Відмінності між версіями «And punishment for low- to no-risk activities, severity of sentences, vague»
м |
м |
||
| Рядок 1: | Рядок 1: | ||
| − | + | Awareness of a state's HIV-specific law was connected with sooner (but not much more frequent) seropositive status disclosure in one study,14 and worry of prosecution for nondisclosure was linked with seropositive status disclosure in yet another.15 Other research have discovered no proof of deterrence,ten,12 and none have located effects of enough magnitude to cut down HIV prevalence at a population level.Attainable Adverse Effect on Public Health EffortsLaws that criminalize HIV exposure may well essentially undermine public health efforts by, one example is, giving a disincentive for persons at threat to be tested (lest men and women grow to be aware of their infection and must disclose it to sex partners) or by reinforcing discrimination [https://www.medchemexpress.com/Umeclidinium-bromide.html GSK573719A chemical information] against persons living with HIV (PLHIV) and exacerbating HIV-related stigma. Considering the fact that these laws had been adopted, scientific understanding of HIV and its transmission has advanced considerably: scientists have established the preventive influence of antiretroviral therapy, and they're able to now estimate the danger of HIV transmission linked with certain activities more accurately5---8 and recognize viral strains that unique folks carry.9 HIV-specific criminal laws haven't kept pace with these scientific advances.BACKGROUNDCharacteristics of HIV-specific laws happen to be described elsewhere.2---4 Present laws include things like each crimes in which HIV status would be the only element distinguishing an act from legal behavior (e.g., consensual sex) and those for which having HIV increases the severity of an current crime and imposes greater punishment (e.g., prostitution, sexual assault). Even though no complete record of HIVrelated criminal cases exists, two research have analyzed US prosecutions over time. Researchers have identified several issues with HIVspecific statutes and their enforcement.due to the fact comparatively couple of persons are incarcerated for HIV exposure2,ten and new infections can take place in prison.11 There is also small evidence to suggest that criminalizing HIV exposure changes social norms: studies have discovered that persons living in states with and devoid of HIV-specific laws10,12 and persons who are aware and unaware of their state's HIV-specific law13 do not differ on perceived duty for preventing HIV transmission.ten Evidence that the criminal law produces a deterrent effect-- for example prompting persons with HIV to disclose more usually or have safer sex with fewer partners--has been mixed. Awareness of a state's HIV-specific law was related with sooner (but not more frequent) seropositive status disclosure in a single study,14 and worry of prosecution for nondisclosure was linked with seropositive status disclosure in a further.15 Other research have identified no proof of deterrence,ten,12 and none have found effects of adequate magnitude to minimize HIV prevalence at a population level.Doable Adverse Effect on Public Wellness EffortsLaws that criminalize HIV exposure might in fact undermine public well being efforts by, for example, delivering a disincentive for persons at threat to be tested (lest folks develop into aware of their infection and have to disclose it to sex partners) or by reinforcing discrimination against persons living with HIV (PLHIV) and exacerbating HIV-related stigma. A Canadian study identifiedLack of Empirical Proof of Laws' EffectivenessThe criminal law may perhaps have an effect on HIV danger behaviors in 3 main methods: incapacitation, norm setting, and deterrence. Incapacitation is unlikely to cut down new infections1350 | Commentaries | Peer Reviewed | Lazzarini et al.American Journal of Public Wellness | August 2013, Vol 103, No.COMMENTARIESwidespread confusion in regards to the which means of "significant risk" in Canadian law, resulting in broadly differing advice about what the law prohibits. Providers also cited the damaging effect of criminalization on their efforts to establish counseling relationships with PLHIV that fostered openness about sexual activities and disclosure challenges.16 Related subtle. | |
Версія за 10:12, 8 грудня 2017
Awareness of a state's HIV-specific law was connected with sooner (but not much more frequent) seropositive status disclosure in one study,14 and worry of prosecution for nondisclosure was linked with seropositive status disclosure in yet another.15 Other research have discovered no proof of deterrence,ten,12 and none have located effects of enough magnitude to cut down HIV prevalence at a population level.Attainable Adverse Effect on Public Health EffortsLaws that criminalize HIV exposure may well essentially undermine public health efforts by, one example is, giving a disincentive for persons at threat to be tested (lest men and women grow to be aware of their infection and must disclose it to sex partners) or by reinforcing discrimination GSK573719A chemical information against persons living with HIV (PLHIV) and exacerbating HIV-related stigma. Considering the fact that these laws had been adopted, scientific understanding of HIV and its transmission has advanced considerably: scientists have established the preventive influence of antiretroviral therapy, and they're able to now estimate the danger of HIV transmission linked with certain activities more accurately5---8 and recognize viral strains that unique folks carry.9 HIV-specific criminal laws haven't kept pace with these scientific advances.BACKGROUNDCharacteristics of HIV-specific laws happen to be described elsewhere.2---4 Present laws include things like each crimes in which HIV status would be the only element distinguishing an act from legal behavior (e.g., consensual sex) and those for which having HIV increases the severity of an current crime and imposes greater punishment (e.g., prostitution, sexual assault). Even though no complete record of HIVrelated criminal cases exists, two research have analyzed US prosecutions over time. Researchers have identified several issues with HIVspecific statutes and their enforcement.due to the fact comparatively couple of persons are incarcerated for HIV exposure2,ten and new infections can take place in prison.11 There is also small evidence to suggest that criminalizing HIV exposure changes social norms: studies have discovered that persons living in states with and devoid of HIV-specific laws10,12 and persons who are aware and unaware of their state's HIV-specific law13 do not differ on perceived duty for preventing HIV transmission.ten Evidence that the criminal law produces a deterrent effect-- for example prompting persons with HIV to disclose more usually or have safer sex with fewer partners--has been mixed. Awareness of a state's HIV-specific law was related with sooner (but not more frequent) seropositive status disclosure in a single study,14 and worry of prosecution for nondisclosure was linked with seropositive status disclosure in a further.15 Other research have identified no proof of deterrence,ten,12 and none have found effects of adequate magnitude to minimize HIV prevalence at a population level.Doable Adverse Effect on Public Wellness EffortsLaws that criminalize HIV exposure might in fact undermine public well being efforts by, for example, delivering a disincentive for persons at threat to be tested (lest folks develop into aware of their infection and have to disclose it to sex partners) or by reinforcing discrimination against persons living with HIV (PLHIV) and exacerbating HIV-related stigma. A Canadian study identifiedLack of Empirical Proof of Laws' EffectivenessThe criminal law may perhaps have an effect on HIV danger behaviors in 3 main methods: incapacitation, norm setting, and deterrence. Incapacitation is unlikely to cut down new infections1350 | Commentaries | Peer Reviewed | Lazzarini et al.American Journal of Public Wellness | August 2013, Vol 103, No.COMMENTARIESwidespread confusion in regards to the which means of "significant risk" in Canadian law, resulting in broadly differing advice about what the law prohibits. Providers also cited the damaging effect of criminalization on their efforts to establish counseling relationships with PLHIV that fostered openness about sexual activities and disclosure challenges.16 Related subtle.
