Відмінності між версіями «And punishment for low- to no-risk activities, severity of sentences, vague»
м |
м |
||
| Рядок 1: | Рядок 1: | ||
| − | + | Even though no comprehensive record of HIVrelated criminal situations exists, two research have analyzed US prosecutions over time. Researchers have identified a lot of concerns with HIVspecific statutes and their enforcement.mainly because fairly couple of persons are incarcerated for HIV exposure2,ten and new infections can happen in prison.11 There's also small proof to recommend that criminalizing HIV exposure changes social norms: research have found that persons living in states with and without HIV-specific laws10,12 and persons who are aware 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 a lot more 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 extra frequent) seropositive status disclosure in one particular study,14 and fear of prosecution for nondisclosure was related with seropositive status disclosure in an additional.15 Other research have located no proof of deterrence,ten,12 and none have located effects of adequate magnitude to minimize HIV prevalence at a population level.Attainable Negative Effect on Public Well being EffortsLaws that criminalize HIV exposure may well essentially undermine public overall health efforts by, by way of example, providing a disincentive for persons at threat to be tested (lest individuals come to be conscious 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 [https://www.medchemexpress.com/Tubacin.html Tubacin site] identifiedLack of Empirical Proof of Laws' EffectivenessThe criminal law may well affect HIV risk behaviors in 3 key approaches: incapacitation, norm setting, and deterrence. Incapacitation is unlikely to minimize new infections1350 | Commentaries | Peer Reviewed | Lazzarini et al.American Journal of Public Overall health | August 2013, Vol 103, No.COMMENTARIESwidespread confusion concerning the which means of "significant risk" in Canadian law, resulting in broadly differing suggestions 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 Equivalent 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 on the samples, which have been derived from incomplete records, limited conclusions about implementation or enforcement on the laws. Considering that these laws have been adopted, scientific understanding of HIV and its transmission has sophisticated significantly: scientists have established the preventive effect of antiretroviral therapy, and they are able to now estimate the danger of HIV transmission related with specific activities additional accurately5---8 and recognize viral strains that various persons carry.9 HIV-specific criminal laws haven't kept pace with these scientific advances.BACKGROUNDCharacteristics of HIV-specific laws have been described elsewhere.2---4 Present laws include things like each crimes in which HIV status could be the only aspect distinguishing an act from legal behavior (e.g., consensual sex) and those for which getting HIV increases the severity of an existing crime and imposes higher punishment (e.g., prostitution, sexual assault). | |
Версія за 21:41, 22 грудня 2017
Even though no comprehensive record of HIVrelated criminal situations exists, two research have analyzed US prosecutions over time. Researchers have identified a lot of concerns with HIVspecific statutes and their enforcement.mainly because fairly couple of persons are incarcerated for HIV exposure2,ten and new infections can happen in prison.11 There's also small proof to recommend that criminalizing HIV exposure changes social norms: research have found that persons living in states with and without HIV-specific laws10,12 and persons who are aware 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 a lot more 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 extra frequent) seropositive status disclosure in one particular study,14 and fear of prosecution for nondisclosure was related with seropositive status disclosure in an additional.15 Other research have located no proof of deterrence,ten,12 and none have located effects of adequate magnitude to minimize HIV prevalence at a population level.Attainable Negative Effect on Public Well being EffortsLaws that criminalize HIV exposure may well essentially undermine public overall health efforts by, by way of example, providing a disincentive for persons at threat to be tested (lest individuals come to be conscious 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 Tubacin site identifiedLack of Empirical Proof of Laws' EffectivenessThe criminal law may well affect HIV risk behaviors in 3 key approaches: incapacitation, norm setting, and deterrence. Incapacitation is unlikely to minimize new infections1350 | Commentaries | Peer Reviewed | Lazzarini et al.American Journal of Public Overall health | August 2013, Vol 103, No.COMMENTARIESwidespread confusion concerning the which means of "significant risk" in Canadian law, resulting in broadly differing suggestions 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 Equivalent 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 on the samples, which have been derived from incomplete records, limited conclusions about implementation or enforcement on the laws. Considering that these laws have been adopted, scientific understanding of HIV and its transmission has sophisticated significantly: scientists have established the preventive effect of antiretroviral therapy, and they are able to now estimate the danger of HIV transmission related with specific activities additional accurately5---8 and recognize viral strains that various persons carry.9 HIV-specific criminal laws haven't kept pace with these scientific advances.BACKGROUNDCharacteristics of HIV-specific laws have been described elsewhere.2---4 Present laws include things like each crimes in which HIV status could be the only aspect distinguishing an act from legal behavior (e.g., consensual sex) and those for which getting HIV increases the severity of an existing crime and imposes higher punishment (e.g., prostitution, sexual assault).
