Crime and Punishment, with Sex Offenders

I've been struggling a bit to find a suitable topic for this post, mostly because I don't follow the news as closely as I once did.  But while crawling the web tonight, looking for something notable that I could write about (and that interested me), I came across an article that gave me pause.  In short, I think it'll do.  You can see the article for yourself here.

For those not wishing to click through and read the article, I'll summarize.  In June of 2008, two men of an appropriate age engaged in consensual sex.  One of them, named Nick, is HIV-positive.  Despite being aware of his condition, he didn't disclose it to his partner, named Adam, basing the decision around his being on medication and using proper protection.  Three months later, Nick was arrested and charged with criminal transmission of HIV - which, in Iowa (where the incident took place), is a charge comparable to manslaughter, robbery, and kidnapping.  Nick entered a plea of guilty, on the advice of his attorney, even though Adam eventually tested negative for HIV.  The result?  Nick was incarcerated for nine months with a bond of $250,000, and was eventually sentenced to 25 years in prison.  He appealed his sentence to the judge, and is now out of prison - although on supervised probation.  He's also had to register as a sex offender, and will have to do so for the rest of his life.

So, was this an appropriate punishment for the crime that took place?  ... Parts of it, I can (mostly) agree with, but I don't agree with most of it.  The only thing that Nick was guilty of was not disclosing his condition to Adam before they engaged in their sexual encounter.  This isn't even remotely okay - if you have a condition, it's your responsibility to inform the other person about it beforehand - both as a responsible human being, and as someone who (assumedly) cares about the person you're doing things with.  Do I believe Nick was at fault for that?  Absolutely.  I don't, however, agree with him being charged with "criminal transmission of HIV".  As stated earlier - no such transmission took place.  How can you rightfully charge someone with something that didn't actually happen?  It's not even like one of the highly-publicized court cases where the jury decided someone was not guilty - there's irrefutable proof that the crime didn't occur.  Does Nick's plea of guilty supercede hard, factual evidence?  This really confuses me, and makes me wonder why we don't have some sort of "common sense clause" to prevent that sort of thing (or, if we do, why it wasn't used).

So, Nick was charged with what he was charged with.  First off, $250,000 bond?  Really?  I mean, for someone who's well-known and, you know, actually has that kind of money, then sure.  But Nick seems like your everyday kind of guy, and most people I know don't have a spare quarter of a million dollars to post for bond.  Why set a bond at all, if it's going to be something so ridiculous?  And as far as the sentencing goes - 25 years in prison seems like a pretty harsh sentence for this kind of thing.  Did Nick screw up?  Absolutely. I don't think he should spend a quarter (or more) of his life in prison because of it (again, especially because of the lack of transmission).  The nine months he spent incarcerated before the trial seems like it was enough, to me.  I don't see the point of the prison sentence.

Now, the bit about registering as a sex offender is where I start getting into my personal gray area.  First off, I want to think out loud (or, in text, as you will) about the concept of a sex offender registration.  What's the purpose of it?  The obvious answer is to identify people who are potentially dangerous and/or of a higher risk to break the law concerning sexual activities.  One of the notable facts about the sex offender registry, however, is that it doesn't differentiate (on the surface) between the different crimes committed.  Looking up an individual on the website does give you details about what they were convicted of, and when - but it requires you to search out that individual person.  On the surface, people like Nick are lumped in with people who have been convicted of child molestation, rape, and the like.  Is this wrong?  ... That's hard to say.  I believe there are changes that could help the system, such as a more visible initial differential between the different crimes, or for lesser crimes, a time-limited registration.  I'm a big believer in second chances for people, and after what he went through with Adam, I would have to believe that Nick isn't likely to fail to disclose his condition again.  Despite this, he'll still have to be a registered sex offender for the foreseeable future, and he'll be more limited in his opportunities because of that.  I know that there's no perfect solution out there for this kind of thing, but it seems wrong to lump all offenders together on a single list, regardless of the nature of their crime.

That's about all I've got for this topic.  Pendleton will be here tomorrow with her topic, and as always, feel free to leave any comments or thoughts below (and on the other entries in our blog).  Thanks for reading.

Blood and Dude Sex

First off, I'd like to say that I'm incredibly excited to say that this is the one hundredth post to this blog, and it seems like a fitting time for implementing a new format. To kick off the first of our Current Events weeks, I'm going to talk about an issue that sort of ties into last week's topic of discrimination that I couldn't figure out how to bring up in my post, so I'm gonna ramble a bit about it here: blood donation and the non-heterosexual male.

For those of you that don't know, one of the FDA's current policies (originally enacted in 1985, back before we really understood what AIDS was or how it spread) for donated blood is that if you are a male that has had sexual contact with another male even once since 1977, you are not allowed to donate blood. If you are a female that has had sexual contact with a male that has had sexual contact with another male even once since 1977, you are not allowed to donate blood for one year after last exposure. This issue is one that carries a lot of weight for me on a personal level, so perhaps I should start with explaining my background with it.

I've been donating blood with a semi-large group of my friends fairly regularly since December 2009. Usually the majority of us are able to give, but there's almost always at least one of us that can't. Ever since they eliminated the maximum pulse requirement, that one person has never been me. I'm also one of the least prone in our group to serious problems with feeling ill afterward. My blood type is O+, which means that my red cells can go to anyone that has an Rh positive blood type. All things considered, I'm a pretty great blood donor.

I'm also bisexual. I've yet to ever be  in a sexual relationship with another guy (for reasons that are not to be discussed on this blog), but if I were in that position... I'm not really sure what I'd do. Actually, I know exactly what I'd do. I'd lie to the blood donor center. I'd also invite my theoretical boyfriend to come give blood with me the next time I went.

Now, I'm not going to pretend that MSMs aren't at a somewhat higher risk than straight guys for contracting HIV. That being said, I'm pretty sure that the difference between being a slut that'll fuck anything with a pulse and opposite-sex sex organs and having sex only in the context of a committed relationship is far more significant for determining risk than sexual orientation.

I can understand why the fear of AIDS and lack of understanding led to the creation of this ban on MSM blood donors, but the fact that it exists in this day and age is utterly ridiculous. I have a lot of facts from the American Red Cross about blood donation and why we need more people doing it, but the most striking is that under 38% of the population is eligible to give blood, and the fact of the matter is that most people simply don't.

I think that Spain and Italy have the right idea on this. As stated in the article, their policies prevent donation if you've had more than one sex partner in the past six months, regardless of sexual orientation. This makes much more sense, and with how much more reliable HIV tests are today, there's no real reason to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Giving up the opportunity for perfectly healthy blood because of a homophobic policy is just... absurd.

As a final note, I wholeheartedly encourage everybody reading to head over to their nearest blood donor center and go through the screening process to try to give blood. I can't stand needles, and this kept me from trying to give blood for a while, but upon finally being convinced that it was worth trying once, I found that it wasn't that bad. You don't have to look at the needle when it goes in, it doesn't hurt, it's over before you know it, there are rarely any adverse effects unless you fail to follow the instructions given, and you get free cookies and juice.

...Seriously, who doesn't love free cookies and juice?

Current Events and a New Format

Okay, I'm here to announce some structural changes starting this week. Normally this space (as you know) is used to announce the topic we've selected to discuss this week. But with this week, and every other week after, this space won't be as needed. That is because we elected the weeks to be "news story weeks."

Basically, I'm going to lay out the month format for you to see.

Week 1: Current Events
Week 2: Breather Topic (aka: usually in the style of "favorite ___")
Week 3: Current Events
Week 4: Serious Topic (aka: the stuff we've usually been talking about)

When we say "Current Events" we mean that each person is going to pick a news story for that week that interests them, and write about it. For two weeks out of the month we won't all be writing about the same topic, instead we'll be sharing something that we personally think is interesting and want to show you.

So I hope you'll find the new format enjoyable and as interesting as we find it ourselves. I'm am personally looking forward to what everyone has to share this week.

Equality for everyone, but please no politics!

Okay, so I liked this topic and spent a lot of time figuring out what I wanted to say, so hopefully I can make some kind of sense.  Discrimination has been a natural part of our history, based on race, gender, and other qualifications.  Many people have participated in discrimination even without consciously realizing it, by their actions against certain people.  Laws have been set up for lowering the amount of discrimination that is apparent in our society, and they have had varying amounts of success.

I don't know much about individual anti-discrimination laws, but they seem to all relate to giving minority groups more rights, correct?  Also, the definition of a "minority group" is a little fuzzy to me.  Why does women count as a minority group?  Aren't there just as many women as men, or is my perception of our population just majorly screwed up?  I don't know, I could be wrong, I have no idea.  I understand Hispanics or blacks in the United States being a minority group, because there is a  lesser percentage of them compared to the whole.  But isn't the gender ratio relatively equal?

So, I also don't really understand feminists who are obsessed with getting absolutely equal rights and then get pissed when the men fire back at them about things like maternity leave.  I don't really get that, but then I also have no idea about the discrimination in the workplace, which is what I think people are generally getting at when they are talking about such issues.  I think that if is isn't really a big issue for you, don't worry about it.  It's not really worth all the fuss to just get a raise or something just because of being a woman, instead of just taking it.  But then, I'm a really easy-going person and don't care much about working politics.

Races are also an interesting discussion.  Due to the lovely racism prior to the Civil War, we seem to still have a general spat between blacks and whites, even though most people have gotten over it all.  It seems to have gone crazy, with a fuss being made when whites do something racist towards minority groups even if there are cases of the opposite happening.  Or maybe that's just what you hear more of, I don't know.  I think the laws pertaining to races should be equal, just on principle.  I have no idea of they are or not, but they should be.

Now we get to sexual orientation.  I think the Chick-Fil-A deal is a bit worn out by now, and I won't go into that at all.  I personally think that non-strait people should have all the same rights and freedoms and such that straight people have.  It should just be like that, and there shouldn't be a major fuss about it.  I could probably go longer on this, but I won't for the sake of everyone reading this post.

So hopefully that wasn't too ramble-y and chaotic.  Enjoy reading the news topics that every is going to be posting next week!

Harassment is never okay.

Hello, everyone. So, like, um, everyone here, I'm also white and (I think?) middle class. I'm also a chick. I believe we've made this part clear.

That said, despite whatever class I may be in, I kind of grew up in the ghetto, but to be honest, didn't really realize it until I started going to school outside of it. I remember looking around near the end of my 5th grade year and noticing that I was literally the only white person in my class. I can't tell you if that's an accurate descriptor of how my entire elementary school education went, because I honestly don't remember. I didn't notice or care what race anyone else was. It didn't make a difference because I was tiny and didn't care about such things.

Honestly though, to me, it really just feels like discrimination based on race is an issue that just isn't from our time. I don't feel like I've passed judgments based on race nor do I really feel like anyone I know has. Because of this, I really feel like laws meant to "level the playing field" based on race are really superfluous. Obviously, we shouldn't get rid of anti-discrimination laws. There needs to be a legal basis for persecuting the kind of jerkfaces who would make decisions that way, but I just don't think it's widespread enough to require things like affirmative action to get there. John brought up the idea of equal opportunity employers and that's great, so I don't understand why there are practices that explicitly take into account things like race and gender.

The fact is that whether you are black, white, hispanic, Asian, or whatever race you identify as, you should be judged by the qualities you have and not what race you are. That said, there are definitely people that are at a disadvantage. It is so much harder to go from a family that has never gone to college and expects you to go straight to work after (or during) high school to a college education. That is a hard road that requires a lot of work and that sucks, however, that road is just as hard regardless of what race you are. If you are white and impoverished, that doesn't make you less impoverished. Basically, as far as leveling the playing field goes, I think it can be necessary, but I really think the factors that need to be leveled might be race-corrolated, but that's certainly not what they should be based on.

Unfortunately, I do think there's a bigger issue that America has today regarding discrimination, and I think that that's discrimination based on gender. In case you haven't gathered by now, I'm a girl majoring in computer science, which is a heavily male-dominated field. The problem is that while being a different race doesn't really affect anything, being a different gender does (a bit). Females get pregnant (Guys do not). Societally, females are more likely to be stay-at-home parents than males are. Honestly though, I really feel like the major problem is just the way people treat gender relations. Societally, there are a lot of differences between what men and women are expected to be, and a lot of them are crap. For example, there was a recent controversy about a woman who entered a fighting game tournament and eventually quit because of being sexually harassed. When asked for comment about it, the coach actually said that "the sexual harassment is part of our culture, and if you remove that from the fighting game community, it's not the fighting game community."

Obviously, you can find horror stories anywhere about any discrimination, but this seems so much more widespread. Genders are different and I don't think we as a society have really moved past that people can be whatever they want to be (or be into whoever they want to be). I'm a programmer and I feel like because I'm a girl, I have to work harder and be better than my male counterparts because I'm absolutely terrified of being hired just because I'm a chick. I remember when my friend got into college with me I was so excited, not just for him, but because that meant that someone with similar qualifications to me was accepted into the same program. And while I guess it's hard to argue against something that makes me work harder and be better, that's just not something I should have to be afraid of.

I firmly believe that in a lot of respects (and as cheesy as it sounds), diversity is its own reward. If you're working on designing a game (I admit I have a bit of a narrow focus), you want as many different ideas and viewpoints as you can. If you were constantly surrounded by the people you grew up with and went to school with, then how much would you really be challenged and grow? I believe that there are so many advantages to casting as broad a net as possible and I believe that there are qualified people in just about all of those categories. However, if you're not qualified for a job, you shouldn't get it solely on the basis of being the token [insert minority here].

What does "level playing field" really mean anyway?

Continuing with the pattern— I am a white female and, like many others, I come from a middle class background.  I wish I had thought to share more about my background sooner, because I think that our circumstances play a great role in shaping what our opinions.  It kinda seems like good stuff to keep in mind when you read anything.  On the issue of anti-discrimination law, I think that as long as discrimination exists, anti-discrimination laws need to exist.  I know that I’m stating the obvious, but this is pretty much common ground that reasonable people can agree upon.  But, the question over whether our current anti-discrimination laws working too hard or not working hard enough? That’s a bit more complicated.

In some cases, anti-discrimination laws can help to level the playing field by creating “equal opportunities”.  Sadly, an outside force cannot really create equal opportunity; there are just too many factors that can’t realistically be addressed.  A teacher at my high school once told my class about a struggling student who was in one of her classes a long time ago.  This student rarely did his homework, he slept during class, and he performed poorly on tests and quizzes.  By this point, I was wondering what this kid’s issue was.  Why didn’t he go to sleep at home and actually try to pay attention during class?  So then my teacher told the class that when she talked to the student about his performance, he told her that he was rarely able to get a full night’s sleep because his dad would wake him up at one or two in the morning and get him to help with some kind of overnight work related to his job, and that’s why he had a hard time staying awake in class.  Now, I have no idea if this story was true or not, but it sounds pretty plausible for the time and place that it supposedly occurred.  Long story short, the kid received tutoring and he was able to pass, but he certainly wasn’t about to head off to college, because his dad needed him at home.  So even though some factors can be addressed, we can’t put anyone on true equal footing, and that’s something that we need to keep in mind.  

Anti-discrimination laws can also open new loopholes for those looking to gain the system, and often times those who the laws are set up to help aren’t receiving the benefits they should.  I know that loopholes can be found within any set of laws, but I’ve seen far too many people take advantage of “equalizers” that they didn’t really need just because they knew how to twist the facts in order to work the system, and they end up taking away from someone who really could have used the benefits.  That, and sometimes the people who benefit from anti-discrimination law are able to take their benefits too far, and that’s not good either.  Behold, a new can of worms is opened.  

To echo what Brandon said earlier this week, it seems that a lot of anti-discrimination laws aren’t really solving issues so much as they’re providing quick fixes to problems.  I agree; if we really want anti-discrimination laws to work, then we have to look at the root of the issue.  I think that the terms of many anti-discrimination laws need to be refreshed to ensure that the laws are serving their purpose as best they can.        Anti-discrimination laws will never be able to do what we really need for them to do, that is, to end discrimination or create an environment where discrimination cannot exist, anti-discrimination laws are definitely necessary in a world in which discrimination exists.    

After all, death discriminates against no one.

I suppose I'll follow the trend here and give a bit of background info about myself, and my status, before we get started with my thoughts on this week's topic.  I'm white, and... well, I think that my family is upper-middle class.  I'm really not sure, to be honest, because I have a lot of conflicting things in that respect.  For lack of a better solution, though, I'm just going to go with that.

Anti-discrimination laws are something that I find fairly difficult to discuss, because I find it pretty hard to track the impact that they have (or the extent to which they're followed).  Most of my experience with these laws are going to come from my job, as I've dealt with the hiring (and firing, sometimes) of new employees for the last 6+ years.  I'm not sure if I'll be able to come up with any thoughts outside of that particular box, but I'll try, at least.

Equal opportunity.  I really didn't understand the impact that those two words had until I started doing interviews and hiring people to work.  For anyone unfamiliar, being an "equal opportunity employer" mandates that you don't discriminate for or against applicants based on any non-essential traits that may exist (race, gender, orientation, etc).  What does this mean for employers?  Essentially, it means that you take the necessary steps to ensure you're following those rules and protecting yourself.  My place of employment has a very structured interview guide, and several of the questions on it are ridiculous.  Nonetheless, I use that guide with every single person that I interview.  Why?  Because having that constant is the first step in providing equal opportunity.  If you're asking every applicant the same questions, then there's no favoritism, no "free rides"... the decision is (or should be, anyway) based off of the applicant's answers to the questions. I once had an applicant threaten me with a lawsuit, because I hired another person over them - they claimed that I was discriminating against them, based on their race.  I invited them to do so, and nothing came of it.  In that respect, I would have been able to prove that I was following the law, and within that scope, I think that the laws do a fantastic job of ensuring equal opportunity - when they're followed.  Compliance is something that each individual has to take ownership of, and I feel comfortable in saying that it's not a priority for a lot of people.  I don't see an effective way to change this, however, without instituting some regular review of the hiring processes for every company in existence.  That's not likely to happen.

I've never really run into any issues with employees complaining about not getting opportunities, either - not based on anything discriminatory-wise, anyway.  I've trained a lot of employees, and I've promoted a lot of employees, and there have been members of multiple races within that group.  Again, I think it's entirely possible that there are some people out there who give more opportunities to people based on factors that they shouldn't, and I agree that it's wrong - but I don't see a way we can effectively monitor that sort of thing and stop it (proactively, anyway).

What groups should be protected by anti-discriminatory laws?  All of them.  In my opinion, discrimination is most commonly thought of as white people discriminating against other races.  That may be true in some cases - but not all of them.  The truth of the matter is that everyone has the potential to discriminate against everyone else, whether they're a different race or not.  I was discriminated against in the 11th grade by my Marketing teacher, because I steadfastly refused to join DECA (an international association of marketing enthusiasts, students, whatever).  I was the only member of the class not to join, and so I kept the teacher from hitting the 100% enrollment mark that she so desired - and so I was discriminated against.  My completed assignments were marked down for no reason, I was forced to stay after class just to use the shared printer... that class was absolute hell for me.  Did I deserve to be discriminated against?  Not at all.  Would bringing it to the attention of the authorities (the principal, school board, somebody) have helped?  Maybe, maybe not.  My point is that everyone is susceptible to discrimination, and everyone is capable of discriminating.  It's up to each person to determine how they'll act (or react) in any situation.

I got kind of off-topic with that, and I apologize for that.  My thoughts, basically, are that anti-discrimination is a thing that everyone in the world should embrace and practice.  Do I think it will happen?  No.  I also don't think that laws can be but so effective in making it happen.  I briefly considered whether an extreme law might help  - for example, stranding a diverse group of people on an island for a month, and forcing them to try to work together to survive.  But realistically, I think that would end in bloodshed and tribal wars.  Discrimination is an unfortunate part of the world, and everyone would be better off if it didn't exist.  If you have any fantastic ideas about how to end it, write your local congressman or senator.

Random thought for (hopeful) comments - if I attempted to start a cable TV channel based around white music and entertainment and was denied, would I have a case for discrimination, given that such channels exist for other races?