May 22, 2013
Minnesota Court Asked to Reinstate Conviction of Man With HIV
The Minnesota Supreme Court is considering reinstating the conviction of a man living with HIV who was accused of transmitting the virus to another man, The Associated Press reports. Daniel James Rick was convicted in 2011 of attempted first-degree assault under a law that makes it illegal to knowingly transfer a communicable disease. The conviction was reversed in 2012 by the state Appeals Court, which found the law ambiguous. Advocates said the interpretation of the law by the state violates the rights of people with HIV to have consensual sex, even if they have disclosed to sex partners.
To read the article, click here.
Search: Minnesota, criminalization, Daniel James Rick
Scroll down to comment on this story.
comments 1 - 6 (of 6 total)
Ross Robbins, Portland, 2013-05-28 18:31:29
Quickly, everyone, to the courts! Don't bother taking responsibility for your own behavior! After all, you can punish those terrible sex partners who forced you to bareback! Ugh, how ridiculous.
Andrew, , 2013-05-28 17:19:13
Agree with Jeton regarding culpability but agree with Cain regarding responsibility. I used to 'presume' as the former stated and those presumptions got me in trouble. So yea, I wish I had not presumed but taken responsibility.
I'm with the ACLU on this one but reading the full story, it seems this guy was really on a roll. Hopefully this has slowed him down.
megan, , 2013-05-28 15:03:45
I think this is stupid. My fiance has it and they wanna take away my rights as his woman to have sex with my man. Uh no not gonna fly with me
Nigel, Boca Raton, Florida, 2013-05-28 14:18:37
Doesn't the Minnesota Supreme court have better things to concentrate on than consuel sexual encounters. Clearly both parties need counseling and help ..... and the person infected with HIV has by this time suffered enough. And the man who foolishly had unprotected consensual sex needs to own his part in this saga. The gay community has suffered enough with this disease and all of us deserve compassion.....Nigel
Jeton Ademaj, Harlem, NYC, 2013-05-22 22:53:35
uhm, no. this man obeyed the law in his state. as their Appellate Court made clear, if any sexual exposure was meant to be included in the 2nd part of the law, the first part would be redundant. the first part of the law (tell your sex partners) underlines that the 2nd part can not apply to sex. btw, a neg person acquiring HIV by not using a condom with a presumed-neg partner who infects them will NEVER equal the culpability of the poz partner who hid their status, all poz activism be damned!
Cain Cocteau, Austin, 2013-05-22 12:38:45
comments 1 - 6 (of 6 total)
this should not be actionable,a person should be responsible for themselves, make sure to insist on condoms, if you do not , then its your own fault.
[Go to top]