Darren Chiacchia, 45, an Olympic bronze medalist in equestrian, faces 30 years in a Florida prison after being charged with not revealing his HIV status to a former boyfriend after they had multiple sexual encounters.
The case, which goes to trial in June, stems from laws selectively used in 32 states that make it a felony for someone who is HIV-positive to have sex without informing their partner of their status. In Chiacchia’s case, he met a man on a gay dating site in February 2009 and they dated until June. The unidentified man, who says he was HIV-negative at the time, broke off the relationship after discovering Chiacchia’s status and informing the Ocala, Fla., sheriff, who filed charges. The man’s current HIV status is unknown.
Florida is one of at least 32 states nationwide that have criminal statutes specific to H.I.V., many of which date to the height of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s and 1990s, when fear of spreading the disease was at its peak. As the science and treatment of H.I.V. and AIDS have changed considerably in the ensuing decades, fear of infection has subsided. However, the laws remain on the books, and prosecutors continue to enforce them. …
A recent survey by the Center for H.I.V. Law and Policy documented at least 50 cases nationwide since January 2008. But laws can be unevenly applied, even within a state. Although records show that at least 71 people have been arrested under Florida’s H.I.V. law since it was enacted, Mr. Chiacchia is believed to be the first in his five-county region to be prosecuted under the law, said the assistant state attorney handling the case.
In 2004, Mr. Chiacchia helped the United States equestrian team win an Olympic bronze medal in the eventing competition in Athens. He was preparing for the Beijing Olympics in March 2008 when his horse tumbled over a jump during a competition. He broke several bones, punctured a lung and sustained a severe brain injury that affects his memory.
While being treated for his injuries at a hospital in Gainesville, Mr. Chiacchia tested positive for H.I.V, according to a sheriff’s report.
I was stunned in reading the New York Times piece that these types of laws are still enforced, including ones that make saliva a deadly weapon when spit by a person with HIV; this despite all medical evidence that you can’t spread HIV this way.
Like all gay men engaging in sex with someone new, Chiacchia’s ex-boyfriend should have assumed his partner was HIV-positive and taken appropriate precautions; by bringing charges, it seems like nothing more than vindictiveness for a relationship that did not work out.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 3:41 AM
I’m going to have to disagree here. Chiacchia should have immediately told his partner about his HIV status once it became inevitable that unprotected sex was going to occur.
He has an obligation to make his partners aware of his status.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 4:46 AM
I totally agree with Enigma here.
I don’t see this as vindictiveness for a relationship that didn’t work out, nor is it even comparable with the spitting laws you mentioned Jim. Sure, the Ex should have taken precautions, but protection isn’t always 100% effective. Condoms break, and the Ex should have been made aware that Chiacchia was positive.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 4:47 AM
And, they were together for 4 months before the truth came out, so it’s not like assuming a one night stand is positive. This was someone he should have been able to trust.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 5:58 AM
My question would be… “Did he ask?” If he asked and Darren lied, then there might be grounds for fraud, but I agree that any gay men involved in a relationship should assume their partner is positive. Sounds to me like there are other facts missing from this case that could come out during the trial. Was the partner 100% faithful. Did he know 100% without doubt what his status was before entering into the relationship? Too many questions. Sounds like sour grapes to me.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 7:19 AM
Essentially, you argue that any guy who gets fucked has sole onus to ensure it happens with a condom. Positoid tops don’t have to do anything, not even utter a few words.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 7:43 AM
I’m so deeply ambivalent about this issue. While yes, I 100% agree Chiacchia should have revealed his status – the question is did he actively lie and say he was negative? And in this case why did his partner take this as truth from someone he hardly knew at the time of instigating the relationship.
Indeed why did this partner ever consider unprotected sex in the first place with a new partner, I have a hard time believing that this was the first time he ever entered into unprotected sex in the course of his lifetime – that Chiacchia was the first and only slip.
The problem with this law is that it abnegates the partner of any personal responsibility for his decision to practice unsafe sex – for his own safety. If he’s that immature or emotionally or intellectually stunted to not be able to make sound decisions for his own well-being, maybe he’s the one who should be locked up, for his own sake and safety if nothing else.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 9:35 AM
He put the other man at risk, no different than if he poisoned him on purpose. He knew his status yet continued to do things that would damage his sexual partner’s health.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 9:51 AM
I personally know Mr. Chiacchia, and this does not surprise me in the slightest…he lied when he was asked of his HIV status and said he was neg. Very in-keeping with his arrogant ego driven self. This guy will step on or over whoever he needs to to get what he wants, he is scum and should be treated like it. I hope he gets the full 30 years.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 11:42 AM
If you had a cold and someone asked for a sip of your soda or water, wouldn’t you tell them that you had a cold? And God knows that HIV is a gazillion times worse than a cold. Sure the bottom has some responsibility to protect himself but if he was lied to about his partner’s status, then this is most assuredly a crime.
If you knowingly and intentionally do something that causes someone to break their leg, isn’t that assault? Even if you didn’t mean to break their leg, you still are responsible for the action that caused the break. There is something a bit psychotic about not telling someone you’re having sex with that you are positive, even if you are using protection. It’s called “safer” sex for a reason…nothing is foolproof.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 1:29 PM
the other guy is just as guilty. if sero-converted as a result of barebacking with this guy, he’s just as much at fault.
it doesn’t take much effort, right before you’re going to get it on, to pause a moment and say, “hey, i’m HIV neg and want to stay that way.” it takes 2 to tango and it’s both partners’ responsibility to ensure that they’re playing safely.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 1:56 PM
The only true way to protest one’s self from HIV/AIDS is to abstain from sexual activity with all people or to have safe, protected sex with all people.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 2:26 PM
There’s no difference in the outcome of whether he knew his status and lied about it or whether he didn’t know his status and had unprotected sex anyway.
The lesson to be learned here is to have protected sex with everyone or risk the consequences.
“Are you HIV positive?” is a totally moot question.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 2:31 PM
A real unknown is whether the partner asked Chiacchia his status. This is not clear and we might never know the truth since this is a “he said, he said” case. This is not to absolve Chiacchia from any responsibility, but this should not be a felony case and hearkens back to the days of AIDS hysteria.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 3:24 PM
It is called criminal negligence at the very least. Every-person in society has certain obligations based on their individual situations to inform someone about a potential health and or safety issue.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 3:27 PM
is the other guy even positive? his pressing charges is indeed as vindictive as the top who withheld the info.
that said, both tops and bottoms have to tell their partners if they are positive, it’s the decent thing to do. i have an ex (a bottom) who i found out later was HIV+ the few months we were together, and while he was insistent on safe sex every time I still feel I had a right to know. I’m neg and wanna stay that way, and while we were safe we could have been safer. It had never occurred to me to ask but now I sure as hell do….
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 7:30 PM
I’m going to disagree. Regardless of how many advancements have been made in HIV/AIDS treatment, it’s still a huge risk to have unprotected sex with someone who is positive. The boyfriend should have asked, and requested they both get tested, but Chiacchia still has a responsibility to tell his partner of his status, otherwise one could make the case that he is intentionally spreading the disease, which is reckless and cruel.
The laws themselves should be updated to reflect current knowledge on how AIDS is spread, but I still think they should be laws. If I were Mr. Chiacchia’s boyfriend, and found out afterwards his status, I would most definitely terminate the relationship and charge him.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 8:17 PM
I posted this on Facebook and a friend made a good comment. Both parties are guilty, but of different things. The boyfriend made a stupid mistake to not ask, but Chiacchia knowingly risked infecting him with a devastating disease that kills, which is comparable to murder. So yes, the boyfriend is partially to blame, but Chiacchia should be charged.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 8:49 PM
So much hatred and bigotry here.
Let’s start with some facts. It is very unlikely that someone being treated for HIV will pass it on to their partner EVEN if they engage in unprotected sex. If the positive partner is the receptive partner, then it is damn near impossible.
It is not “comparable to murder” because it does not kill. It may kill, many years later, but it also may not. Most people diagnosed today in this country will live out their normal lifespan. Some of them may get hit by a car tomorrow, despite their status. Charging someone with a 30-year-sentence because this is equivalent to murder is ridiculous. Do we even know if this guy seroconverted?
Finally, I’d just like to point out that these laws actually dissuade people from knowing their status. If Mr. Chiacchia had not gotten tested and found out his status, he would not have been able to be charged under the law. So the untreated HIV-positive person who believes they are negative (because they haven’t been tested yet) may have unprotected sex and spread the virus and not be charged with a crime. These people are 10,000x more likely to transmit the virus because their Viral Load is much, much higer. (10,000 to 100,000x higher than in a treated individual). So we’re penalizing people who KNOW their status, and creating an incentive for people to NOT know their status.
The State should stay out of people’s bedrooms. Syphillis can kill too, as can herpes and gonorrhea and chlamydia, given the right conditions. Where do we draw the line?
This is stigma. Plain and simple. Rather than demonizing and villifying people, the State should focus on education, testing, and treatment. These three things are much more likely to reduce transmission than making an example out of one individual who may (or may not!) have made a bad choice.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 9:12 PM
but AIDS still does kill, especially if the person does not recieve proper treatment. I think a pandemic like AIDS is dangerous enough to warrant a jail sentence.
The laws may discourage people from being tested, but I think the response is encourage testing and have laws that enforce that.
The state doesn’t belong in someone’s bedroom, but the state has a right to charge someone with reckless dangerous behaviour. When your actions affect others, you void your right to privacy. A positive person may infect their partner, who may infect countless others.
The response can be twofold: legal prosecution and education/testing/treatment.
Also, the boyfriend’s current status seems irrelevant here. Whether or not he was infected, he still has the right to charge Chiacchia.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 9:17 PM
I’m kinda shocked that Salathe is the only voice of reason here. Make no mistake- HIV is spread by people that honestly believe they are negative. I am a research nurse in an HIV clinic in CA- 97% of our patients go undetectable (no virus floating around in the bodily fluids) within a few weeks of taking their pills. The rest quickly follow. There have been multiple peer reviewed studies that show medicated HIV+ people do not transmit the virus. The life expectancy for a HIV+ person with access to medication is 1-2 years less than a healthy individual. In metropolitan areas 20-25% of gay men are HIV+- if you look at individuals finding sex online that number goes up to about 35%- if you are an adult gay man and you are not using condoms you can’t have sex with many folks before coming across someone who is HIV+ and doesn’t know it- this is how the virus spreads. About 1/4 HIV+ folks don’t know they have the virus- so that’s a pretty high percentage of people that are very contagious. The state of Florida (surprise surprise) doesn’t care about these numbers- they don’t even seem to care if Mr. Chiacchia transmitted HIV to his partner, used condoms, lied about his status- this is clearly a bigoted law with no practical basis. I realize HIV was a death sentence in the 1980′s and early 90′s- but to treat it worse than child molestation in the eyes of the law today is obviously homophobic. Should you be put in jail for getting on a bus with pneumonia? Your cold could kill granny sitting next to you- so even if granny doesn’t get your cold you’ve attempted murder? Puh-lease! Grow up homos.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 9:33 PM
Theoretically speaking, you could have prosecution and education/training/treatment. Practically, though, every dollar you spend prosecuting someone for potential transmission is a dollar less spent giving life-saving medication to someone with HIV. That’s just the real world.
Syphilis kills without medical treatment, MADeleine. So does gonorrhea. Ditto Tuberculosis. I’m sure if the flu was transmitted by gay sex, Florida would have similar laws about it.
Should you have to disclose your tuberculosis status to everyone on the bus? What if you cough in their direction. Is that aggravated assault? Let’s not forget “consumption” was the scourge of mankind for many centuries, and it still kills more people today than AIDS does….So, again, does thirty years in prison sound reasonable for that?
Corporations have been dumping carcinogenic waste into public resources for decades, directly leading to the deaths of many, many people through rising cancer rates. Many died from cancer due to asbestos. How many of those people have we thrown in jail for recklessly endangering the lives of others? None? Oh, that’s right. Wasn’t gay sex, so it’s no biggie.
I think disclosure is important when people are having unprotected sex. (Do we even know they were having unprotected sex?o) Maybe the law could charge someone with penalties in the way of a fine, sure. But jail-time is ridiculous.
Especially when you can’t even show that transmission occurred. (If his partner was barebacking with Mr. C., then he could have been barebacking with other people. How do we even know WHERE and WHO he got it from?) It’s just absurd. You can beat your children, hell you can molest them, and get less jail time than Mr. C is facing.
Finally, I’d like to point out that this law DOESN’T prosecute the “straight man” taking loads at the bathhouse who then goes home to his loving wife, so long as he doesn’t get tested!
This is bigotry, which is really no surprise coming from a state that doesn’t want gay men to be teachers or foster children, or hell, even adopt their own biological children.
If Florida truly cared about HIV transmission, it could put its money where it’s mouth is and start funding TREATMENT. Treatment cuts down infection rates much more dramatically than scapegoating high-profile gay men.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 9:37 PM
Maybe not a death sentence but still a serious medical problem. I agree that the State should consider all aspects of the situation,especially the use of condoms, but whether he outright lied or not he still has a resonsibility to his partner to disclose his status, even if the risks are more minimal if he is being treated. Was he even being treated? We don’t know. The severity of the sentence may debated, but I still believe his boyfriend has a right to charge him. The consequences he will face will be decided in court.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 9:43 PM
Salathe I’m not trying to argue whether other STIs should have similar laws. I haven’t stated an opinion on that at all.
What I’m arguing about is this case specifically.
I don’t know if Mr. Chiacchia was being treated.
I don’t know if he used condoms.
I don’t know who topped or bottomed.
I don’t know if the partner had unprotected sex with others.
But I think that if his partner feels that he was wrongfully exposed to HIV, he has a right to make a charge against Mr. Chiacchia. Whether or not those charges are worthy of putting him in jail is not my decision. It’s also not my decision how long the sentence should be, though I agree it shouldn’t be more than other more dangerous acts. And I do agree that the laws should be updated so you can’t charge an HIV+ person with spitting on you, that’s just ridiculous.
Oh, was the spelling MADeleine meant to mean I’m angry or was it just a typo?
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 9:48 PM
Yah, because a Florida jury will certainly give a gay man a fair shake.
Just another reason why this issue shouldn’t be criminalized. It will be impossible to screen the jury pool for homophobia, bigotry, and irrational fear of HIV left over from the early 80′s.
If you trust a jury to decide these kinds of issues, you’re naive.
This issue should be decided between two consenting adults. If you don’t want to risk getting HIV, don’t consent to unprotected sex. Simple as that.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 9:55 PM
I don’t think I’m naive, I just have more faith in the justice system than you, but thanks for the insult.
If you don’t want to risk getting charged, don’t hide your status from a person you are having an intimate relationship with.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 11:35 PM
Sigh.
That your faith in the justice system is misplaced is demonstrated by your statement “If you don’t want to risk getting charged….”
Unfortunately, people get charged with crimes even though they didn’t commit them. This happens frequently, and more frequently to minority groups. Any HIV-positive individual is at risk of being charged with this crime, as long as it is such, regardless of his or her actions.
A baseless charge can destroy someone’s life and livelihood, and doubly so in the case where the charge itself publicizes personal information, such as one’s HIV-status. The State has no reasonable expectation it can prove these charges. It will be one partner’s word against another’s.
In this case the charge itself is the punishment, and that is another reason why criminalizing a disease is so unjust.
Study and practice the law, as I have, and perhaps you’ll lose some faith in “the system”.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 11:57 PM
MAD,
Here is a jury in Texas. “In 2008 in Dallas, an H.I.V.-positive man was found guilty of spitting at a police officer and is serving 35 years in prison. The man was not convicted under an H.I.V.-specific law; instead, the jury found that he had harassed a public servant with his saliva, which they deemed a deadly weapon. . . . [S]cientists have long concluded that transmitting the virus through saliva is virtually impossible. ”
Follow the NY Times article for the context.
Bottom line: Trust the Jury at your peril. HIV-laws stigmatize those with the disease and have very little to do with preventing transmission.
on Apr 15th, 2010 at 12:27 AM
That’s clearly a case where the Jury made an ill-informed decision, but that may not be the case here. Lets wait and see the outcome, OK?
on Apr 15th, 2010 at 4:17 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with this charge.
I am always disheartened when HIV activists cry that these laws will dissuade people from getting tested? Really? So it’s better to live in ignorance than to know about your health? Really? That’s nonsense. The only ones who won’t get tested are those too irresponsible and immature to know or care about their status. The idea that someone would avoid testing to avoid criminal liability is a sickening thought, plain and simple.
We know how HIV is transmitted. While unprotected sex is a bad thing, we cannot demonize the victim here. Nor can we say “well, he should have known better than not to ask”. From the sound of it, this was not some one-night stand, but a short-term romantic relationship. My guess is that the partner DID ask, and made a decision about his own sexual health based on the response he received. You may not agree with that, but it’s like telling a woman she needs to be careful how she dresses or else she’s asking to be raped.
Whether or not we’ve seen advances in HIV health care is irrelevant. If his former partner is now positive, he gets to look forward to the possibility of meds, meds, and more meds. And last time I checked, those ain’t free. If he’s not positive, he gets to look forward to an awful lot of testing until he is assured that he won’t become positive.
This guy appears to have let his desperation for a relationship get in the way of his obligation to tell his partner he was HIV positive. Yes, I said OBLIGATION.
on Apr 15th, 2010 at 8:00 PM
I believe that this is discrimination plain and simple. I don’t see the state of Florida prosecuting smokers for exposing people to their second hand smoke. And everyone knows that second hand smoke kills, eventually, too.
I still feel that it is the responsibility of BOTH parties to understand that HIV protection is the responsibility of BOTH. It’s naive for any sexually active person to assume even the most trusted of sex partners of a few months will be completely honest about every aspect of their medical history.
Should he have revealed his status, yes, should his partner have assumed he was negative since he did not reveal his status, no.
on Apr 16th, 2010 at 9:45 AM
@Devil’s Advocate, no sex is 100% safe. Condoms break, etc. Life happens. He had an obligation, and he chose, by all accounts, to lie. Don’t push this onto the partner.
on Apr 16th, 2010 at 9:19 PM
I’m saying that BOTH partners are responsible. Bottom line, you choose to have sex, thats the risk you take. And you say it yourself, no sex is 100% safe, so they BOTH chose to take the risk. They were in a “relationship” for a few months, if he was willing to take that risk, he needs to assume some of the responsibility. It still sounds like sour grapes. Everyone is assuming that the “victim” was pure, was he? No one knows or can speak to that. Was he negative before entering the relationship? No one knows. The status of the “victim” is still unknown. For all we know, he was positive before entering the relationship and now has a fall guy. BOTH men engaged in sexual activity. Unless he can prove that he was forced to have sex, he is partially to blame. As I said, should both men have been honest, “YES” but the “victim” should never assume that his partner of a few months was honest.
on Apr 17th, 2010 at 9:39 AM
Too bad the law doesn’t agree with you. The law is very clear… Lie about your HIV status, and you can be punished. It doesn’t punish the victim who’s been lied to, nor should it.
on Apr 18th, 2010 at 8:07 AM
Then you have missed one of the points about the article which is that the laws are being used selectively. Laws are written and enforced by men.
on Nov 30th, 2010 at 8:16 PM
EACH Individual is responsible for HIM or HERSELF when engaging in sexual activity with another person. DR you are right we all know how HIV is transmitted, yet the Plaintiff didnt seem to concerned about that when he engaged in unprotected sex with the defendant..ALSO if he told him he was positive and they had sex anyway and the Plaintiff ends of becoming positive does that lessen the severity of what has just occurred? Bottom line is whats done is done and if you dont possess a healthy level of concern for your well being enough to take at least the precautions avail. to you to protect yourself BEFORE THE ACT then developing a conscience after the fact is a TOO LITTLE TOO LATE.. WE ARE ALL RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OWN HEALTH.
on Feb 9th, 2012 at 3:40 PM
I’ve always believed in personal ethics. If you are HIV positive you should have the decency to inform any partner. If you don’t, you should ensure you always use a condom.
I fully realize that I live in a non-existent ideal world, but that’s still the way I want to conduct my life. I have no problem with the charges.