Newsfeed : Federal Judge Upholds 50-Year Sentence for Iowa Man With HIV

POZ - Health, Life and HIV
Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
E-newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:

Back to home » Newsfeed » April 2012

Most Popular Links
Most Popular Lessons

The HIV Life Cycle

Shingles

Herpes Simplex Virus

Syphilis & Neurosyphilis

Treatments for Opportunistic Infections (OIs)

What is AIDS & HIV?

Hepatitis & HIV

15 Years Ago In POZ


More News

Click here for more news

Have news about HIV? Send press releases, news tips and other announcements to news@poz.com.


emailprint

April 13, 2012

Federal Judge Upholds 50-Year Sentence for Iowa Man With HIV

A federal judge upheld a 50-year prison term for an Iowa man convicted of having unprotected sex with women while knowing he was HIV positive, USA Today reports. Adam Musser was convicted on four counts of criminally transmitting HIV for failing to disclose he has HIV to female sexual partners in 2002 and 2003. At the time, Musser had been diagnosed with the virus and was taking HIV medication. After the Iowa Supreme Court upheld his conviction and sentence, he appealed to federal court. U.S. District Judge James Gritzner said Musser’s 50-year prison term was reasonable, noting that Musser’s rights were not violated and that he repeatedly subjected women to health risks.

To read the USA Today article, click here.

Search: Adam Musser, James Gritzner, Iowa man convicted, criminalization


Scroll down to comment on this story.



Name:

(will display; 2-50 characters)

Email:

(will NOT display)

City:

(will display; optional)

Comment (500 characters left):

(Note: The POZ team reviews all comments before they are posted. Please do not include either ":" or "@" in your comment. The opinions expressed by people providing comments are theirs alone. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Smart + Strong, which is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by people providing comments.)

Comments require captcha.
Please enter this number for verification:

| Posting Rules



Hide comments

Previous Comments:


  comments 16 - 30 (of 41 total)     << < previous next > >>

Jeton Ademaj, Harlem, NYC, 2012-04-30 14:23:46
Mitch, i reject useless groupthink fully detached from the real world. the burden of preventing transmission of HIV falls MORE heavily on HIV+ ppl than on HIV-, and that includes full disclosure. condoms will NEVER be universally adopted by either poz or neg ppl. HIV+ ppl deserve (and must fight for) all the rights enjoyed by others so long as we do not put others at risk involuntarily...denying ANY of these truths puts the entire poz community at risk. neither u nor this website speak for us.

mitch, , 2012-04-30 08:56:27
Jeton, between your lament over the loss of segregationist poz parties, and fighting for prep while 10,00+ people rot on wait lists, your own horrific comments on this and other sites leave me to wonder if you have crossed the line from being a "prevention advocate" to being someone who willfuly subordinates what is fair and sensible in favor of of a backwards majority opinion that you should be past. You're right, this is whistling in the wind, but its better to whistle than remain silent.

Brian, Beantown, 2012-04-22 10:18:10
The person who pointed out the inconsistency of legal provisions for HIV vs. any other communicable disease is correct that the judge should be fired and sent back to college. The fact is that EVERYONE is responsible to assume the other partner is pod until they are ready for a serious relationship, then they both get tested together. Anything short is absurd education. Girl asked him, he said "How could you ask that?"she went along-sorry-legal BS, the guy's stupid, she too, court-the worst!

Neolithika, , 2012-04-22 01:46:03
I didn't know what poz was until last night... I think its extremly important for someone not to beat around the bush and make sure there partner knows exactly wtf they are dealing with.

Jeton Ademaj, Harlem, NYC, 2012-04-19 15:21:36
i come to poz.com to read comments in the same way my husband is addicted to horror movies...cheap thrills. everyone who defends non-disclosure n blames the negative partner as "equally responsible" will have to face the fact that ur whistling in the political wind. if all we can do in response is declare "take the test and risk arrest!", then THIS is what's going to happen...mandatory testing, "u SHOULD have known ur poz" prosecutions as in France, and (God help us all) QUARANTINE. wait n see.

Mike, , 2012-04-19 06:47:11
The problem now is the confusion listed in the community. Those unfamiliar with HIV could be ignorant to the term undetectable and what it entails. I just read that even though someone is now undetectable they still may now have a detectable VL in their semen where as prior that was not commonly known. There are some who are trying to educate those out there with false senses of hope re the disease and that's the sad part is who do you trust?

just a stranger, , 2012-04-18 16:41:11
the biggest worry is that this will discourage testing. after all, you cannot be held liable if you "did not know". so why find out in the first place, especially when accidental transmissions can, and do, happen. this is a HUGE STEP backwards for the U.S., and for humanity as we search for a cure.

Jimmy, Poplarville, 2012-04-18 10:50:22
You are responsible for protecting your own body. There are still many who want to cause harm to other people for whatever selfish reasons they may have. I think 50 years is harsh but the jurisdiction now bears the liability for his healthcare.

Tom, USA, 2012-04-18 08:28:33
What bothers me more than the circumstances is that when you start to do this kind of thing how long before they all get together and decide that the only way to stop HIV is to isolate everyone who has it, then like a very bad science fiction movie, they will come to your door, and they will take you away, to live in a camp, think its not possible just keep sitting on your couch and you may one day find out that this is not as far away as you might think, this is how it starts.

EB, , 2012-04-18 01:48:35
How do you tell you have HIV? When do you tell, before the first kiss, right away... it's so easy to say that we Positive must tell... BUT HOW, AND WHEN!?

Jai, Jacksonville, 2012-04-18 01:29:15
To not hold the women involved 50% responsible is totally hypocritical. 99% of sexually active people know the consequences and are aware of the choices; to have sex or not to have sex, to use condoms or not to use condoms. When you willingly have unprotected sex, you in fact are responsible for yourself. True, he should be held responsible for not disclosing his status but truthfully we are all at risk when we agree to indulge. These women knew the possible outcome, a smile, a baby or illness.

Lynn, , 2012-04-17 21:06:59
Many of these comments below disgust me! Musser KNOWINGLY put those women at risk. He (a) should have disclosed his status, or (b) if he was too afraid to disclose it at least have the decency to wear protection. I personally know one of the victims and she straight up asked him and he told her he did not have it and couldn't believe she would even ask him something like that. Now tell me who is at fault!! Know your facts before you talk!!

Jorge, California, 2012-04-17 19:10:01
Question, if the Judge spreads the flu virus and someone dies from it does that mean he too should do time? Question. The women were having unprotected sex with the guy and he is responsible? It's obvious that the women were also having unprotected sex with others since they didn't have a problem having unprotected sex with this guy. Something fishy about this story.

Al, , 2012-04-17 18:40:43
I feel it should be more a question of morals vs legality with the threat of jail time. With all the advances being made towards HIV meds & therapy in this day & age, it is not the death sentence it once was. I do feel that the stigma of the disease has led to unfair laws being enforced. If we're going to start convicting people for not disclosing their HIV status to a partner consenting to unprotected sex, then expand the law to include all incurable diseases. Don't single out HIV+ people.

Revolted, Toronto, 2012-04-17 18:34:48
Somebody can infect another person simultaneously with hepatitis C, herpes, syphilis,chlamydia and gonorrhea which is NOT punishable of any criminal offense. But when comes to HIV infection, 50 years!!!! This judge should be the one going to jail; it might give him the wisdom to reflect on the stupidity of the American justice system, and refresh his knowledge in terms of a fair judgment. Any normal individual would recognize that the disclosure responsibility should be shared between partners.

comments 16 - 30 (of 41 total)     << < previous next > >>


[Go to top]

Join POZ Facebook Twitter Google+ MySpace YouTube Tumblr Flickr
Quick Links
Current Issue

HIV Testing
Safer Sex
Find a Date
Newly Diagnosed
HIV 101
Disclosing Your Status
Starting Treatment
Help Paying for Meds
Search for the Cure
POZ Stories
POZ Opinion
POZ Exclusives
Read the Blogs
Visit the Forums
Job Listings
Events Calendar


    CuteBoyinQns
    Jackson Heights
    New York


    koffeeboss
    Tucson
    Arizona


    pevans
    San Francisco
    California


    jacob2608
    Panama City Beach
    Florida
Click here to join POZ Personals!
Ask POZ Pharmacist

Talk to Us
Poll
Have you ever been tested for hepatitis C?
Yes
No

Survey
Pop Watch

more surveys
Contact Us
We welcome your comments!
[ about Smart + Strong | about POZ | POZ advisory board | partner links | advertising policy | advertise/contact us | site map]
© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved. Terms of use and Your privacy.
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.