U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Vacates HIV Aggravated Assault and Reckless Endangerment charges in Case of LTC Kenneth Pinkela (Press Release)

Ken Pinkela serves as a member of Sero’s Advisory Board.

New York, NY April 24, 2015:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) has vacated HIV-related Aggravated Assault and Reckless Endangerment charges in a U.S. Army case involving LTC Kenneth Pinkela.

In the official CAAF announcement released on April 22, 2015, the high court said:

That said petition is hereby granted on the following

issue:

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO FIND BEYOND

A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT APPELLANT COMMITTED AGGRAVATED

ASSAULT AND RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLES

128 AND 134, UCMJ, BY ENGAGING IN UNPROTECTED SEX WHILE

HIV-POSITIVE.

That the decision of the Army Court of Criminal Appeals is

vacated and the record of trial is returned to the Judge

Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for

reconsideration in light of United States v. Gutierrez, 74

M.J. 61 (C.A.A.F. 2015)

In February of this year, the CAAF ruled that Air Force Technical Sergeant David Gutierrez, who was accused of not disclosing his HIV positive status to sexual partners, was not guilty of Aggravated Assault and reduced charges against him to Assault and Battery. At the time of the alleged sexual contacts, Gutierrez was on antiretroviral medication, had an undetectable viral load and was not accused of transmitting HIV.

The Sero Project, a national network of people living with HIV, applauds the CAAF for its rulings in both the Gutierrez case as well as the more recent ruling in the Pinkela case, but noted the military still is out of step with contemporary science and other arms of the U.S. government.

“While the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. Congress, the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies categorize HIV as a chronic manageable illness, military lawyers and military court decisions still explicitly label HIV as a ‘death sentence.’ They can’t have it both ways. While we applaud CAAF’s recent decisions, it is time for the entire Department of Defense to address HIV for the reality it is today, based on science not stigma,” said Sean Strub, Sero’s executive director.

The Sero Project called on the U.S. Army to re-evaluate its prosecution against Pinkela, who also serves as the volunteer director of Sero’s Military Policy Project. “There’s no rational basis for continuing to prosecute Ken,” said Strub.

Pinkela’s military legal counsel has accused the Army of inadequately investigating the charges against Pinkela and of refusing to allow critical evidence to be presented at trial. Pinkela has volunteered to undergo phylogenetic testing, which could prove the complaining witness acquired HIV from another party, but the prosecutors declined to order such a test.

In the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2014, Congress included specific direction to the Secretary of Defense to review and report back to Congress on all HIV- related personnel and disciplinary policies and procedures, to make sure they are consistent with contemporary science. That report has not yet been released.

H.R. 1586: Repeal Existing Policies that Encourage and Allow Legal HIV Discrimination Act of 2015, introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D–Cal.) and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R–Fla.), seeks to help end the criminalization of HIV by providing guidance to the states and military to modernize their statutes to make them reflect contemporary science and not unduly stigmatize people with HIV.

The Sero Project is a network of people with HIV and allies fighting for freedom from stigma and injustice. Founded in 2012, Sero raises awareness, conducts research and mobilizes grassroots communities, policy leaders and advocates to address HIV criminalization.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Vacates HIV Aggravated Assault and Reckless Endangerment charges…

Kenya: Detailed analysis of recent High Court ruling on Kenya’s HIV-specific law by Annabel Raw, head of Health Rights Programme at the Southern Africa Litigation Centre

On 18 March 2015, in Aids Law Project v Attorney General and Others [2015] the High Court of Kenya declared section 24 of the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act (“Act”) unconstitutional. I applaud the impetus of the decision but I want to argue that the narrow focus of the Court’s judgment reduces its potential to advance rational health policies and laws.

Section 24(1) of the Act requires a person aware of being HIV-positive to “take all reasonable measures and precautions to prevent the transmission of HIV to others” and to “inform, in advance, any sexual contact or persons with whom needles are shared” of their HIV-positive status. Subsection (2) prohibits “knowingly and recklessly, placing another person at risk of becoming infected with HIV”. Contravention of these provisions is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment for up to seven years, and/or a fine. Under section 24(7), a medical practitioner who becomes aware of a patient’s HIV-status may inform anyone who has sexual contact with that patient of their HIV-status.

In 2010, the AIDS Law Project sought a declaration that section 24 of the Act was unconstitutional and “unacceptable discrimination” on the basis of health status. It argued that the undefined terms of “inform”, “in advance” and “sexual contact” renders section 24 vague and overbroad, contrary to the principle of legality. It submitted that the provision violates the right to a fair hearing, equality, non-discrimination, and sexual privacy. The petitioner was supported by an amicus curiae, the Centre for Reproductive Rights, which made submissions on the disproportionate impact that the provision would have on women, exacerbating stigma and undermining public health interventions.

In a unanimous judgment of a sitting of three judges of the High Court, Lenaola HJ held that the central issue was the provision’s vagueness and overbreadth. Focussing solely on the absence of a definition for “sexual contact”, the Court held that it is impossible to determine what acts are prohibited. Further, given that section 24 places no obligation on sexual contacts who have been informed of another’s HIV-status to keep that information confidential, the provision does not meet the standards for a justifiable limitation of the constitutional right to privacy.

Similar criminal provisions exist in a number of countries. The Constitutional Court in Zimbabwe is, for example, currently considering the constitutionality of Zimbabwe’s HIV criminalization law. The Kenyan judgment must be applauded to the extent that it emboldens the human rights critique of these laws and compels the Kenyan government to reconsider the provision.

It is disappointing, however, that the privacy violations were constructed so narrowly, with the Court failing to appreciate the risks of criminalizing non-disclosure more broadly, particularly for vulnerable groups, as raised by the amicus. Furthermore, by framing the vagueness and overbreadth ruling so strictly, the inhibiting effects of criminalization on effective public health interventions remain legally unscathed.

Insofar as the courts may be a useful forum to advance health rights and public health, perhaps a better legal foundation would be a rationality review of legislation. In a number of common law jurisdictions, this entails testing conduct or law against the ends that it claims to achieve. The standard typically requires that conduct needs to be rationally connected to a legitimate government interest or purpose in order to be lawful.

As made clear by the Act’s long title, its purpose is to prevent, control and manage HIV and AIDS, promote public health, and deliver appropriate care for persons living with HIV. The criminalization of HIV transmission and non-disclosure has come under heavy criticism by leading international experts and bodies for failing to protect human rights in a way that promotes public health initiatives for the effective treatment and control of HIV. If the argument against criminalization of HIV transmission is found persuasive in court, the legislation should be found irrational because it employs a strategy that is harmful to its purported ends.

It is in this sense that we might consider rationality review when using the courts in similar jurisdictions as fora to insist on public health policies and laws that are founded in scientific evidence and not fear and stigma.

Greece: Mandatory HIV testing law, Health Decree 39A, repealed again by Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras

“I haven’t felt greater shame than when they caught us.”

That’s what Georgia told me as she recalled the moment in April 2012 that police detained her and dozens of other women alleged to be sex workers and forced them to take HIV tests. Those found to be HIV positive, such as Georgia, were arrested and charged with causing intentional grievous bodily harm (a felony) or attempted bodily harm (a misdemeanor), for allegedly having unprotected sex with clients while knowing they were HIV positive. The police and media outlets publicized the women’s personal data and photographs, and the Greek Center for Disease Control disclosed their HIV-positive status.

The good news is that today, Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras announced the repeal of the health regulation that was used to justify these roundups. UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, and human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, had raised concerns about the regulation, which allowed the authorities to conduct HIV testing without informed consent in a misguided effort to curb the transmission of infectious diseases.

Most of the women were acquitted of all charges. But at least two of them, including Maria, a vivacious young woman who shared with me the humiliation she suffered but also her hopes for the future, have since committed suicide.

Sex workers continue to face other challenges. A new policing plan for the center of Athens announced on March 12 includes targeted operations against “women sex workers,” among others. Many women selling sex on the streets fall afoul of the strict regulations governing legal sex work and face daily harassment by the police.

Repealing a health regulation that led to such terrible abuse is a good first step. But the Greek government should also implement a genuine public health approach to people who exchange sex for money, drugs, or life necessities. And this means ensuring that police operations respect the rights of women whose lives are hard enough already.

US: REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act reintroduced by Congresswoman Barbara Lee even as some US states propose new HIV-specific criminal laws

The past month or so has seen a huge amount of activity around overly broad HIV criminalisation in the United States, culminating the reintroduction of the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act by Congresswoman Barbara Lee.

As well as on-going arrests and prosecutions of individuals for alleged non-disclosure (and some excellent reporting on certain cases, such as that of Michael ‘Tiger Mandingo’ Johnson in Missouri or of two new cases on the same day in Michigan) new problematic HIV-related criminal laws have been proposed in Alabama, Missouri, Rhode Island and Texas.

Fortunately, most of these bills have been stopped due to rapid responses from well networked grass roots advocates (many of whom are connected via the Sero Project’s listserv) as well as state and national HIV legal and policy organisations, including the Positive Justice Project.

REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act

On March 24th, Congresswoman Barbara Lee reintroduced a new iteration of the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act (H.R.1586), “to modernize laws, and eliminate discrimination, with respect to people living with HIV/AIDS, and for other purposes”.

The full text of the bill can be found here.

The last time the REPEAL Act was introduced, in 2013, it had 45 co-sponsors before dying in committee. The first iteration, introduced in 2011, achieved 41 co-sponsors.

As of April 15th, the 2015 iteration has three co-sponsors, two Democrats – Jim McDermott and Adam B Schiff – and one Republican, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

As in 2011 and 2013, the bill has been referred to three House Committees: Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, and Armed Services.

Back in 2013, the Positive Justice Project produced an excellent toolkit that provides advocates with resources which “can be used in outreach efforts, including a guide for letter writing campaigns, calling your representative’s state and Washington D.C. offices, or meeting with your representative or the representative’s legislative staff.”

If you’re in the US, you can also show Congress that you support this bill at: https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/114/hr1586

Alabama

On April 1, 2015 the House Judiciary Committee of the Alabama Legislature held a hearing on HB 50, proposed by Democrat Representative Juandalynn Givan, that would increase the penalty for exposure or transmission of a sexually transmitted infection from a class C misdemeanour (punishable by up to 3 months in jail and a $500 fine) to a class C felony (punishable by up to 10 years in prison).

Representative Givan was apparently inspired to propose the bill after reading about a pastor in Montgomery, Alabama, who admitted in an October 2014 sermon that he was living with HIV and engaging in sex with women in his congregation without having disclosed his status. (He wasn’t prosecuted, but appears to have lost his job, as of the last news report in December 2014.)

In an interview in March 2015, she told AL.com that Alabama is one of only 16 states in the nation where it is a misdemeanour rather than a felony to ‘knowingly expose another person to a sexually transmitted disease’.

“What this bill is about is responsibility and accountability…The aim of this bill is not to punish those people with a sexually transmitted disease but to hold those people accountable,” that knowingly transmit dangerous illnesses to other people.

Some of the testimony before the House Judiciary Committee – most of it against the bill – is reported (rather poorly) in the Alabama Political Reporter.

Before the hearing began, the Positive Justice Project Steering Committee sent a powerful letter to the members of the House Judiciary Committee, voicing their strong opposition to the bill.

Medical experts and public health officials agree that criminalizing the conduct of people living with HIV does nothing to decrease the rates of infection, and may actually deter conduct and decisions that reduce disease transmission. Consequently, the American Medical Association, HIVMA, ANAC, and NASTAD have issued statements urging an end to the criminalization of HIV and other infectious diseases. Notably, the U.S. Department of Justice recently issued “Best Practices Guide to Reform HIV-Specific Criminal Laws,” which counsels states to end felony prosecutions of people living with HIV as contrary to the relevant science and national HIV prevention goals.

The bill remains with the House Judiciary Committee, but seems unlikely to be passed given that there are no co-sponsors.

Missouri

On March 10th, Republican Representative Travis Fitzwater introduced HB 1181, which proposed adding ‘spitting whilst HIV-positive’ to Missouri’s (already overly draconian) current HIV-specific criminal statute.

It is unclear what caused Rep Fitzwater to introduce the bill. However, advocacy against it was swift, with the local chapters of both ACLU and Human Rights Campaign, and Missouri-based HIV advocate, Aaron Laxton, planning to testify against it within days of it being introduced.

Although the bill was scheduled for a public hearing before the Civil and Criminal Proceedings Committee on April 7th, the community’s quick response meant the bill was not heard. According to Laxton, “within a matter of hours every member of the Civil and Criminal Proceedings Committee has received calls, emails, tweets and messages from many people” against the bill.

The proposed bill now appears to be dead, and advocacy in Missouri is now focused on modernising the existing HIV-specific law (which includes criminalising biting whilst HIV-positive) to take into account the latest science around HIV risk and harm.

Rhode Island

On February 24th, Republican Representative Robert Nardolillo introduced a new HIV-specific criminal law (H 5245) that would have criminalised HIV non-disclosure in the state for the first time.

In an interview with Zack Ford on thinkprogress.org, Rep Nardolillo said that as a survivor of sexual abuse he was surprised to discover that Rhode Island law does not allow for harsh enough penalties if HIV is passed on during a sexual assault.

However, although his proposed bill created a felony when someone with HIV “forcibly engages in sexual intercourse,” it also criminalised when someone “knowingly engages in sexual intercourse with another person without first informing that person of his/her HIV infection.”

The entire hearing before the Rhode Island House Judiciary Committee was captured on video, and an excellent blog post by Steve Ahlquist on RIFuture.org highlighted both Rep Nardolillo’s ignorance of the potential harms of the bill, and the sustained and powerful testimonies against the bill from public health experts, people living with HIV and HIV NGOs alike.

Ahlquist concludes, “In the face of such strong opposition, it seems extremely unlikely that this legislation will advance out of committee.”

All testimonies are available to view in short video clips on the blog. You can also read the written testimony of the AIDS Law Project of the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) here.

Texas

On February 25, Republican Senator Joan Huffman introduced SB 779, which would essentially have created an HIV-specific criminal law by the back door.

Texas repealed its previous HIV-specific criminal law in 1994 and uses general criminal statutes, including attempted murder and aggravated assault, for potential or perceived HIV exposure and alleged HIV transmission cases.

According to the Advocacy Without Borders blog, “SB 779 proposes to amend the state Health and Safety Code to allow for HIV test results (which are currently confidential) to be subpoenaed during grand jury proceedings – and for a defendant’s medical records to be accessed without their consent to establish guilt/innocence and also potentially to be used to determine sentencing. Essentially, this bill proposes to criminalize having HIV.”

The proposed law, and a number of other proposed HIV-related laws, was also critiqued in a Dallas Voice article highlighting the opinion of Januari Leo, who works with Legacy Community Health Service.

Leo, a longtime social worker who has worked with clients living with HIV, is blunt about the three bills: “They would criminalize HIV. HIV isn’t a crime. It’s a public health problem…These new bills use HIV status as a crime, against people who are suspects in a crime but have yet to be proven guilty. They’re allowing prosecutors to use private medical records, as mandated under HIPPA, as a weapon.”

Although it was considered in a public hearing before the State Affairs Committee on April 16, it now appears to be dead.

US: Missouri proposal to add spitting whilst HIV-positive to criminal law likely defeated following strong pushback

On Tuesday, the Missouri House Committee on Civil and Criminal Proceedings held a hearing on HB 1181, a bill that would criminalize individuals knowingly infected with HIV who spit at another person. Contact with saliva has never been shown to result in HIV transmission.

HRC Senior Legislative Counsel Alison Gill testified in opposition to this harmful bill.

“According to the Presidential Commission on the HIV Epidemic, criminal sanctions for HIV transmission must be carefully drawn, directed only towards behavior which is scientifically established as a mode of transmission, and should be employed only when all other public health and civil actions fail to produce responsible behavior,” she testified. “H.B. 1181 fails to meet this standard because it criminalizes behavior with a low or negligible risk of HIV transmission, which may result in stigmatization and negative health outcomes among people with HIV and the LGBT community in Missouri.”

HRC urges the Missouri lawmakers to oppose this unnecessary and harmful bill.

Zimbabwe: HIV-specific criminal law criticised for making women with HIV more vulnerable

Women in the country have condemned the law criminalising the willful transmission of HIV claiming that women always feel the brunt of the law. Criminalisation of willful or deliberate transmission has become controversial in a county. Willful transmission is defined in the Zimbabwean law as the failure to disclose one’s status or to take precautions for preventing the transmission of HIV/ AIDS.

Speaking during a TweetT@ble discussion held by the Netherlands Embassy and 263Chat, Martha Tholanah the Director of International Community of Women living with HIV Zimbabwe said the legislation is unlawful.

“HIV/AIDS has always carried the face of a woman and women always carry burden the HIV pandemic. The criminalisation of willful transmission also has a woman face which is unlawful as women always end up being victims of the provision,” said Tholanah.

She also said, “Women are always accused of bringing the HIV virus into marriages and the justice system has not done enough to protect women who end up being imprisoned for 20 years.”

While it is difficult to detect who infected the other in a relationship women have always been labeled as the culprits.

Cases of willful transmission are on the rise mainly based on HIV positive people who have had sex with the primary intent of transmitting the virus to their partner.

Several cases have been brought before the courts where individuals claim to have deliberately infected with HIV by their partners with many occasions pointing the woman as the one who infected the men.

Tamara Jonsson, the Program Officer of UNAIDS Zimbabwe said, “the provisions of the criminal law are problematic especially the criminalisation of non disclosure.

“Criminalisation of non disclosure has negative implications on women as it does not guarantee safety after disclosure.”

She went on to say that stories told always climax with the younger women eventually being summoned to the courts for allegedly infecting the male counterpart.

Tinashe Mudawarara a lawyer with ZLHR, said the law is overbroad and it’s the provision are wide, dangerous, and unlawful and thereby infringing on the right to protection of the law.

Center for Reproductive Rights welcomes Kenya High Court ruling that quashes vague and unconstitutional HIV-specific criminal statute

03.30.15 – (PRESS RELEASE) Key provisions of a law criminalizing the transmission of HIV in an effort to curb spread of the disease in Kenya are unconstitutional and violate fundamental human rights, according to a recent landmark ruling from the High Court of Kenya. The Center for Reproductive Rights filed an amicus brief in support of the case brought by AIDS Law Project in 2010.

While the “HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act, No.14 of 2006” (“HIV/AIDS Act”) codifies measures for treatment, counseling, care and support of people living with HIV—it contains troubling provisions that criminalize the transmission of HIV in certain instances and permit partner disclosure of HIV/AIDS status by health care workers. The law also discriminates against women, who are often subject to coercive practices and violations of informed consent and confidentiality when testing for HIV, particularly during pregnancy.

In its decision issued on March 18, the three-judge panel ruled Section 24 of the HIV/AIDS Act which criminalized transmission of HIV was unconstitutional under the Kenyan Constitution, as the provisions are too vague and that disclosing patients’ HIV status violates their rights to privacy and confidentiality. The judges also advised the State Law Office to review the HIV/AIDS Act to “avoid further litigation” surrounding the law.

Said Evelyne Opondo, regional director for Africa at the Center for Reproductive Rights:

“All people are entitled to quality health services—regardless of their HIV status or other health needs.

“This law has inflicted fear, shame, and punishment on countless Kenyans, especially pregnant women who desperately need and deserve quality maternal health care.

“We commend the High Court for finding the criminalization of HIV transmission as unconstitutional and a violation of Kenyans’ fundamental human rights. Now is the time for the Kenya government to immediately amend this legislation and ensure people living with HIV can get the care they need without fear of discrimination or criminalization.”

“We must ensure people living with HIV receive the proper medical care and support that they need,” said Jacinta Nyachae, Executive Director of the AIDS Law Project. “If we want to reduce the spread HIV and AIDS and put an end to the stigma, violence and discrimination surrounding the disease, our public policies must be based on medical evidence and grounded in human rights.”

In 2011, the Center for Reproductive Rights submitted an amicus brief in the AIDS Law Project v. Attorney General & Director of Public Prosecutions (Petition No. 97, 2010), challenging the constitutionality of the law. The Center claimed that the HIV law could be interpreted to criminalize women living with HIV who expose or transmit the virus to a child during pregnancy, delivery, or breastfeeding. The Center argued that criminalizing HIV exposure and transmission does not protect women from transmission, but instead exacerbates existing stigma and discrimination against women, exposing them to risk of prosecution. The Center’s brief also recommended the law’s provisions permitting partner disclosure of HIV status be quashed.

US: Positive Justice Project releases a set of principles to guide modernisation of state criminal laws

Today, in the wake of recent court decisions rejecting several applications of the criminal law to people with HIV, the Positive Justice Project (PJP) , a national coalition challenging HIV criminal law policies in the United States, released a set of principles to guide the modernization of state HIV criminal laws across the country.

“Ending criminal prosecutions based on HIV or other health conditions is a vitally important part of a sound, public health approach to ending the epidemic,” said Kim Miller of the HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA). “Treating a medical condition as evidence of a crime is at direct odds with public health campaigns to get as many people as possible tested and, if HIV positive, into treatment,” added Ms. Miller. “That is the best way to protect everyone, since treatment keeps people healthy while reducing already low transmission risks to near-zero.”

Currently, 32 states have criminal laws that punish people living with HIV for conduct that would be legal if they did not get tested and did not know their HIV status. Conviction under these laws can result in decades-long prison sentences despite very low transmission risks and dramatic improvements in treatment that have transformed what it means to live with HIV.

Carole Treston of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC) confirmed, “On treatment people living with HIV can expect to live long and healthy lives. It’s time for the law to catch up with the science on the real risks and realities of HIV in the twenty-first century.”

The Guiding Principles for Eliminating Disease-Specific Criminal Laws call for modernization of existing laws that exclude HIV and other infectious diseases from long-established interpretations of criminal felony laws requiring proof of intent to harm accompanied by conduct likely to cause death or severe injury for a conviction. At present, most states require only evidence that a person has been diagnosed with HIV and has engaged in some form of contact with a third party for a felony conviction and, in some cases, life-long sex offender registration.

In 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice issued the Best Practices Guide to Reform HIV-Specific Criminal Laws to Align with Scientifically-Supported Factors; and in 2013 the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) issued a Resolution on Ending Federal and State HIV-Specific Criminal Laws, Prosecutions, and Civil Commitments. A growing number of political, legal, public health and advocacy organizations also have called for the modernization of HIV laws.

“Both HIV and the prison system have a disproportionate reach into communities of color,” stated C. Virginia Fields, Director of the National Black Leadership Commission on AIDS. “Laws that make an HIV test the basis for a felony prosecution are a double burden for those at greatest risk of both HIV and entanglement in the criminal justice system. We need to end this yesterday, and we need to do it right. These principles are a great step in the right direction.

US: Rhode Island politician wants the state to consider new unscientific, stigmatising HIV non-disclosure law

State Lawmaker Targets People With HIV With Bill To Criminalize Exposure” by Zack Ford

Rhode Island state Rep. Robert Nardolillo (R) has introduced a new bill ( H 5245) that would criminalize exposing individuals to HIV without disclosing a positive status. Rhode Island is one of only 13 statesthat does not have such a law, but efforts are underway to roll back many of those other laws, which were passed when the virus was not as well understood as it is today.

Currently, Rhode Island does have a law that makes it a misdemeanor to expose another person to any sexually transmitted disease (STD), punishable by up to three months in jail and a fine of up to $100. Nardolillo told ThinkProgress that he doesn’t think this is appropriate for exposure HIV. “HIV is different. I put it alone,” he explained. “If this act happened, the penalty would be what?” According to his bill, it should be imprisonment up to 15 years and a fine up to $5,000.

A freshman legislator, Nardolillo openly discussed in his campaign that he was a victim of sexual assault as a minor and that he thus has “very strong views on sex offenders and the weak legislation that continually fails to protect those who are, have been, and will be victimized.” He noted that Rhode Island’s current laws offer “no penalty or enhancement” when STD transmission takes place during a sexual assault, though individuals can be punished for both. His new bill does criminalize when someone with HIV “forcibly engages in sexual intercourse,” but it also criminalizes when someone “knowingly engages in sexual intercourse with another person without first informing that person of his/her HIV infection.”

ThinkProgress confronted Nardolillo with studies that show that criminalizing HIV actually disincentivizes individuals from getting tested for HIV because they fear prosecution if they know their status is positive. As a result, the stigma against people with HIV increases and fewer people seek care for their HIV, which could increase their potential for transmitting the virus. “Have I read the research? I did,” Nardolillo confirmed, saying that he still felt that HIV was too serious not to prosecute in a distinct way.

ThinkProgress also asked Nardolillo about recent research showing that for HIV-positive people who have sought care and reduced their viral load to undetectable levels, it’s virtually impossible for them to transmit the virus to others. Should those individuals similarly be prosecuted for not disclosing their status? “I have no comment on that,” Nardolillo responded.

It was research about the risk of transmission that actually led the Iowa Supreme Court to overturn the conviction of a man who had been charged under that state’s HIV criminalization law last year. In fact, the Court said that, regardless of viral load, protected anal sex or unprotected oral sex are now known to carry such a minimal risk of transmission that they could not hold someone accountable for “risking” exposure when engaging in those activities. Nardolillo’s bill implicates any and all vaginal, anal, or oral sex with no qualifications as to whether protection is used.

Last year, Iowa became one of the first states to rescind its HIV criminalization laws, leaving penalties only for those who insidiously intend to transmit the virus. Though other states have not yet followed Iowa’s example, there is consensus among HIV/AIDS experts and advocates that they should. Both the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS and the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division have recommended the repeal of state HIV criminalization laws. These laws, they argue, are not based on the medical evidence currently available and counter-intuitively increase stigma and interfere with prevention efforts, making it harder to fight the HIV epidemic, not easier.

The House Committee on the Judiciary will consider Nardolillo’s bill Tuesday afternoon. It currently has four other co-sponsors, but its prospects for passage are unclear.

Criminal Law Not Effective Against HIV

THE CONFESSIONS of the 40-year-old man who went on a “deliberate spree to infect as many other people as possible” in 2002 (The Namibian, 14 January 2015) sparked a series of media reports in the past few weeks, which featured calls from the public for the enactment of an HIV-specific crime of intentional transmission of HIV.

The push to apply criminal law to HIV exposure and transmission is often driven by the wish to respond to serious concerns about the ongoing spread of HIV, coupled by what is perceived to be a failure of existing HIV prevention efforts.

No one suggests that a person who, knowing he has HIV, sets out intending to infect another, and achieves his aim, ought to escape prosecution. In these cases, as infrequent as they may be, the victims and their society seek justice because harm was caused with clear intention.

There is, however, no need to enact a new HIV-specific law to address this situation. We have existing common law crimes that can be applied. Where we seek to apply these, we must ensure that the use of criminal law in relation to HIV should be guided by the current best available scientific and medical evidence.

Two key scientific and medical developments in the past five years call for a reconsideration of the application of criminal law in the context of HIV. The first is that we know that effective HIV treatment has significantly reduced AIDS-related deaths and has transformed HIV infection from a condition that inevitably resulted in early death to a chronic manageable condition.

In Namibia the treatment programme has been a flagship of the response, achieving 2010 Universal Access target 2009, and has since continued to register remarkable achievements. By March 2014, an estimated coverage of over 81% of eligible adults and 54% of eligible children were on anti-retroviral therapy (ART).

Secondly we now know that effective HIV treatment significantly reduces the risk of HIV transmission from people living with HIV to their sexual partners.

Since HIV is now a chronic treatable health condition, it is thus no longer appropriate for criminal prosecution for HIV transmission to involve charges of murder, attempted murder or assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Based on current evidence, the harm of HIV infection should not be treated differently from that of other serious sexually transmitted infections like hepatitis B or C. Transmission of these infections is, however, seldom if ever subject to criminal prosecution.

In addition, the effectiveness of criminal law as a tool for reducing the spread of HIV is questionable. Criminal law is traditionally used to incapacitate, rehabilitate or deter offenders.

Why then should we treat HIV differently?

In order to slow the spread of the HIV epidemic, vast numbers of people would have to be prevented from having unsafe sex or engaging in other risk behaviours, which no criminal law could possibly do.

Indeed, imprisoning a person with HIV does not prevent the transmission of HIV. HIV risk behaviours are prevalent in prisons, yet correctional services authorities continue to reject the introduction of evidence-informed prevention measures such as condoms and fail to address sexual violence in prisons.

There is little evidence to suggest that criminal penalties for conduct that transmits HIV will “rehabilitate” a person such that they avoid future conduct that carries the risk of HIV transmission. Most cases of HIV transmission are related to sexual activity – human behaviour that is complex and very difficult to change through the blunt tool of criminal penalties.

There is no scientific data to support the claim that criminal prosecution, or the threat thereof, has any appreciable effect in encouraging disclosure to sexual partners by people living with HIV or deterring conduct that poses a risk of transmission.

What nearly 30 years of addressing AIDS has taught us is that key to preventing the spread of HIV is the reduction of stigma and discrimination on the basis of HIV status, real or perceived, the fear of which deters many people from seeking HIV testing and knowing their status as an entry point to accessing HIV treatment and other related services.

Applying criminal law to HIV exposure or transmission, except in very limited circumstances, does the opposite. It reinforces the stereotype that people living with HIV are immoral and dangerous criminals, rather than, like everyone else, people endowed with responsibility, dignity and human rights.

Instead of focusing our attention on passing more criminal laws that provide for an HIV-specific crime, we should rather be putting our energies into creating an enabling legal environment in which the social and legal constructs that place some people more at risk of HIV infection than others are addressed. In particular we should ensure that the laws in place protect women’s equal rights and that their right to be free from violence are enforced.

We should promote access to comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education and sexual and reproductive health services and other evidence-based strategies designed to reduce HIV risks. We should adopt a comprehensive anti-discrimination law that protects people against discrimination on the basis of real or perceived HIV status or on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and we should repeal laws that criminalise or further marginalise vulnerable groups such as sex workers, people who use drugs, and men who have sex with men, which create barriers to access to effective HIV prevention and treatment services by these groups.

Our response must be based on the best scientific and medical evidence rather than misguided fears and stigma.

• Michaela Clayton is a human rights lawyer who has worked on HIV and human rights in Namibia and internationally since 1989. She is Director of the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa, based in Windhoek and serves as the co-chair of the UNAIDS Reference Group on HIV and Human Rights as well as co-chair of the Human Rights Reference Group of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. – See more at: http://www.namibian.com.na/indexx.php?id=23584&page_type=story_detail#sthash.kMTUAWlM.dpuf