“We have a situation in Iowa where the law did not differentiate between exposure and transmission,” says Sen. Matt McCoy. He’s introducing a bill that he says will modernize the law and recognize that people with HIV can lead healthy lives. “What we wanted to do was de-stigmatize HIV,” says McCoy. ”We have a separate statute for HIV. We don’t have a separate statute for tuberculosis or other contagious diseases.”
News from Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law and HIV Exposure
Thanks to your actions, the office of the Ministry of the Attorney General met with the Ontario Working Group on January 15, 2013, to discuss desperately needed prosecutorial guidelines. Crown counsel does not have to prosecute people who use condoms or have a low viral load, just because they can.
US: President’s AIDS council calls on feds to help states repeal HIV criminalisation laws
Advisory group says these statutes are ‘unjust’ and fuel the epidemic
BY TODD HEYWOOD, AMERICAN INDEPENDENT
The Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) passed a resolution last week that calls for an end to federal and state HIV-specific criminal laws and prosecutions.
While the resolution is only advisory, it recommends that the departments of Justice and Health and Human Services issue guidance and offer incentives to state attorneys general and state health departments to eliminate HIV-specific laws. The advisory group also asks these federal agencies to develop guidelines for how to approach HIV within criminal and civil justice systems that are “consistent with the treatment of similar health and safety risks.”
As the resolution notes, 32 states and two territories have laws criminalizing people living with HIV.
In explaining the reason to repeal these laws, the resolution reads:
People living with HIV have been charged under aggravated assault, attempted murder, and even bioterrorism statutes, and they face more severe penalties because law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and legislators continue to view and characterize people living with HIV and their bodily fluids as inherently dangerous, even as ‘deadly weapons. Punishments imposed for non-disclosure of HIV status, exposure, or HIV transmission are grossly out of proportion to the actual harm inflicted and reinforce the fear and stigma associated with HIV. Public health leaders and global policy makers agree that HIV criminalization is unjust, bad public health policy and is fueling the epidemic rather than reducing it.
PACHA is also requesting that state and federal authorities review the cases of persons convicted under such laws and overturn convictions if deemed appropriate. The group is calling on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to “issue a clear statement addressing the growing evidence that HIV criminalization and punishments are counterproductive and undermine current HIV testing and prevention priorities.”
“Today’s announcement is an important advancement in our collective effort to modernize unjust and discriminatory HIV criminalization laws,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), co-chair of the Congressional HIV/AIDS Caucus in a statement last week. Lee introduced the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act in 2011, which never passed, and served on the United Nations’ Global Commission on HIV and the Law.
“I join the President’s Advisory Council on AIDS in calling on the Department of Justice and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention to issue clear guidance to states and public health departments on the counterproductive effects of HIV criminalization policies; we must end this clear discrimination against people living with HIV,” Lee continued. “Criminalization laws breed fear, discrimination, distrust and hatred, and we must end them.”
The White House declined to comment on the resolution, but the National HIV/AIDS Strategy adopted by the Obama administration in July 2010 does call for state legislatures to “consider reviewing HIV-specific criminal statutes to ensure that they are consistent with current knowledge of HIV transmission and support public health approaches to preventing and treating HIV.”
Policymakers at the state level also welcomed the resolution. Randy Mayer, chief of the Bureau of HIV, STD, and Hepatitis for the Iowa Department of Public Health, said the resolution was a new tool in advocates’ fight to repeal Iowa’s HIV-specific law.
“This resolution came at an excellent time for Iowa,” Mayer said in an email to The American Independent.
State activists and public health officials, including Mayer, have laid out a strategy to repeal the state’s law.
“The advocates in Iowa have also aligned their efforts with a public health perspective, so the resolution was a reinforcement of their justification,” Mayer said. “I think the more public health entities that weigh in on this discussion the better.”
But while policymakers praise the resolution, activists urge cautious optimism.
Sean Strub, executive director of the anti-HIV-criminalization organization Sero Project, said the resolution was appreciated, but the “real test will be in whether federal agencies and the administration responds with the necessary urgency.”
Catherine Hanssens, executive director of the Center for HIV Law and Policy, which runs the Positive Justice Project, echoed Strub’s sentiment, noting that while the resolution is important, PACHA “has no power to order anyone to do anything.”
“[HHS] Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius and President Obama both have the discretion to ignore the resolution’s recommendations.”
Regardless, Hanssens said the resolution is an important milestone in the battle to repeal HIV criminal laws in the U.S.
“The work of advocates who pushed for passage of the resolution is not over,” she said. “But we have passed a major marker on the road to reform, and justice, for many people and communities affected by HIV.”
The Register's Editorial: It's time to rethink Iowa's HIV sex law
When you look at the size of the Iowa Code, it’s obvious state officials excel at creating new laws. They are champing at the bit to add more this legislative session. If their goal is really to make Iowa a better place to live, our elected officials should muster as much enthusiasm for repealing problematic statutes.
Des Moines Democratic Senator Matt McCoy wants to change Iowa's HIV disclosure law
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) – A Des Moines lawmaker plans to introduce legislation that would reduce penalties for HIV-positive people who have sex without disclosing their health condition. Des Moines Democratic Sen. Matt McCoy says he wants to change the law to reduce penalties and focus on people who purposefully infect others with the virus.Under the current law, HIV-positive people who have sex without disclosing their condition can face up to 25 years in prison if convicted, regardless of whether someone is infected. “That is truly a Draconian punishment,” McCoy said. “Being diagnosed with HIV is no longer the death sentence it once was.”
McCoy wants to change the law so someone convicted of intentional or attempted transmission of the virus could be sentenced to a maximum of five years in prison and face a $750 to $7,500 fine. That would put HIV in the same criminal category as transmitting any other communicable disease, such as Hepatitis C. McCoy also wants to end a requirement that people convicted must be placed on a sex offender registry for life.
The Legislature unanimously approved the current law in 1998. The law was approved, in part, as a reaction to a 1996 case in New York where a man intentionally infected 13 women and girls with HIV. Among those voting for the Iowa law was McCoy, who is openly gay. McCoy said the current law made sense based on what was known about HIV and AIDS, but times have changed. “The fact that I’m gay has a real impact on my sensitivity to this issue,” McCoy said. “Clearly, I’m extremely impacted by the gay community and sensitive to people living with HIV. “I just feel it’s the right thing to do for this group of people that have been so stigmatized.”
The proposed changes to the law would take into account whether an HIV-positive person took steps to prevent transmission of the disease, such as using a condom and taking medication that makes it less likely that a sexual partner would be infected. Medications have dramatically improved over the decades, and with proper treatment HIV-positive people can greatly reduce the amount of virus in their blood and make transmission of the disease unlikely.
Randy Mayer, who heads an Iowa Department of Public Health bureau that oversees HIV, said the best way officials can reduce the spread of HIV is to encourage partners to disclose their HIV status to each other. That’s why he agrees with McCoy that the law should be changed. “The law was originally set up to encourage disclosure, but it’s doing the opposite,” he said. “The law is frequently cited by people we work with as something that creates stigma and distrust of the system. … It’s what’s creating stigma.”
McCoy has previously tried to change the law but his bills have become stuck in committees. This time, he said he has support from health care professionals, HIV/AIDS advocacy groups, law enforcement and the Iowa attorney general’s office. Since the Legislature approved the Iowa law, 25 people have been convicted, though only two of those infected partners with HIV. Of those 25, 12 people remain in prison, four are on parole, one is on probation and a trial for one person is pending.
Tami Haught, who became HIV-positive 19 years ago after being infected by her husband, said she supports McCoy’s proposal. Haught works with Community HIV/Hepatitis Advocates of Iowa, which helped draft McCoy’s bill. Haught’s husband became infected through a blood transfusion in the 1980s and died of AIDS in 1996. They married after he was infected. “It takes two people to talk about protection and disclosure. I never had the discussion with my fiance,” she said. “That’s why I hate this law because it puts the entire burden on the HIV person.”
Influential blogger, Andrew Sullivan, highlights US anti-criminalisation advocacy in his Daily Beast column
In a recent interview, Lee Thompson (aka “Uncle Poodle” from Here Comes Honey Boo Boo) claimed that he brought charges against his ex-boyfriend for infecting him with HIV, resulting in a five-year sentence. Todd Heywood casts doubt on Thompson’s story.
A Spectacle of Stigma: A First-hand Account of a Canadian Criminal HIV Exposure Trial, by Carl W. Rush
Carl W Rush’s powerful essay on the trial of Noel Bowland and Steven Boone who were found guilty on two counts each of aggravated sexual assault in December 2012 for allegedly not disclosing that they were HIV-positive before having a foursome in a hotel room is published in full below with his permission.
It begins thus:
I recently attended the criminal HIV exposure trial of two young men in Kitchener, Ontario. Each was found guilty of two counts of Aggravated Sexual Assault for exposing (but not infecting) two other men to HIV. They are now liable for a Life Sentence.
Prior to the trial, I had been following HIV exposure trials in Canada and reading the courts’ decisions. To me, many of the guilty verdicts just did not seem to fit the evidence presented in the trial or in some cases did not even seem to follow the law. How does non-violent, consensual sex between adults become a crime? I had been wondering if I was missing something; I wondered what it was that I was blind to. Was I being unreasonable? Did I not properly understand the law or the legal procedures? Was I blind to my own ignorance or bias? When I found out that another HIV exposure trial was scheduled right in my own neighbourhood, I knew that I had to go. I had to see what was happening for myself.
His conclusion, that “Canadian HIV exposure trials are both a symptom and a perpetuation of the stigmatization of Canadians with HIV,” definitely resonates with those of us working to end such unjust prosecutions.
Full Disclosure: Idaho's HIV Disclosure Laws Causing Their Own Issues
On March 10, 2009, an Idaho grand jury charged Kerry Stephen Thomas with seven felony counts of violating Idaho Code Section 39-608 by “transferring or attempting to transfer any of his bodily fluid, to-wit: semen and/or saliva by genital to genital and/or oral to genital contact, without disclosing his infection of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).”
Norway: National Association of People Living with HIV responds to Norwegian Law Commission report
Yesterday was the deadline for written responses to the Norwegian Law Commission report which shocked and disappointed HIV and human rights advocates in Norway and around the world on its release last October.
After spending almost two years examining every aspect of the use of the criminal law to punish and regulate people with communicable diseases (with a specific focus on HIV) the Commission recommended that Norway continues to essentially criminalise all unprotected sex by people living with HIV regardless of the actual risk of HIV exposure and regardless of whether or not there was intent to harm. The only defence written into the new draft law is for the HIV-negative partner to give full and informed consent to unprotected sex that is witnessed by a healthcare professional.
Since then, Professor Matthew Weait has published Some Reflections on Norway’s Law Commission Report on Criminal Law and the Transmission of Disease on his blog highlighting some of problems with the arguments used in the report.
We have also published an interview with Kim Fangen, the only member of the Commission to vote against the use of a specific law to control and punish people with HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, which presented an alternative vision.
Today, we publish the English translation of the written response by Nye Pluss, the Norwegian national association of people living with HIV.
The organisation found that, overall, the report has three key weaknesses:
• It does not take into account the formidable global challenges related to HIV and AIDS and is not consistent with the international responsibilities that Norway has to follow-up recommendations that have come from a variety of organisations, including UNAIDS.
• It does not take into account the medical advances that have taken place in the HIV field over the past few years., in particular that HIV treatment is, in fact, now prevention, and that testing and treatment (“treatment as prevention”) is one of the most important preventive measures to combat the global HIV epidemic.
• It does not acknowledge that HIV criminalisation will help to prevent effective contact tracing and counselling, and thus influence the HIV response in the wrong direction. A desire for the use of punishment is, therefore, at the expense of public health.
Nye Pluss recommends that the Government and Parliament reject the choice of the majority’s conclusions in this area and remove the particular provisions of the Criminal Code.
The HIV Justice Network fully supports their arguments and conclusions and hopes that Norways parliamentarians follow the lead of Labour’s Håkon Haugli and The Conservative Party’s Bent Høie who came out against any specific law last July.
Below is the English translation of the Nye Pluss response, shortened and paraphrased in some areas, but with their full agreement and permission. The original Norwegian version can be read here.
Nye Pluss’s board has read and discussed the Norwegian report. Our perspective is that, as people living with HIV, all aspects of Norwegian HIV policies, including any special penal provision, must have the net result of fewer new infections. Our primary perspective is therefore one of public health.
We have found that, overall, this report has three key weaknesses:
• It does not take into account the formidable global challenges related to HIV and AIDS and is not consistent with the international responsibilities that Norway has to follow-up recommendations that have come from a variety of organisations, including UNAIDS.
• It does not take into account the medical advances that have taken place in the HIV field over the past few years., in particular that HIV treatment is, in fact, now prevention, and that testing and treatment (“treatment as prevention”) is one of the most important preventive measures to combat the global HIV epidemic.
• It does not acknowledge that HIV criminalisation will help to prevent effective contact tracing and counselling, and thus influence the HIV response in the wrong direction. A desire for the use of punishment is, therefore, at the expense of public health.
Below, we elaborate our views on these three objections.
Norway’s international responsibility in the fight against HIV
The fight against HIV and AIDS is one of the biggest challenges we face in the world: two million die every year due to AIDS-related illnesses. Around 35 million people live with HIV globally. Nearly three million are newly infected with HIV each year. Norwegian authorities have a responsibility to contribute to the international HIV response. We therefore believe that the discussion on penalising HIV exposure or transmission in Norway must be seen in relation to the international challenges we face. This report does not live up to those challenges.
At page 184 the report states:
“UNAIDS ‘work is global, but is mainly aimed at countries where the prevalence of HIV and AIDS is high. UNAIDS has no European office, such as WHO and recommendations etc. have a global objectives and are hardly suitable for Scandinavian or European conditions. The committee’s review will be largely based on our cultural context, which can be very different from the global.”
It therefore concludes that UNAIDS’ work and recommendations specifically relating to criminal laws are not relevant for Norway, while Norwegian authorities support UNAIDS efforts globally. This is, in our opinion, a somewhat arrogant and culturally discriminatory attitude to the situation in other countries. Although Norwegian law is only applicable in Norway, we expect that Norwegian laws at home should also follow, and are not contrary to, the beliefs and policies that we export to other countries in the world.
“Treatment as prevention” – a medical breakthrough in the fight against HIV
A medical breakthrough took place when the first effective HIV medicines appeared in 1996. In countries where there was good access to these medicines, the number of AIDS-related deaths fell quickly and drastically. Treatment as prevention is, perhaps, just as big a breakthrough – we now know that effective HIV medication prevents new HIV infections. New research shows that the risk of infection is reduced by 96%, more than any other prevention method.
[Several paragraphs discuss international policy relating to ‘treatment as prevention’….]
Nye Pluss notes with surprise that the report only once refers to “treatment as prevention” and even then in a way that gives the impression that the authors of this section have not acquired up-to-date knowledge of the issue. It is regrettable that such an important resource which claims to provide a basis for Parliament to examine Norwegian HIV policy in a holistic context – not least relating to the criminal law – treats such an important part of international HIV policy so superficially. We believe that it is a serious academic failure not to discuss the effects of punitive sanctions on earlier testing and treatment.
Criminal law regulation of serious infectious diseases – an obstacle in the fight against HIV
HIV criminalisation has been a growing problem in many countries around the world in recent years. Criminalisation helps to maintain stigma and prevent openness about HIV, and is thus an unwanted obstacle in HIV treatment and prevention. In addition, HIV criminalisation in many countries works to suppress women and minority groups that are particularly vulnerable to HIV.
Nye Pluss believes that the criminalisation of HIV exposure and transmission has been a barrier to effective HIV prevention in Norway. In some groups, annual HIV figures have tripled over the last ten years, compared with the previous decade.
A future, efficient Norwegian HIV policy will depend on effective and efficient testing, counselling, contact tracing and treatment, such as a “treatment as prevention” strategy. Effective testing of affected populations, effective tracing of possible infected sexual partners and effective treatment is, along with condoms and awareness, cornerstones of reducing new infections in Norway.
For those of us living with HIV, it is important that a future Norwegian strategy is successful, so that fewer people acquire HIV in Norway….One such major obstacle to achieve reduced infection figures is the criminalisation of HIV through a special provision in the Criminal Code, as advocated by the majority of the committee behind the report.
In the pharmaceutical industry….the manufacturer must show that the drug’s harmful effects do not exceed its positive effects… Surely it is possible that an HIV law will negatively impact vulnerable groups of people with HIV who have immigrated from countries with non-democratic regimes, who are more likely to go underground if there are threats of punitive sanctions, so that testing, disclosure, contact tracing, treatment and counselling is not available to them? Nye Pluss consider it obvious that there exists such a legitimate doubt and that this is precisely one of the reasons that some MPs have requested a separate investigation of the criminal law as it relates to HIV. “It is therefore surprising that the majority of the commission’s members argue, without any scientific evidence, that there would be no negative impact to an HIV law.”
Moreover, many members of the committee suggest that “decriminalization could be perceived as a signal that infecting others or exposing others to infection, is no longer a serious matter”(page 248). This is an unscientific, tautological statement based on the completely undocumented assumption that because HIV exposure and transmission is criminalised in Norway it has worked as a prevention tool, and that decriminalising it would lead to more infections, despite a lack of any evidence supporting this.
Nye Pluss believes the committee majority here are completely wrong, and we can refer to international research studies that support this.
[A summary of studies from Canada (O’Byrne, 2012), the US (Sero, 2012), Scotland (Bird and Leigh-Brown, 2001), and England (Whitlock, Warwick et al, 2010) showing a negative impact of HIV criminalisation follows.]
Nye Pluss finds it surprising that the majority of the Committee does not seem to be familiar with the research that has been done in recent years which shows that HIV criminalisation has unique negative impacts on willingness to test, to disclose to sexual partners, and in the creation of uncertainty amongst health care workers and counsellors. This somewhat surprising rejection of the existence of such research and thus a lack of discussion of such readily available research, weakens, in Nye Pluss’s perception, a range of the majority’s conclusions on the importance of the criminal law’s impact on public health: not to discuss the importance of documented research in this area is a serious mistake and results in the majority’s conclusions on public health failing in crucial ways.
Another key point of the debate around a penalty provision for people with HIV is the growth we have seen in HIV figures among particularly vulnerable groups, such as men who have sex with men, over the last ten years…The extremely serious issue that is raised is whether the relatively large number of prosecutions over the past decade has affected HIV testing behaviour, thus increasing the number of untreated individuals, resulting in more new infections.
It is a serious public health issue when there is a tripling of HIV infection among men who have sex with men for the last ten years in Norway. We are in absolutely no doubt that public health has not benefitted from the use of the Penal Code, and are of the opinion that the studies and analyses conducted to date, and as mentioned above, show with great clarity that the increased number of criminal trials over the last decade have impacted Norwegian society and public health in an extremely negative way. Nye Pluss cannot see that the Criminal Code’s provisions against HIV, which the majority recommend, will result in fewer HIV cases.
Nye Pluss believes that the latest scientific advances pertaining to HIV treatment and prevention will do perfectly well by themselves without assistance from the criminal law, including those few cases where restrictive measures for infection control law would be needed against an individual.
Conclusions
Nye Pluss believes that the Committee’s recommendations to maintain the criminal regulation of HIV exposure and transmission and other general dangerous diseases, would undermine Norway’s international responsibility to participate in a common front to combat HIV in the world.
We must recognise that since 100% safe sex is not possible it would be impractical to allow the courts to put a specific limit on what is punishable in a world where sex is a universal activity for the continuation of humanity … To punish a select few who have not mastered ‘safer sex’ – defined narrowly as condom use – is neither a fair or an effective tool in this fight, but rather the opposite.
No matter where you draw the line regarding what is, or is not, a criminal offense, a specific penal code criminalising HIV exposure and transmission will prevent effective prevention, early testing, contact tracing, treatment and counselling, and will put a spoke in the wheels of the “treatment as prevention” strategy that promises to be the breakthrough in the fight against HIV. That the criminal law should be both an obstacle to international responsibility and to effective measures for domestic public health in this area is unacceptable for society.
Nye Pluss recommends that the Government and Parliament reject the choice of the majority’s conclusions in this area and remove the particular provisions of the Criminal Code.
Malawi judge writes thoughtful editorial on difficulties of proving 'wilful' HIV transmission, questions criminalisation
by Dingiswayo Madise: One of the challenges that the subordinate courts face in criminal matters is the issue involving criminal law and HIV and Aids. Many times, courts are faced with multifaceted and thought provoking cases involving victims of sexual assault, namely rape, defilement and sodomy.
The other area where there is much debate is where there is no offence committed and the sexual intercourse was consensual. It has been argued that a partner who knowingly infects another with HIV must be prosecuted where there is evidence that the partner knew that he or she had HIV. However, it is difficult to prove that one knew that he or she had the disease unless it can be shown that there was prior testing. Mere sickness or loss of weight cannot constitute knowledge on the part of the sick partner unless and until they go for HIV testing. The million $ question is: Should we criminalise HIV transmission? Can we not find other ways of reducing the spread of the disease?