Concludes that HIV-related criminal laws either fail to influence or increase STI testing avoidance, unprotected anonymous sexual contacts, and avoidance of health care because respondents do not feel safe speaking with health professionals. Suggests HIV-related criminal laws compromise public health and clinicians’ abilities to establish therapeutic relationships and to undertake HIV prevention and treatment work.
Describes findings from research conducted at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), showing no association between HIV or AIDS diagnosis rates and criminal exposure laws across states over time, suggesting that these laws have had no detectable HIV prevention effect.
Critiques findings from CDC research suggesting criminal exposure laws have had no detectable HIV prevention effect, arguing that by taking account of social science research, even stronger conclusions about the harms of HIV exposure laws are possible.
Outlines the importance of a cohesive, evidence-informed approach to use of criminal law relating to HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission. Urges Ministries of Health and Justice, public health officials, policymakers and criminal justice system actors to ensure a proportionate response to HIV transmission risk.
Provides ten reasons why criminalizing HIV exposure or transmission is unjust and ineffective public policy. Argues criminalization is unlikely to prevent new infections or reduce women’s vulnerability to HIV. Instead, criminalisation may harm women and has a negative impact on public health and human rights.
Argues that applying criminal law to HIV exposure or transmission does nothing to address the epidemic of gender-based violence or the deep economic, social, and political inequalities that are at the root of women’s and girls’ disproportionate vulnerability to HIV.
Provides case studies and opinions from around the world, as well as resources and information to support legal advocacy and social mobilisation.
Filmed at an international meeting on HIV prevention and criminal law in Toronto in April 2013, More Harm than Good features interviews with social scientists, researchers and legal and public health experts describing the public health impact of HIV criminalisation.
Argues that although criminal law has been invoked throughout the HIV epidemic, the public health community has neither favoured its use nor taken a vigorous stand against it. States criminal law cannot draw reasonable lines between criminal and noncriminal behaviour, or prevent HIV transmission. For women, it is a poor substitute for policies that go to the roots of subordination and gender-based violence.
Mexico International AIDS Conference 2008 – Closing Plenary Speech by Justice Edwin Cameron. Outlines cases and details many of the problems with criminalisation.
Analyses the surge in criminal prosecutions, discusses the role that stigma plays and makes the case against criminalisation.
Provides an overview of the use of the criminal law to regulate sexual behaviour in three areas, including HIV exposure during consensual sex. The paper highlights negative effects of HIV criminalisation and argues that strong institutional leadership from UN agencies is required.
Proposes principles to guide thinking about law and policy on criminal law and HIV, considers alternative to criminalization, and makes recommendations about appropriate use of criminal sanctions and coercive public health measures.
Addresses the criminal prosecution of people who transmit HIV in Australia. Examines the legal, moral and ethical justification for laws criminalising HIV transmission and the impacts of criminalisation on people with HIV.
Considers HIV non-disclosure criminal cases in Canada through a public health framework, evaluating the arguments for and against the criminalization of HIV transmission and exposure.
Provides overview of reasons why HIV criminalization is the wrong approach for Canada.
Considers the effect of HIV criminalisation on HIV prevention, finding that although criminal laws might prevent HIV transmission in a few isolated cases, it is unlikely they would influence overall population-level rates of HIV transmission. Some evidence suggests these laws could exacerbate HIV transmission.
Demonstrates how HIV disclosure laws disregard the effectiveness of universal precautions and safer sex, while criminalizing activities that are central to harm reduction efforts. Argues that criminalization uses disclosure-based HIV transmission prevention strategy as an implicit alternative to risk reduction and safer sex, undermining public health efforts. Describes how criminal HIV disclosure laws work against public health efforts to reduce HIV stigma.