This article provides a re-examination of the criminal issues relating to HIV transmission within the new landscape of advances in medical science and availability of PrEP and PEP, arguing that it necessitates a shift in attitude, policy and doctrine. It specifically argue that HIV transmission does not meet the appropriate harm threshold to constitute GBH and that if criminal law is ultimately about preventing or regulating harm, the ongoing criminalisation of HIV transmission is counter to that aim.
ABSTRACT: Across the world, people living with HIV and AIDS (PLHA) face investigation, prosecution, conviction, and punishment if they transmit HIV to another person, expose others to the risk of HIV acquisition, or fail to disclose in advance their HIV positive status. This article seeks to explain why limiting the criminalisation of HIV is important and necessary; identifies some of the ways in which it has been, and might be, limited; and, finally, offers some reflections on whether there exists a principled limit to decriminalisation arguments (ie whether there are cases which, even if the general principles underpinning decriminalisation is accepted, justify state punishment). Drawing on recent international policy guidance, current scientific knowledge about HIV prevention and treatment, and research on the impact of criminalisation of PLHA, the article argues that decriminalisation is critical to eradicating HIV and should be a public health priority, that biomedical advances in prevention and treatment will assist the decriminalisation project but are insufficient in the absence of legal and criminal justice practice reform.
Study findings provide conclusive evidence that the risk of HIV transmission through anal sex when HIV viral load is suppressed is effectively zero.Among the 782 serodifferent gay couples followed for almost 1600 eligible couple-years of follow-up, which included more than 76 000 reports of condomless sex, zero cases of within-couple HIV transmission were found. In the absence of ART, on the basis of the frequency and type of sex, for receptive condomless anal sex acts alone approximately 472 transmissions would have been expected. The results give equivalence of evidence for gay men as for heterosexual couples and indicate that the risk of HIV transmission when HIV viral load is suppressed is effectively zero for both anal and vaginal sex.
Revisits the analysis described in Sweeney et al. (Association of HIV diagnosis rates and laws criminalizing HIV exposure in the United States), but stratifies the diagnosis rate into two response variables: i) the proportion of PLHIV diagnosed, and ii) annual percentage change in HIV prevalence. Counter to the conclusions of Sweeney et al., the researchers’ analyses indicate that laws criminalizing HIV exposure are associated with a lower proportion of HIV diagnosis and increased HIV prevalence.
This review of literature identifies and describes US empirical studies on the criminalization of HIV exposure, examines findings on key questions about these laws, highlights knowledge gaps, and sets a course for future research.
Drawing on a feminist analytical framework and concepts of structural violence, this analysis sought to characterize the negotiation of sexual relationships and HIV disclosure among Women Living with HIV (WLWH) in a criminalized setting. Researchers conducted 64 qualitative interviews with cis and trans WLWH in Vancouver, Canada between 2015 and 2017. Despite frequently being represented as a law that ‘protects’ women, the study findings indicate that the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure constitutes a form of gendered structural violence that exacerbates risk for interpersonal violence among WLWH. In line with recommendations by, the WHO and UNAIDS these findings demonstrate the negative impacts of regulating HIV prevention through the use of criminal law for WLWH.
Argues that laws criminalising HIV exposure fail to satisfy criminal law functions of retribution and deterrence. Retribution is problematic as laws are applied when no intention to transmit HIV, little to no likelihood of transmission and multiple factors may make disclosure difficult. Laws fail to deter unprotected sex and are a poor fit for acts that include no risk of transmission, including sex and blood donation. Instead, laws cause harm, with discriminatory enforcement compounding injustice and stigma. California’s law reform is commendable, while other problematic U.S. HIV-criminalisation statutes should be restructured, amended, or repealed.
A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase and Northern Lights databases and conference websites. Results showed that there was no risk of transmitting HIV through spitting, and the risk through biting was negligible. Post‐exposure prophylaxis was not indicated after a bite in all but exceptional circumstances. Policies to protect emergency workers should be developed with this evidence in mind.
Aims to quantify the potential impact of non-disclosure prosecutions on HIV testing and transmission among MSM. Found that fear of prosecution over HIV non-disclosure was reported to reduce HIV testing willingness by a minority of HIV-negative MSM in Toronto; however, this reduction had the potential to significantly increase HIV transmission at the community level which has important public health implications.
Revisits HIV court case investigations published in the scientific literature, as well as the methodological aspects important for the application and standardization of phylogenetic analyses methods as a forensic tool. Concludes that there has been a lack of consistency between methods and that it is essential to define guidelines to be used by phylogenetic forensic experts in HIV transmission cases.