An
assistant
United
States
Attorney
who
has
prosecuted
sex
offense
cases
in
D.C.
has
invited
members
of
the
gay
community
to
weigh
in
on
whether
the
District
should
pass
a
law
making
it
a
crime
to
intentionally
expose
someone
to
HIV.
“We
are
not
yet
ready
to
propose
legislation,”
said
Assistant
U.S.
Attorney
Pat
Riley,
legislative
affairs
director
for
the
Office
of
the
U.S.
Attorney
for
the
District
of
Columbia.
“It’s
an
exploratory
look
into
what
the
thinking
is
in
the
community
on
whether
there
should
be
legislation,”
she
said.
Riley
said
her
office
received
inquires
from
the
public
about
strengthening
the
city’s
ability
to
prosecute
people
who
intentionally
expose
others
to
HIV
following
the
prosecution
earlier
this
year
of
a
former
D.C.
government
employee
for
engaging
in
unprotected
sex
with
at
least
seven
female
partners,
including
a
15-year-old
girl,
without
informing
them
he
was
HIV
positive.
Sundiata
Basir,
34,
who
worked
from
1999
to
2002
as
an
aide
to
then
D.C.
Deputy
Mayor
Carolyn
Graham,
pleaded
guilty
in
July
to
attempted
aggravated
assault,
child
sexual
abuse
and
cruelty
to
children.
The
charges
against
him
came
after
several
of
the
female
partners
informed
authorities
that
he
was
responsible
for
infecting
them
with
HIV.
Among
those
from
whom
he
concealed
his
HIV
status,
according
to
prosecutors,
was
his
wife,
who
was
17
when
he
married
her
in
2002.
D.C.
Superior
Court
Judge
Robert
Richter
on
Nov.
3
sentenced
Basir
to
21
years
in
prison
for
the
offenses.
“I
had
people,
both
gay
and
straight,
crying
that
they
got
infected
by
people
who
did
not
tell
them
they
were
HIV
positive,”
Riley
said.
According
to
Riley,
prosecutors
in
D.C.
could
use
an
existing
assault
law
to
prosecute
some
cases
of
alleged
intentional
exposure
to
HIV.
But
she
said
the
existing
law
presents
potential
problems
for
such
prosecutions,
and
a
new
law
specifically
criminalizing
intentional
HIV
exposure
could
provide
a
better
tool
for
carrying
out
such
prosecutions.
Maryland
and
Virginia
are
among
27
states
that
have
already
criminalized
intentional
HIV
exposure.
Gay
and
AIDS
activists
have
had
mixed
views
on
criminalizing
intentional
HIV
exposure.
Matt
Coles,
director
of
the
American
Civil
Liberties
Union’s
Gay
&
Lesbian
Rights
Project,
said
the
ACLU
believes
criminalizing
intentional
exposure
to
HIV
is
unnecessary
because
existing
criminal
assault
laws
in
most
if
not
all
states
already
allow
the
government
to
prosecute
these
cases.
“Unless
there
is
a
real
need
and
a
problem
with
D.C.’s
assault
laws,
you
shouldn’t
write
a
specific
law
for
HIV
transmission,”
Coles
said.
Rick
Rosendall,
vice
president
of
the
Gay
&
Lesbian
Activists
Alliance
of
D.C.,
echoed
Coles’
assessment,
saying
a
new
law
criminalizing
HIV
exposure
could
further
drive
people
with
HIV
underground.
“This
will
have
the
harmful
effect
of
discouraging
people
from
getting
tested,”
Rosendall
said.
Sterling
Washington,
co-chair
of
the
D.C.
Coalition
of
Black
Lesbians
&
Gay
Men,
said
he
sees
advantages
and
disadvantages
to
such
a
law
and
wants
to
see
its
specific
provisions
before
coming
out
for
or
against
it.
“In
some
respects,
that
kind
of
law
would
deter
some
improper
behavior,”
Washington
said.
“It
would
scare
a
lot
of
people
into
being
honest
with
their
partners,
and
that’s
good.”
AIDS
prevention
advocates
have
said
people
should
always
use
condoms
when
engaging
in
sexual
acts
where
bodily
fluids
can
be
exchanged
unless
they
are
absolutely
certain
that
their
partner
is
HIV
negative.
While
agreeing
with
this
advice,
some
gay
and
AIDS
activists
in
recent
years
have
criticized
people
with
HIV
who
engage
in
unprotected
sex
at
bathhouses
and
sex
clubs
and
don’t
disclose
their
HIV
status.
Frank
Gumani,
a
spokesperson
for
the
National
Association
of
People
With
AIDS,
said
he
believes
persons
who
willfully
transmit
HIV
to
another
person
deserve
to
be
punished.
But
he
said
existing
laws
aimed
at
doing
this
in
other
states
and
in
foreign
countries
appear
to
have
had
negative
consequences
and
don’t
appear
to
have
curtailed
the
overall
rate
of
HIV
transmission.
“It
discourages
people
from
getting
tested,”
he
said.
D.C.
Councilmember
Phil
Mendelson
(D-At-Large),
chair
of
the
Council’s
Judiciary
Committee,
said
he
would
support
a
bill
to
criminalize
the
intentional
exposure
of
HIV
if
he
determines
that
existing
assault
laws
could
not
be
used
to
effectively
prosecute
such
cases.
Bills
of
this
type
must
come
before
Mendelson’s
committee
for
approval
before
they
could
advance
to
the
full
Council.
“I
suspect
that
the
existing
laws
may
not
be
sufficient,”
Mendelson
said.
“If
someone
willfully
or
even
negligently
spreads
AIDS,
I
think
they
should
pay
a
consequence.”
He
said
he
would
consider
expanding
such
a
bill
to
cover
other
communicable
diseases
such
as
Hepatitis
B.
The
Virginia
statute
covers
the
intentional
exposure
to
syphilis
as
well
as
Hepatitis
B
and
HIV.
Mendelson
said
he
would
hold
a
public
hearing
to
obtain
the
views
of
the
public
and
experts
on
HIV
on
any
proposal
on
the
subject
submitted
by
the
U.S.
Attorney’s
office.
Gay
D.C.
Councilmember
Jim
Graham
(D-Ward
1),
who
served
as
head
of
D.C.’s
Whitman-Walker
Clinic
before
winning
election
to
the
Council,
expressed
caution
about
moving
ahead
with
legislation
suggested
by
Riley.
“I
would
want
to
know
the
justification
for
an
HIV
transmission
bill
before
I
consider
supporting
it,”
he
said.
