Nov 18, 2005  |  By: LOU CHIBBARO, JR.  | COMMENTS     

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.

Mixed views

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 ...