7 ms·

California moves to be the first state to outlaw 'stealthing'

19 points by hncurious 5y ago

throwawaysea 5y ago
This is a good thing. However, I can't understand how California is passing this law when they also reduced penalties for knowingly exposing someone to HIV (https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/new-california-law-reduces-penalty-knowingly-exposing-someone-hiv-n809416 https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/new-california-law-r...).
- 0-_-0 5y ago
  Probably because HIV is getting more treatable
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    So are all STDs so why bother with this new stealthing law then?
    - 0-_-0 5y ago
      HIV is not the only STD, and STDs are not the only reason to use a condom
- q1w2 5y ago
  "California" is not a monolithic entity that makes all decisions in a consistent manner.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > However, I can't understand how California is passing this law when they also reduced penalties for knowingly exposing someone to HIV Why? Even if we treat California in 2021 and California in 2017 as a single unitary actor here, it is quite possible to think “stealthing” (not currently a felony, maybe arguably included in a misdemeanor but never prosecuted, and not clearly actionable under civil law) is underpunished and ought to at least be made clearly subject to civil liability, while also thinking that knowing exposure to HIV (prior to 2017 explicitly a felony) was overpunished, and ought only to be treated criminally as a misdemeanor, and only when there is intent to infect (the same as knowing exposure to other communicable diseases.)
blitzar 5y ago
Did they need to create a new law for this? Would it not just be considered rape?
- threatofrain 5y ago
  This is not changing the criminal code, it's creating civil liability for those who engage in this activity. It's already illegal but it is rarely prosecuted because of the high standards for a criminal case.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Did they need to create a new law for this? Yes. > Would it not just be considered rape? No, as stated in the article it might arguably be misdemeanor sexual battery (not rape, which is a felony) under existing criminal law, but it is essentially never prosecuted as such. Making it unambiguously subject to civil liability provides some clearly-available remedy, and one which does not rely on public prosecutors deciding to prioritize the act.
- true_religion 5y ago
  Hard to prosecute as such since people would just argue: 'it fell off. You didn't notice. I didn't notice, thus no reason to send me to prision.' Much easier to hit someone with civil liabilities, especially if you prove they have a pattern of things 'falling off'.
polartx 5y ago
I may be taking crazy pills, but an alternative solution which doesn’t require legislative approval, is to restrict intercourse to only those whom you trust.
- q1w2 5y ago
  Laws are made specifically to lower the bar for trust in the people you interact with in society.
  - true_religion 5y ago
    Oh that's a really good argument as to why we accept numerous restrictions on personal freedom, and broad survillance by the state: because if you weigh it rightly, a thousand beaurocratic sounding papercuts, allow you to walk down dark alleyways without fear.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  That is not an alternative solution, because it does not deal with the abuse of trust.
- blitzar 5y ago
  Lets scrap murder laws then and we can apply your alternative solution - restrict those that point a gun at your head to just those you trust.
q1w2 5y ago
> legislative analysts said at the time that the act could already be considered misdemeanor sexual battery, even if it isn't specifically referenced in the criminal code. ...so all this does is make it explicitly a civil violation, making it easier for women to sue perpetrators for damages. Civil court has a significantly lower bar for evidence than criminal court, so I wonder if this will be abused using false accusations.

19 points by hncurious 5y ago

This is a good thing. However, I can't understand how California is passing this law when they also reduced penalties for knowingly exposing someone to HIV (https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/new-california-law-reduces-penalty-knowingly-exposing-someone-hiv-n809416 https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/new-california-law-r...).

0-_-0 5y ago
Probably because HIV is getting more treatable
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  So are all STDs so why bother with this new stealthing law then?
  - 0-_-0 5y ago
    HIV is not the only STD, and STDs are not the only reason to use a condom
q1w2 5y ago
"California" is not a monolithic entity that makes all decisions in a consistent manner.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> However, I can't understand how California is passing this law when they also reduced penalties for knowingly exposing someone to HIV Why? Even if we treat California in 2021 and California in 2017 as a single unitary actor here, it is quite possible to think “stealthing” (not currently a felony, maybe arguably included in a misdemeanor but never prosecuted, and not clearly actionable under civil law) is underpunished and ought to at least be made clearly subject to civil liability, while also thinking that knowing exposure to HIV (prior to 2017 explicitly a felony) was overpunished, and ought only to be treated criminally as a misdemeanor, and only when there is intent to infect (the same as knowing exposure to other communicable diseases.)

blitzar 5y ago

Did they need to create a new law for this? Would it not just be considered rape?

threatofrain 5y ago
This is not changing the criminal code, it's creating civil liability for those who engage in this activity. It's already illegal but it is rarely prosecuted because of the high standards for a criminal case.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Did they need to create a new law for this? Yes. > Would it not just be considered rape? No, as stated in the article it might arguably be misdemeanor sexual battery (not rape, which is a felony) under existing criminal law, but it is essentially never prosecuted as such. Making it unambiguously subject to civil liability provides some clearly-available remedy, and one which does not rely on public prosecutors deciding to prioritize the act.
true_religion 5y ago
Hard to prosecute as such since people would just argue: 'it fell off. You didn't notice. I didn't notice, thus no reason to send me to prision.' Much easier to hit someone with civil liabilities, especially if you prove they have a pattern of things 'falling off'.

polartx 5y ago

I may be taking crazy pills, but an alternative solution which doesn’t require legislative approval, is to restrict intercourse to only those whom you trust.

q1w2 5y ago
Laws are made specifically to lower the bar for trust in the people you interact with in society.
- true_religion 5y ago
  Oh that's a really good argument as to why we accept numerous restrictions on personal freedom, and broad survillance by the state: because if you weigh it rightly, a thousand beaurocratic sounding papercuts, allow you to walk down dark alleyways without fear.
dragonwriter 5y ago
That is not an alternative solution, because it does not deal with the abuse of trust.
blitzar 5y ago
Lets scrap murder laws then and we can apply your alternative solution - restrict those that point a gun at your head to just those you trust.

q1w2 5y ago

> legislative analysts said at the time that the act could already be considered misdemeanor sexual battery, even if it isn't specifically referenced in the criminal code. ...so all this does is make it explicitly a civil violation, making it easier for women to sue perpetrators for damages. Civil court has a significantly lower bar for evidence than criminal court, so I wonder if this will be abused using false accusations.