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.
comments 16 - 30 (of 41 total)
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
comments 16 - 30 (of 41 total)
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.
[Go to top]