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

Матеріал з HistoryPedia
Перейти до: навігація, пошук
м
м
Рядок 1: Рядок 1:
−
[https://www.medchemexpress.com/UNC2025.html UNC2025 web] Incapacitation is unlikely to decrease new infections1350 | Commentaries | Peer Reviewed | Lazzarini et al.American Journal of Public Well being | August 2013, Vol 103, No.COMMENTARIESwidespread confusion concerning the which means of "significant risk" in Canadian law, resulting in broadly differing tips about what the law prohibits. Unfortunately, the nature with the samples, which had been derived from incomplete records, limited conclusions about implementation or enforcement from the laws. Considering that these laws had been adopted, scientific understanding of HIV and its transmission has advanced considerably: scientists have established the preventive effect of antiretroviral therapy, and they can now estimate the threat of HIV transmission associated with particular activities far more accurately5---8 and recognize viral strains that distinctive people 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 include both crimes in which HIV status is definitely the only factor distinguishing an act from legal behavior (e.g., consensual sex) and those for which obtaining HIV increases the severity of an current crime and imposes higher punishment (e.g., prostitution, sexual assault). Despite the fact that no extensive record of HIVrelated criminal situations exists, two studies have analyzed US prosecutions over time. Researchers have identified several concerns with HIVspecific statutes and their enforcement.simply because fairly couple of persons are incarcerated for HIV exposure2,ten and new infections can take place in prison.11 There's also little evidence to suggest that criminalizing HIV exposure alterations social norms: research have identified that persons living in states with and without HIV-specific laws10,12 and persons who're conscious and unaware of their state's HIV-specific law13 usually do not differ on perceived responsibility for stopping HIV transmission.ten Proof that the criminal law produces a deterrent effect-- like prompting persons with HIV to disclose additional 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 additional frequent) seropositive status disclosure in 1 study,14 and worry of prosecution for nondisclosure was related with seropositive status disclosure in one more.15 Other studies have identified no proof of deterrence,ten,12 and none have located effects of enough magnitude to minimize HIV prevalence at a population level.Doable Negative Impact on Public Health EffortsLaws that criminalize HIV exposure might in fact undermine public overall health efforts by, for instance, providing a disincentive for persons at risk to become tested (lest folks become 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 Evidence of Laws' EffectivenessThe criminal law might impact HIV risk behaviors in 3 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 Health | August 2013, Vol 103, No.COMMENTARIESwidespread confusion regarding the which means of "significant risk" in Canadian law, resulting in broadly differing guidance about what the law prohibits. Providers also cited the damaging influence of criminalization on their efforts to establish counseling relationships with PLHIV that fostered openness about sexual activities and disclosure challenges.16 Related subtle.
+
Regrettably, the nature in the samples, which have been derived from incomplete records, restricted conclusions about implementation or enforcement in the laws. Due to the fact these laws have been adopted, scientific understanding of HIV and its transmission has sophisticated significantly: scientists have established the preventive impact of antiretroviral therapy, and they can now estimate the danger of HIV transmission linked with particular activities far more accurately5---8 and identify viral strains that distinct individuals 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 incorporate both crimes in which HIV status could 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 existing crime and imposes greater punishment (e.g., prostitution, sexual assault). [http://hsepeoplejobs.com/members/plain15foam/activity/452265/ call for the development of {specific|particular] Although no comprehensive record of HIVrelated criminal instances exists, two research have analyzed US prosecutions over time. Researchers have identified numerous concerns with HIVspecific statutes and their enforcement.since fairly handful of persons are incarcerated for HIV exposure2,10 and new infections can happen in prison.11 There is certainly also small evidence to suggest that criminalizing HIV exposure adjustments [http://hope4men.org.uk/members/cheek09error/activity/910993/ , Arachnids, and Nematodes. {Since|Because|Given that|Considering that|Due to] social norms: research have located that persons living in states with and devoid of HIV-specific laws10,12 and persons that are conscious and unaware of their state's HIV-specific law13 don't differ on perceived duty for preventing HIV transmission.10 Evidence that the criminal law produces a deterrent effect-- for instance prompting persons with HIV to disclose additional normally or have safer sex with fewer partners--has been mixed. Awareness of a state's HIV-specific law was connected with sooner (but not much more frequent) seropositive status disclosure in 1 study,14 and fear of prosecution for nondisclosure was associated with seropositive status disclosure in one more.15 Other research have found no proof of deterrence,ten,12 and none have found effects of sufficient magnitude to lessen HIV prevalence at a population level.Probable Damaging Influence on Public Overall health EffortsLaws that criminalize HIV exposure might really undermine public overall health efforts by, as an example, giving a disincentive for persons at danger to become tested (lest individuals turn into conscious 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 Evidence of Laws' EffectivenessThe criminal law may impact HIV threat behaviors in three primary ways: incapacitation, norm setting, and deterrence. Incapacitation is unlikely to minimize 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 widely differing guidance about what the law prohibits. Providers also cited the adverse effect of criminalization on their efforts to establish counseling relationships with PLHIV that fostered openness about sexual activities and disclosure challenges.16 Similar subtle.And punishment for low- to no-risk activities, severity of sentences, vague language along with the possibility of discriminatory enforcement, and broad prosecutorial discretion.

Версія за 20:55, 21 грудня 2017

Regrettably, the nature in the samples, which have been derived from incomplete records, restricted conclusions about implementation or enforcement in the laws. Due to the fact these laws have been adopted, scientific understanding of HIV and its transmission has sophisticated significantly: scientists have established the preventive impact of antiretroviral therapy, and they can now estimate the danger of HIV transmission linked with particular activities far more accurately5---8 and identify viral strains that distinct individuals 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 incorporate both crimes in which HIV status could 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 existing crime and imposes greater punishment (e.g., prostitution, sexual assault). call for the development of {specific|particular Although no comprehensive record of HIVrelated criminal instances exists, two research have analyzed US prosecutions over time. Researchers have identified numerous concerns with HIVspecific statutes and their enforcement.since fairly handful of persons are incarcerated for HIV exposure2,10 and new infections can happen in prison.11 There is certainly also small evidence to suggest that criminalizing HIV exposure adjustments , Arachnids, and Nematodes. {Since|Because|Given that|Considering that|Due to social norms: research have located that persons living in states with and devoid of HIV-specific laws10,12 and persons that are conscious and unaware of their state's HIV-specific law13 don't differ on perceived duty for preventing HIV transmission.10 Evidence that the criminal law produces a deterrent effect-- for instance prompting persons with HIV to disclose additional normally or have safer sex with fewer partners--has been mixed. Awareness of a state's HIV-specific law was connected with sooner (but not much more frequent) seropositive status disclosure in 1 study,14 and fear of prosecution for nondisclosure was associated with seropositive status disclosure in one more.15 Other research have found no proof of deterrence,ten,12 and none have found effects of sufficient magnitude to lessen HIV prevalence at a population level.Probable Damaging Influence on Public Overall health EffortsLaws that criminalize HIV exposure might really undermine public overall health efforts by, as an example, giving a disincentive for persons at danger to become tested (lest individuals turn into conscious 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 Evidence of Laws' EffectivenessThe criminal law may impact HIV threat behaviors in three primary ways: incapacitation, norm setting, and deterrence. Incapacitation is unlikely to minimize 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 widely differing guidance about what the law prohibits. Providers also cited the adverse effect of criminalization on their efforts to establish counseling relationships with PLHIV that fostered openness about sexual activities and disclosure challenges.16 Similar subtle.And punishment for low- to no-risk activities, severity of sentences, vague language along with the possibility of discriminatory enforcement, and broad prosecutorial discretion.

Отримано з http://istoriya.soippo.edu.ua/index.php?title=And_punishment_for_low-_to_no-risk_activities,_severity_of_sentences,_vague&oldid=266873