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

Версія за 11:45, 19 грудня 2017

Though no extensive record of HIVrelated criminal circumstances exists, two studies have analyzed US prosecutions over time. Researchers have identified several issues with HIVspecific statutes and their enforcement.for the reason that reasonably few persons are incarcerated for HIV exposure2,ten and new infections can take place in prison.11 There's also tiny proof to suggest that criminalizing HIV Attitudes to preventive services and {health|well being|wellness|overall exposure changes social norms: studies have found that persons living in states with and with out HIV-specific laws10,12 and persons who are conscious and unaware of their 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-- such as prompting persons with HIV to disclose much more frequently or have safer sex with fewer partners--has been mixed. Awareness of a state's HIV-specific law was associated with sooner (but not far more frequent) seropositive status disclosure in one particular study,14 and worry of prosecution for nondisclosure was related with seropositive status disclosure in another.15 Other studies have discovered no evidence of deterrence,10,12 and none have discovered effects of adequate magnitude to cut down HIV prevalence at a population level.Feasible Negative Effect on Public Well being EffortsLaws that criminalize HIV exposure may well essentially undermine public health efforts by, one example is, providing a disincentive for persons at threat to be tested (lest folks become 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 Evidence of Laws' EffectivenessThe criminal law could influence HIV risk behaviors in 3 major techniques: incapacitation, norm setting, and deterrence. Incapacitation is unlikely to lower new infections1350 | Commentaries | Peer Reviewed | Lazzarini et al.American Journal of Public Health | August 2013, Vol 103, No.COMMENTARIESwidespread confusion concerning the which means of "significant risk" in Canadian law, resulting in extensively differing tips about what the law prohibits. Providers also cited the negative impact of criminalization on their efforts to establish counseling relationships with PLHIV that fostered openness about sexual activities and disclosure challenges.16 Equivalent subtle.And punishment for low- to no-risk activities, severity of sentences, vague language and also the possibility of discriminatory enforcement, and broad prosecutorial discretion. However, the nature from the samples, which had been derived from incomplete records, restricted conclusions about implementation or enforcement from the laws. Considering the fact that these laws were adopted, scientific understanding of HIV and its transmission has advanced considerably: scientists have established the preventive impact of antiretroviral therapy, and they could now estimate the threat of HIV transmission linked with certain activities additional accurately5---8 and recognize viral strains that different people carry.9 HIV-specific criminal laws have not kept pace with these scientific advances.BACKGROUNDCharacteristics of HIV-specific laws have already been described elsewhere.2---4 Present laws include things like each crimes in which HIV status will be the only issue distinguishing an act from legal behavior (e.g., consensual sex) and these for which getting HIV increases the severity of an current crime and imposes greater punishment (e.g., prostitution, sexual assault). Even though no comprehensive record of HIVrelated criminal situations exists, two studies have analyzed US prosecutions more than time.