjam,” says McCann.

Brendan Crawley, a spokesman for MAG, said it would be inappropriate for the ministry to comment, as the Divisional Court’s decision is still within the appeal period.

Published in Law Times on Nov 28, 2016

Australia: Despite absence of risks, mandatory HIV testing of people who spit at police officers will remain

Police Minister Liza Harvey says the government stands by it’s mandatory blood test laws for offenders who spit at police officers.

On Friday leading HIV experts criticized the 2014 law brought in by the Barnett Government saying it had no basis in scientific fact.

Currently an offender who spits at a police officer can be forced to have a blood test to see if they are carrying the HIV virus.

Delegates at the Australasian HIV & AIDS Conference said they had “profound disappointment” in state government’s that brought in laws forcing blood tests for offenders who spit at police.

Scientists say its not possible for the HIV virus to be transmitted via saliva.

“Australia has a proud record of basing its HIV response on evidence-based policy,” Associate-Adjunct Professor Levinia Crooks, CEO of the Australasian Society for HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexual Health Medicine (ASHM) said yesterday.

“These laws are anti-scientific. The risk of transmission of HIV or other blood-borne viruses from saliva is practically zero. There is no justification for invading the privacy of people in custody by forcing them to undergo blood tests when there is no risk to the officer.”

“We understand the considerable risks faced by police and emergency services when they go about their jobs, but this is not the solution. There has never been a case of HIV transmission from spitting or biting in Australia,” she said.

Harvey, who is the Deputy Premier and Minister for Police, said the Barnett government has listened to the concerns of police officers and brought in the laws for their protection.

“The Liberal National Government had listened to the concerns of police officers.” the Minister said, arguing that in 2013 there had been a high level of instances where police could have potentially been exposed to infectious diseases.

“In 2013, 147 police were exposed to bodily fluids in a way that they could contract an infectious disease.

“This legislation allows for the taking of blood samples from the offender which helps in diagnosis, clinical management and treatment of the exposed police officer.

Minister Harvey said people were only forced to have a blood test when there was a possibility that an officer may have been exposed to infection.   

“The testing will only happen if there is a possibility of the transfer of an infectious disease – for example the transfer of bodily fluid through broken skin.” Minister Harvey told OUTinPerth. “We are committed to protecting our officers on the front line, who are committed to protecting us.”

Published in Out in Perth

Australia: Delegates at Australia’s national HIV/AIDS conference condemn antiscientific laws mandating HIV testing for people accused of spitting at police officers

Media Release

Adelaide: Friday, 18 November 2016

Delegates at Australia’s national HIV/AIDS conference have condemned the governments of South Australia, Western Australia and Northern Territory over laws that force people accused of criminal offences to undergo mandatory HIV and blood-borne virus testing.

The conference passed a resolution this afternoon expressing its ‘profound disappointment’ in the laws, which make it mandatory for people to undergo blood tests if they are accused of spitting on or biting law enforcement personnel. The laws were passed in South Australia and Western Australia in 2014, and in the Northern Territory in 2016.

Australia has a proud record of basing its HIV response on evidence-based policy,” said Adjunct Associate Professor Levinia Crooks CEO of the Australasian Society for HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexual Health Medicine (ASHM). “These laws are antiscientific — the risk of transmission of HIV or other blood-borne viruses from saliva is practically zero. There is no justification for invading the privacy of people in custody by forcing them to undergo blood tests when there is no risk to the officer.”

“We understand the considerable risks faced by police and emergency services when they go about their jobs, but this is not the solution. There has never been a case of HIV transmission from spitting or biting in Australia.”

The full text of the resolution passed by the conference is:

As researchers, clinicians, and civil society representatives, we are united in our commitment to a HIV response grounded in evidence and protective of the human rights of people living with and affected by HIV. This conference expresses its profound disappointment in the governments of South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory for enacting anti scientific and counterproductive laws mandating HIV testing for people accused of spitting on law enforcement personnel, in the face of overwhelming evidence that such laws are neither effective nor necessary. HIV is not transmitted in saliva and these laws only serve to further marginalise and criminalise people with HIV. We call on all governments to establish evidence-based protocols that protect the wellbeing of police and emergency workers and the rights of people living with HIV.

The Australasian HIV & AIDS Conference is the premier medical/scientific conference in the Australasian HIV and related diseases sector. The 2016 Conference was held in Adelaide from 16–18 November, in conjunction with the Australasian Sexual Health Conference.

For all media enquires, please contact:

Media Contact:  Petrana Lorenz — 0405 158 636  |  petrana@arkcommunications.com.au

Czech Republic: Police drop charges against all 30 gay men living with HIV following Prague Public Health Authority ‘witch hunt’

All criminal charges have been dropped against the 30 gay men living with HIV who were reported to the police by the Prague Public Health Authority earlier this year after they were diagnosed with an STI, Czech media report today.

The draconian behaviour of Prague Public Health led to widespread condemnation by human rights defenders.

A change.org petition initated by the European AIDS Treament Group (EATG) was signed by more than 1000 supporters, including the HIV Justice Network.

Today’s media report in Aktuálně.cz notes that three of the 30 men had been indicted for potential HIV transmission (under a law criminalising ‘the spread of infectious human diseases‘) but prosecutorial authorities withdrew the charges due to lack of evidence.

Police spokesman, Jan Danek, told the paper that following an investigation there was no case to prove against any of the 30 men and all charges had been dropped.

Australia: Australian experts publish statement urging courts to consider current scientific evidence in criminal cases involving alleged HIV transmission or exposure

A group of leading HIV experts are calling for “caution to be exercised” when considering criminal charges against people who recklessly spread the disease.

In a consensus statement published in the Medical Journal of Australia, Australian researchers and scientists — including Professor Sharon Lewin and Professor Andrew Grulich — argue that “criminal cases involving HIV transmission or exposure require that courts correctly comprehend the rapidly evolving science of HIV transmission and the impact of an HIV diagnosis”.

The statement cites scientific evidence that shows the risk of HIV transmission to be negligible if a person is on treatment and has an undetectable viral load. It also claims that HIV isn’t as serious a condition as it used to be: “Most people with HIV are able to commence simple treatment providing them a normal and healthy life expectancy, largely comparable with their HIV-negative peers.”

“Given the limited risk of HIV transmission per sexual act and the limited long-term harms experienced by most people recently diagnosed with HIV, appropriate care should be taken before prosecutions are pursued,” says the statement.

While acknowledging that cases of deliberate transmission of HIV are “extremely unusual”, the group urge authorities to change behaviours through counselling rather than the courts.

“Careful attention should be paid to the best scientific evidence on HIV risk and harms, with consideration given to alternatives to prosecution, including public health management.”

The statement has been welcome by HIV advocacy groups.

“It’s incredible to see these experts come together and make a bold statement regarding HIV and the law,” said Richard Keane, President of Living Positive Victoria.

“The impact of HIV criminalisation or even the threat of it is a dangerous form of stigma and we’re still feeling the ripple effect more than two decades later.”

There have been at least 38 Australian criminal prosecutions for HIV sexual transmission or exposure since 1991.

“You don’t have to be convicted or even prosecuted for HIV criminalisation to affect you,” said Keane.

“The HIV community lives with the threat that a complaint can be made against us and the stigma that criminal prosecutions amplify and perpetuate.”

Keane hoped the statement’s focus on utilising the public health system rather the criminal courts in dealing with behaviour change would lead to better outcomes on policy.

“Most people on treatment are able to achieve an ‘undetectable’ viral load which makes it highly likely that the person will remain healthy and pose a negligible risk of transmitting HIV,” Keane said.

“The evidence outlined in this statement shows that the per-act risk of HIV transmission from even the most risky sex is still low. The message should be to encourage individuals to take care of their health and eliminate barriers to accessing treatment rather than intimidation through the justice system.

“By focusing on what the studies and science is telling us about treatments, relative risk and harm, that’s how we reduce HIV transmission whilst protecting the rights and dignity of people living with HIV. HIV is a health issue, not a criminal justice issue.”

Additional reporting Positive Living.

Published in Gay News Network on Nov 6, 2016

US: New report explores how HIV criminal laws in California are enforced against foreign born populations

FOR IMMIGRANTS, HIV CRIMINALIZATION CAN MEAN INCARCERATION AND DEPORTATION 

New Study Shows 15 Percent of People who had Contact with Californa Criminal System because of HIV Criminalization Laws were Foreign Born

LOS ANGELES – A new study suggests that for some immigrants, an HIV-specific criminal offense may have been the triggering event for their deportation proceedings.  In HIV Criminalization Against Immigrants in California, Williams Institute Scholars Amira Hasenbush and Bianca D.M. Wilson, explore how HIV criminal laws are enforced in California, particularly against foreign born populations.

HIV criminalization is a term used to describe statutes that either criminalize otherwise legal conduct or that increase the penalties for illegal conduct based upon a person’s HIV-positive status.  California has four HIV-specific criminal laws, and one non-HIV-specific criminal law that criminalizes exposure to any communicable disease.  All HIV-specific offenses in California have the potential to lead to deportation proceedings.

“People living with HIV still face stigma and discrimination,” said Amira Hasenbush.  “If one is HIV-positive and enters the criminal system, one may be more severely impacted than those who are HIV-negative.  A major impact for HIV positive immigrants is possible deportation, possibly a far worse outcome than the original sentence.  Living with HIV is a public health matter, not a criminal one.”

Key Findings:

-Overall, 800 people have come into contact with the California criminal system from 1988 to June 2014 related to that person’s HIV-positive status.  Among those individuals, 121 (15 percent) were foreign born.

-Thirty-six people, or 30 percent, of these foreign born individuals, had some form of a criminal immigration proceeding in their histories. Among those who had immigration proceedings in their records, nine people (25 percent) had those proceedings initiated immediately after an HIV-specific incident.

-Like their U.S. born counterparts, 94 percent of all HIV-specific incidents in which immigrants had contact with the criminal system were under California’s felony offense against solicitation while HIV-positive.

-Eighty-three percent of the immigrants who had contact with the system based on their HIV-positive status were born in Mexico, Central or South America, or the Caribbean.

-While U.S. born people were divided fairly evenly between men and women, immigrants were overwhelmingly men: 88 percent of foreign born individuals in the group were men. (It should be noted that “men” may include transgender male-to-female individuals.  Problems created by a lack of data on transgender people within criminal justice databases are highlighted in the report.)

HIV Criminalization Against Immigrants in California was developed by analyzing the California Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) data on HIV offenses in California, exploring the demographics and experiences of foreign born individuals as compared to their U.S. born counterparts. Future research beyond the enforcement data may explore whether initial patterns seen by sex and place of birth are perpetuated in other criminal systems or under other offenses. Future research can also explore the influence of sexual orientation and gender identity as a potential driver to the criminal system and as a potential mediating factor in experiences once in the system. This will help provide a more nuanced and complete picture of the experiences of people who are criminalized based on their HIV-positive status.

Read the report.

The Williams Institute, a think tank on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy, is dedicated to conducting rigorous, independent research with real-world relevance.

Australia: Up to 14 years jail sentences and compulsory testing for people spitting at police officers could be introduced in new legislation

Police in Australia are pushing for the introduction of a maximum 14 year jail sentence for people who spit at police officers.

The move comes after new figures reveal more than 1,000 officers are “exposed to bodily fluids” at work each year in the country.

Officers have routinely put there lives on hold for months to ensure they had not contracted any diseases.

South Australian Police Association president Mark Carroll said: ““When, in the course of duty, officers are spat on, bitten or otherwise assaulted in a way involving an exchange of bodily fluids, it’s essential that these officers have access to blood samples from the assailant that can be tested.”

The Adelaide Advertiser reported a case in May where a man spat at an officer and said: “I have HIV AIDS and now you’ve got it too”.

After sentencing the man to four and a half years in prison, Judge Rauf Soulio said: “Your comments about HIV caused him great distress. He felt unable to hold his infant daughter, who was born prematurely, for fear of passing on a communicable disease.”

“He had to deal with the fear of waiting for blood results, which were, fortunately, negative,” he added.

Speaking to the Daily Telegraph police minister Troy Grant has prepared new proposals saying he hopes to make it a “new offence with tough penalties for spitting on officers and a mandatory testing regimen for offenders who spit.”

In Ireland, the offence appears to be at the lower end of the punishment scale. The Herald reported in June 2015 where a man, Liam Deegan, was sentenced to a month in prison for spitting in a Garda’s face as he was being led to the cells following a court appearance.

The same paper reported another incident whereby another man, Shamsiytar Shafie, received a four month sentence in May 2015 for a similar offence.

Published in NewsTalk on Oct 2, 2016

 

Video and written reports for
Beyond Blame: Challenging HIV Criminalisation at AIDS 2016
now available

On 17 July 2016, approximately 150 advocates, activists, researchers, and community leaders met in Durban, South Africa, for Beyond Blame: Challenging HIV Criminalisation – a full-day pre-conference meeting preceding the 21st International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2016) to discuss progress on the global effort to combat the unjust use of the criminal law against people living with HIV. Attendees at the convening hailed from at least 36 countries on six continents (Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania, and South America).

Beyond Blame was convened by HIV Justice Worldwide, an initiative made up of global, regional, and national civil society organisations – most of them led by people living with HIV – who are working together to build a worldwide movement to end HIV criminalisation.

The meeting was opened by the Honourable Dr Patrick Herminie, Speaker of Parliament of the Seychelles, and closed by Justice Edwin Cameron, both of whom gave powerful, inspiring speeches. In between the two addresses, moderated panels and more intimate, focused breakout sessions catalysed passionate and illuminating conversations amongst dedicated, knowledgeable advocates.

WATCH THE VIDEO OF THE MEETING BELOW

A tremendous energising force at the meeting was the presence, voices, and stories of individuals who have experienced HIV criminalisation first-hand. “[They are the] folks who are at the frontlines and are really the heart of this movement,” said Naina Khanna, Executive Director of PWN-USA, from her position as moderator of the panel of HIV criminalisation survivors; “and who I think our work should be most accountable to, and who we should be led by.”

Three survivors – Kerry Thomas and Lieutenant Colonel Ken Pinkela, from the United States; and Rosemary Namubiru, of Uganda – recounted their harrowing experiences during the morning session.

Thomas joined the gathering via phone, giving his remarks from behind the walls of the Idaho prison where he is serving two consecutive 15-year sentences for having consensual sex, with condoms and an undetectable viral load, with a female partner.

Namubiru, a nurse for more than 30 years, was arrested, jailed, called a monster and a killer in an egregious media circus in her country, following unfounded allegations that she exposed a young patient to HIV as the result of a needlestick injury.

Lt. Col. Pinkela’s decades of service in the United States Army have effectively been erased after his prosecution in a case in which there was “no means likely whatsoever to expose a person to any disease, [and definitely not] HIV.”

Click here to download the 43 page report (PDF)

At the end of the brief question-and-answer period following the often-times emotional panel, Lilian Mworeko of ICW East Africa, in Uganda, took to the microphone with distress in her voice that echoed what most people in the room were likely feeling.

“We are being so polite. I wish we could carry what we are saying here [into] the plenary session of the main conference.”

With that, a call was put to the floor that would reverberate throughout the day, and carry through the week of advocacy and action in Durban.

 

This excerpt is from the opening of our newly published report, Challenging HIV Criminalisation at the 21st International AIDS Conference, Durban, South Africa, July 2016, written by the meeting’s lead rapporteur, Olivia G Ford, and published by the HIV Justice Worldwide partners.

The report presents an overview of key highlights and takeaways from the convening grouped by the following recurring themes:

  • Key Strategies
  • Advocacy Tools
  • Partnerships and Collaborations
  • Adopting an Intersectional Approach
  • Avoiding Pitfalls and Unintended Consequences

Supplemental Materials include transcripts of the opening and closing addresses; summaries of relevant sessions at the main conference, AIDS 2016;  complete data from the post-meeting evaluation survey; and the full day’s agenda.

Beyond Blame: Challenging HIV Criminalisation at AIDS 2016 by HIV Justice Network on Scribd

US: Jacob Anderson-Minshall from HIV Plus mag reacts to the latest biting case in Marlyand

When will law enforcement get the message? HIV is neither a death sentence nor transmittable through saliva. So why do they keep arresting HIV-positive people for spitting and or biting and, as in the latest case, charging them with attempted murder?

According to the Baltimore, Maryland-based Capital Gazette, 46-year-old Jeffery David Crook, has been charged with attempted murder for allegedly biting an Anne Arundall County police officer during a tussle.

Crook is being held on half a million dollar bond and has reportedly been charged with multiple counts related to an alleged burglary and the assault on the officer. Crook was reported to the cops after “banging” on the outside of the home of Crook’s ex-boyfriend. Refused entry into the home, Crook allegedy “forced his way” into the house through a sliding glass door and was punched in the face by another man who was in the house.

Officers reported that they located Crook “rambling and incoherent” in an upstairs bedroom and he refused to obey their commands. When they attempted to forcedly arrest him, he resisted so a scuffle ensued. Police say that Crook was then Tasered, which, they allege, had no effect on him, and Crook bit an officer’s arm.

Police stated that the bite broke the officer’s skin, but it was Crook who was immediately transported to a local hospital center for “minor injuries,” the Gazette reported, citing local court records. “While there, he indicated that he was HIV-positive and bit the officer knowing the risk of transmitting the infection.”

Police spokesman Lt. Ryan Frashure said he couldn’t recall another incident where an officer was exposed to a “highly infectious disease,” especially “where it was done intentionally.”

Crook was charged with attempted second-degree murder, home invasion, second-degree assault, third-degree burglary, and reckless endangerment, according to court records.

From a public and mental health perspective, there are so many things wrong with this story, it’s hard to know where to begin. Crook’s mumbling, incoherent demeaner should have been a sign he may have been suffering from mental health issues. After entering his former partner’s house (through an unlocked sliding glass door, mind you), he was assaulted and his lip was cut. But instead of calling mental health professionals, officers tried to cuff him. When he struggled, they tased him. Although they reported that Tasing “had no effect,” he was taken to a hospital. Since few suspects are taken to a medical center for “minor injuries” before being interogated, it seems likely they realized he could not give clear answers because of his condition.

More to the point, once at the hospital, Crook disclosed his HIV status. His indication that he bit the police officer “knowing the risk of transmitting the infection,” could have been him simply acknowledging he was aware of his HIV status before he bit the man, or even that he knew there was little or no risk of transmitting HIV through saliva.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is clear “HIV isn’t spread through saliva.” 

According to the CDC, biting, spitting, and throwing body fluids all carry “negligible” risk of infection. It is particularly disheartening for activists fighting the criminalization of HIV when poz individuals are convicted of felony crimes for having spat at, bit, or thrown fluids at an officer when it is nearly impossible to transmit HIV that way.

In this specific case, no doubt the argument is that Crook was bleeding from the mouth when he bit the officer hard enough to break skin. But breaking skin and having a small amount of each person’s blood comingling is still highly unlikely to transmit HIV.

Even if a person with HIV gets hurt playing tackle football or boxing at the gym, it’s “highly unlikely that HIV transmission could occur in this manner,” according to the University of Rochester Medical Center. “The external contact with blood that might occur in a sports injury is very different from direct entry of blood into the bloodstream, which occurs from sharing needles or works.”

Even if the officer in question did defy all odds and turn up HIV-positive, there’s no way to be sure it was transmitted in this occassion. Moreover, there’s still a significant problem with the charge of attempted murder. Like many laws that criminalize behavior like sex work or add sentencing penalties only for those who are HIV-positive, charging someone with attempted murder instead of assault is based entirely on the outdated equation that HIV equals death. It’s based on an outdated view of the HIV-positive body not as a human being but as a “deadly weapon.”

These offensive tropes are decades out of date, have been out-and-out discredited by modern science, and rendered obsolete by the development of highly active antiretroviral medications that have transformed HIV from a terminal disease to a manageable chronic condition.

And yet, when confronted with even the tiniest of bodily fluid of HIV-positive individuals, police officers continue to overreact with fear (the officer in the Crook case “remained out of work” days after the incident) and arrest people for actions that cannot transmit HIV, simply because they discover their alleged perp also has HIV.

Around the country, district attorneys in these cases continue to charge HIV-positive individuals with crimes for things that are not criminal, continue bumping up simple charges from misdemeanors to felonies just because the individuals involved are poz, and continue to claim that exposure to HIV is a death sentence when it isn’t. Judges continue to accept these arguments, and continue handing down these overblown sentences, often without the abiility for parole.

Most of the law and order representatives who embrace HIV criminalization do so out of ignorance, but some are aware of the facts and proceed anyway because the law was written in such a way that facts, medical findings, and scientific proof simply have no bearing on the case.

Many of those who are serving extended prison terms have not even transmitted HIV to another person (think Michael Johnson in Missouri and Kerry Thomas in Idaho, both serving 30 year sentences). Yet they often face sentences higher for spitting or having sex without disclosure than if they had actually murdered the person they are accused of “infecting.”

How flawed is this system? And what kind of lesson does this teach people about those living with HIV? For one thing, it teaches that knowing one’s status is a legal liability. In Crook’s case — as in most other cases — the determining factor of guilt is often based on whether the individual knew they were HIV-positive at the time. Spit on a police office without knowing you’re poz, it’s a misdemeanor assault. Spit on an officer once you know have HIV? It’s attempted murder. Neither one can actually transmit HIV.

To us, it’s just insane.