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

Матеріал з HistoryPedia
Перейти до: навігація, пошук
м
м
 
(не показані 15 проміжних версій 3 учасників)
Рядок 1: Рядок 1:
−
Awareness of a state's HIV-specific law was related with sooner (but not additional frequent) seropositive status disclosure in one study,14 and worry of prosecution for nondisclosure was related with seropositive status disclosure in an additional.15 Other research have found no evidence of deterrence,10,12 and none have found effects of enough magnitude to lower HIV prevalence at a population level.Doable Unfavorable Influence on Public Wellness EffortsLaws that criminalize HIV exposure may perhaps actually undermine public health efforts by, one example is, offering a disincentive for persons at threat to become tested (lest individuals come to be conscious 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 [http://ques2ans.gatentry.com/index.php?qa=114046&qa_1=apted-populations-ancestral-cadmium-ancestral-salt-followed Apted populations, Ancestral Cadmium (AC) and Ancestral Salt (AS), followed by] stigma. A Canadian study identifiedLack of Empirical Proof of Laws' EffectivenessThe criminal law may perhaps affect HIV danger behaviors in 3 primary strategies: incapacitation, norm setting, and deterrence. 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 regarding the which means of "significant risk" in Canadian law, resulting in widely differing tips about what the law prohibits. Providers also cited the negative effect 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 have been derived from incomplete records, limited conclusions about implementation or enforcement of the laws. Given that these laws have been adopted, scientific understanding of HIV and its transmission has advanced considerably: scientists have established the preventive impact of antiretroviral therapy, and they are able to now estimate the danger of HIV transmission linked with particular 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 consist of both crimes in which HIV status would be the only aspect distinguishing an act from legal behavior (e.g., consensual sex) and these for which having HIV increases the severity of an existing crime and imposes greater punishment (e.g., prostitution, sexual assault). Although no complete record of HIVrelated criminal situations exists, two research have analyzed US prosecutions over time. Researchers have identified a lot of issues with HIVspecific statutes and their enforcement.because relatively few persons are incarcerated for HIV exposure2,ten and new infections can happen in prison.11 There is certainly also small evidence to recommend that criminalizing HIV exposure changes social norms: studies have located 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 usually do not differ on perceived responsibility for stopping HIV transmission.ten Evidence that the criminal law produces a deterrent effect-- including 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 connected 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 a further.15 Other studies have found no evidence of deterrence,10,12 and none have discovered effects of sufficient magnitude to minimize HIV prevalence at a population level.Achievable Unfavorable Influence on Public Overall health EffortsLaws that criminalize HIV exposure might truly undermine public well being efforts by, by way of example, providing a disincentive for persons at threat to become tested (lest folks 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.
+
Considering that these laws have been adopted, scientific understanding of HIV and its transmission has sophisticated considerably: scientists have established the preventive influence of antiretroviral therapy, and they can now estimate the risk of HIV transmission connected with distinct activities far more accurately5---8 and identify 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 been described elsewhere.2---4 [https://www.medchemexpress.com/Trametinib.html Trametinib] existing laws include things like each crimes in which HIV status may be the only issue distinguishing an act from legal behavior (e.g., consensual sex) and these for which obtaining HIV increases the severity of an existing crime and imposes greater punishment (e.g., prostitution, sexual assault). 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 in regards to the which means of "significant risk" in Canadian law, resulting in widely differing guidance about what the law prohibits. Providers also cited the damaging impact of criminalization on their efforts to establish counseling relationships with PLHIV that fostered openness about sexual activities and disclosure challenges.16 Comparable 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 with the samples, which were derived from incomplete records, limited conclusions about implementation or enforcement of your laws. Because these laws had been adopted, scientific understanding of HIV and its transmission has sophisticated considerably: scientists have established the preventive effect of antiretroviral therapy, and they can now estimate the risk of HIV transmission associated with particular activities additional accurately5---8 and recognize viral strains that distinctive men and women 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 Current laws include both crimes in which HIV status is the only element distinguishing an act from legal behavior (e.g., consensual sex) and these for which possessing HIV increases the severity of an existing crime and imposes greater punishment (e.g., prostitution, sexual assault). Although no complete record of HIVrelated criminal cases exists, two studies have analyzed US prosecutions over time. Researchers have identified many issues with HIVspecific statutes and their enforcement.simply because reasonably handful of persons are incarcerated for HIV exposure2,10 and new infections can happen in prison.11 There's also little proof to suggest that criminalizing HIV exposure adjustments social norms: research have discovered that persons living in states with and without the need of HIV-specific laws10,12 and persons who are aware and unaware of their state's HIV-specific law13 don't differ on perceived responsibility for stopping HIV transmission.10 Evidence that the criminal law produces a deterrent effect-- for example prompting persons with HIV to disclose a lot more generally or have safer sex with fewer partners--has been mixed. Awareness of a state's HIV-specific law was associated with sooner (but not much more frequent) seropositive status disclosure in 1 study,14 and fear of prosecution for nondisclosure was connected with seropositive status disclosure in another.15 Other studies have identified no proof of deterrence,10,12 and none have discovered effects of enough magnitude to cut down HIV prevalence at a population level.Doable Unfavorable Impact on Public Health EffortsLaws that criminalize HIV exposure might really undermine public health efforts by, for example, supplying a disincentive for persons at danger to be tested (lest individuals grow to be 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.

Поточна версія на 09:40, 29 грудня 2017

Considering that these laws have been adopted, scientific understanding of HIV and its transmission has sophisticated considerably: scientists have established the preventive influence of antiretroviral therapy, and they can now estimate the risk of HIV transmission connected with distinct activities far more accurately5---8 and identify 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 been described elsewhere.2---4 Trametinib existing laws include things like each crimes in which HIV status may be the only issue distinguishing an act from legal behavior (e.g., consensual sex) and these for which obtaining HIV increases the severity of an existing crime and imposes greater punishment (e.g., prostitution, sexual assault). 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 in regards to the which means of "significant risk" in Canadian law, resulting in widely differing guidance about what the law prohibits. Providers also cited the damaging impact of criminalization on their efforts to establish counseling relationships with PLHIV that fostered openness about sexual activities and disclosure challenges.16 Comparable 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 with the samples, which were derived from incomplete records, limited conclusions about implementation or enforcement of your laws. Because these laws had been adopted, scientific understanding of HIV and its transmission has sophisticated considerably: scientists have established the preventive effect of antiretroviral therapy, and they can now estimate the risk of HIV transmission associated with particular activities additional accurately5---8 and recognize viral strains that distinctive men and women 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 Current laws include both crimes in which HIV status is the only element distinguishing an act from legal behavior (e.g., consensual sex) and these for which possessing HIV increases the severity of an existing crime and imposes greater punishment (e.g., prostitution, sexual assault). Although no complete record of HIVrelated criminal cases exists, two studies have analyzed US prosecutions over time. Researchers have identified many issues with HIVspecific statutes and their enforcement.simply because reasonably handful of persons are incarcerated for HIV exposure2,10 and new infections can happen in prison.11 There's also little proof to suggest that criminalizing HIV exposure adjustments social norms: research have discovered that persons living in states with and without the need of HIV-specific laws10,12 and persons who are aware and unaware of their state's HIV-specific law13 don't differ on perceived responsibility for stopping HIV transmission.10 Evidence that the criminal law produces a deterrent effect-- for example prompting persons with HIV to disclose a lot more generally or have safer sex with fewer partners--has been mixed. Awareness of a state's HIV-specific law was associated with sooner (but not much more frequent) seropositive status disclosure in 1 study,14 and fear of prosecution for nondisclosure was connected with seropositive status disclosure in another.15 Other studies have identified no proof of deterrence,10,12 and none have discovered effects of enough magnitude to cut down HIV prevalence at a population level.Doable Unfavorable Impact on Public Health EffortsLaws that criminalize HIV exposure might really undermine public health efforts by, for example, supplying a disincentive for persons at danger to be tested (lest individuals grow to be 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.

Отримано з http://istoriya.soippo.edu.ua/index.php?title=And_punishment_for_low-_to_no-risk_activities,_severity_of_sentences,_vague&oldid=270010