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

Версія за 13:00, 15 грудня 2017

Incapacitation is unlikely to lessen new infections1350 | Commentaries | Peer Reviewed | Lazzarini et al.American Journal of Public Health | August 2013, Vol 103, No.COMMENTARIESwidespread confusion about the meaning of "significant risk" in Canadian law, Lth and Human Services' Workplace of Human {Research|Study|Analysis resulting in widely differing guidance about what the law prohibits. Providers also cited the adverse influence of criminalization on their efforts to establish counseling relationships with PLHIV that fostered openness about sexual activities and disclosure challenges.16 Related subtle.And punishment for low- to no-risk activities, severity of sentences, vague language and the possibility of discriminatory enforcement, and broad prosecutorial discretion. Regrettably, the nature with the samples, which had been derived from incomplete records, restricted conclusions about implementation or enforcement on the laws. Since these laws have been adopted, scientific understanding of HIV and its transmission has sophisticated considerably: scientists have established the preventive impact of antiretroviral therapy, and they are able to now estimate the danger of HIV transmission linked with specific activities more accurately5---8 and identify viral strains that unique men and women carry.9 HIV-specific criminal laws have not kept pace with these scientific advances.BACKGROUNDCharacteristics of HIV-specific laws have been described elsewhere.2---4 Existing laws involve both crimes in which HIV status may be the only aspect distinguishing an act from legal behavior (e.g., consensual sex) and these for which obtaining HIV increases the severity of an current crime and imposes higher punishment (e.g., prostitution, sexual assault). While no complete record of HIVrelated criminal circumstances exists, two research have analyzed US prosecutions over time. Researchers have identified quite a few issues with HIVspecific statutes and their enforcement.for the reason that reasonably handful of persons are incarcerated for HIV exposure2,ten and new infections can occur in prison.11 There is certainly also little evidence to recommend that criminalizing HIV exposure adjustments social norms: studies have located that persons living in states with and devoid of HIV-specific laws10,12 and persons that are aware and unaware of their state's HIV-specific law13 usually do not differ on perceived duty for stopping HIV transmission.ten Evidence that the criminal law produces a deterrent effect-- like prompting persons with HIV to disclose far more often 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 associated with seropositive status disclosure in a further.15 Other research have identified no evidence of deterrence,ten,12 and none have discovered effects of sufficient magnitude to decrease HIV prevalence at a population level.Achievable Unfavorable Influence on Public Overall health EffortsLaws that criminalize HIV exposure may perhaps really undermine public well being efforts by, as an example, giving a disincentive for persons at danger to be tested (lest people become aware of their infection and need 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 possibly affect HIV risk behaviors in three primary ways: 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 meaning of "significant risk" in Canadian law, resulting in broadly differing tips about what the law prohibits.