Comments on: Ottawa Police disclosed that gay man transmitted “infectious disease”

By: Aaron Logan

Aaron Logan — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 05:47:03 +0000

I don’t know what the point is anymore. I’m sad that there are more infections due to this Boone character and that his victims may have infected more guys. I’m interested in ways to help others avoid being infected by other “Boones” who are not detered by the law and the response I get is condescension.

By: L. Junius Brutus

L. Junius Brutus — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 01:08:48 +0000

Your point is like saying that decriminalizing murder will not increase murder rates. The question is: how much? Timothy did not present any evidence to support what you are saying. He did say that most people who spread HIV+ are ignorant of their status, and from that I draw the conclusion that prosecution of offenders who know of their status will have a limited effect. Of course, the case that he did not make, but that you did imagine is convincing to you because you agree with it.

By: Aaron Logan

Aaron Logan — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 23:48:57 +0000

@ L. Juinius Brutus. Only if you consider assertion and bad analogy (not to mention condescension) an evidence-based case. I find Mr Kincaid presents much more convicing evidence in his article that criminal sanctions indeed do not protect the uninfected.

By: L. Junius Brutus

L. Junius Brutus — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 21:00:12 +0000

And they did. The fact that you are unwilling to accept that laws criminalizing behaviors lessen those behaviors, does not mean that they have failed to make a case.

By: Aaron Logan

Aaron Logan — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:17:38 +0000

@ L. Junius Brutus

Exactly, it doesn’t. I haven’t argued that the wilful or reckless HIV-spreaders shouldn’t be punished. Not at all. I’m not convinced anyone has.

But Priya Lynn and others have argued that criminalization will prevent transmissions. They are the ones who need to make an evidence-based case.

By: L. Junius Brutus

L. Junius Brutus — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:55:39 +0000

@Aaron Logan: Where’s the evidence that the law against murder prevents murder? Not that it really matters to me. Even if it made no difference whatsoever, willful or reckless HIV-spreaders should be punished, because justice requires it.

By: Aaron Logan

Aaron Logan — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:48:37 +0000

@Priya Lynn: Charming. So where is the evidence that criminal law prevents transmission? You criticize others for making assertions without evidence. Surely you you hold yourself to the same standard.

By: L. Junius Brutus

L. Junius Brutus — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:47:25 +0000

Ben Mathis: “No one at any time said people who are HIV+ are free from any consequences and should never be criticized. ”

I’m pretty sure that people have argued that people who recklessly or deliberately spread HIV should not be prosecuted.

“The point is that the police didn’t follow their own procedures of allowing health services to follow up on his past partners, and you’re ok with mob justice because it aligns with your personal boogeymans.”

Mob justice? Tell me, what did the “mob” do? This man is being prosecuted, not by a mob, but by the lawful authorities. It is not objectionable at all that people who commit despicable crimes should be exposed, especially when this can help victims come forward. Or in your parlance, “victims”.

“So typically vengeful american (and I should say typically Christian as well) of you.”

Uh… what?

“Once you’ve hit your ok-to-persecute threshold,”

You can’t be serious. You’re arguing that this man is being “persecuted”? Then again, here are some of your earlier statements regarding punishment of criminals:

I just want to say I wouldn’t wish the Texas prison system on anyone, not even Hitler.

If you wish that on another human being, you’re a sociopath, and no worse than this man.

This man, and his crimes, are a byproduct of the society he grew up in

And the US prison system violates numerous human rights in it’s operations.

I’m not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater by condemning one act of violence to even more violence through tax sponsored torture.

The burn/rape/kill the pedophiles that always turns up is so disturbing and points to violence fetishism. Just looking for an “ok” target to vent your violent rage.

Are pedophiles being “persecuted” also, Ben? Funny how you make it very clear that you don’t like either American or Christians, but God save people from your righteous fury if they attack criminals.

werdna: “Similarly we might agree that there are some instances of HIV transmission where criminal prosecution is warranted”

Might agree? And that’s the strong statement for today. Maybe some time, ever.

“, but we should also be able to discuss the specific problems with the ways laws are written and implemented without having our decency as ethical beings questioned.”

I suggest that you come with persuasive arguments. Generally, people are surprised to hear others advocate for the legal infliction of deliberate or reckless harm on other people. This might turn into the sentiment you describe, if you fail to come with good arguments.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:23:04 +0000

Werdna,

I welcome a reasoned and thoughtful counterargument. An objection based on practical policy always has a place in the debate.

When I have a moment I will read the piece you reference. However, based on the part I have read, I respectfully submit that the language suggests to me that Justice Cameron may have started with his conclusions and worked backwards. That doesn’t mean that he is wrong, but that I’ll have to hold a degree of skepticism in reading the piece.

But perhaps I’ll be swayed.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:52:57 +0000

Aaron, relatively few evil people aren’t going to be concerned with their own self-interest in avoiding jail although obviously there are some.

Prevention and crime and punishment is not an either/or situation. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.