Survivors of AIDS-era exposure laws are fighting to overturn statutes that ignore modern science and disproportionately punish LGBTQ Americans of color.
The article says that, he-said-she-said aside, she was undetectable for HIV back when changes were pressed against her. Assuming that’s true, she wouldn’t have been able to spread HIV anyway.
But even if she was completely guilty, how does that make her a potential threat who must be kept away from kids? Seems very much like a case where the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.
There’s a ton of shit you can do to land you on the sex offender registry that has nothing to do with children. Two consenting adults having sex in their car at Makeout Point can land you on the list, public nudity can land you on the list, being HIV positive can land you on the list.
The “tough on crime” proponents always brush these complaints off a pedo-apology, but they can’t explain why non-child-related crimes should put you on the pedo list.
The article says that, he-said-she-said aside, she was undetectable for HIV back when changes were pressed against her. Assuming that’s true, she wouldn’t have been able to spread HIV anyway.
But even if she was completely guilty, how does that make her a potential threat who must be kept away from kids? Seems very much like a case where the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.
There’s a ton of shit you can do to land you on the sex offender registry that has nothing to do with children. Two consenting adults having sex in their car at Makeout Point can land you on the list, public nudity can land you on the list, being HIV positive can land you on the list.
The “tough on crime” proponents always brush these complaints off a pedo-apology, but they can’t explain why non-child-related crimes should put you on the pedo list.
yep both of you have valid points