Відмінності між версіями «And punishment for low- to no-risk activities, severity of sentences, vague»

Версія за 18:42, 11 грудня 2017

Researchers have identified several concerns with HIVspecific statutes and their enforcement.simply because relatively couple of persons are incarcerated for HIV exposure2,10 and new infections can take place in prison.11 There's also little evidence to suggest that criminalizing HIV exposure modifications social norms: studies have discovered that persons living in states with and with no HIV-specific laws10,12 and persons who are aware and unaware of their UNC2025 state's HIV-specific law13 usually do not differ on perceived duty for stopping HIV transmission.ten Proof that the criminal law produces a deterrent effect-- including prompting persons with HIV to disclose extra usually or have safer sex with fewer partners--has been mixed. Sadly, the nature from the samples, which had been derived from incomplete records, limited conclusions about implementation or enforcement with the laws. Because these laws were adopted, scientific understanding of HIV and its transmission has advanced significantly: scientists have established the preventive influence of antiretroviral therapy, and they can now estimate the danger of HIV transmission connected with specific activities a lot more accurately5---8 and determine viral strains that different persons carry.9 HIV-specific criminal laws haven't kept pace with these scientific advances.BACKGROUNDCharacteristics of HIV-specific laws have already been described elsewhere.2---4 Existing laws involve 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 possessing HIV increases the severity of an current crime and imposes higher punishment (e.g., prostitution, sexual assault). While no extensive record of HIVrelated criminal situations exists, two studies have analyzed US prosecutions more than time. Researchers have identified several concerns with HIVspecific statutes and their enforcement.mainly because somewhat few persons are incarcerated for HIV exposure2,ten and new infections can take place in prison.11 There is also little proof to recommend that criminalizing HIV exposure adjustments social norms: studies have found that persons living in states with and without having HIV-specific laws10,12 and persons who're conscious and unaware of their state's HIV-specific law13 don't differ on perceived duty for stopping HIV transmission.ten Evidence that the criminal law produces a deterrent effect-- for instance prompting persons with HIV to disclose extra normally or have safer sex with fewer partners--has been mixed. Awareness of a state's HIV-specific law was associated with sooner (but not more frequent) seropositive status disclosure in a single study,14 and worry of prosecution for nondisclosure was related with seropositive status disclosure in an additional.15 Other studies have discovered no proof of deterrence,10,12 and none have discovered effects of sufficient magnitude to minimize HIV prevalence at a population level.Probable Adverse Influence on Public Well being EffortsLaws that criminalize HIV exposure may truly undermine public wellness efforts by, by way of example, offering a disincentive for persons at risk to be tested (lest people turn out to be aware of their infection and must 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 have an effect on HIV threat behaviors in 3 primary methods: incapacitation, norm setting, and deterrence.