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.
“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.
The Positive Justice Project Steering Committee Voices Strong Opposition to Alabama Bill that Increase Penalties for Transmission of or Exposure to STIs
On April 1, 2015 the House Judiciary Committee of t he Alabama Legislature held a hearing on HB 50, proposed legislation that would raise conviction of exposure to or transmission of a sexually transmitted infection from a class C misdemeanor, 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.
US: Advocacy underway in Alabama to fight newly proposed bill to change 'knowingly' transmitting an STI from a misdemeanor to a felony
HIV/AIDS advocacy groups are preparing for a fight against a piece of legislation that would heighten the penalty for knowingly exposing a sexually transmitted disease to another in Alabama. Research shows stigmatizing and criminalizing HIV doesn’t reduce the transmission rate, and it actually discourages people from getting tested, Kathie Hiers, executive director of AIDS Alabama, said.
Rep. Juandalynn Givan’s bill is vague and makes is possible for spreaders of any sexually transmitted disease to be charged with a felony, she said.
“The way the bill is written if anyone puts anyone at any risk for any STDs or HIV it can be a felony,” Hiers said in an interview with AL.com. “Now, you can interpret that as any woman who has HPV could be guilty.”
She said 85 percent of women have HPV, a sexually transmitted disease, and many don’t even know it.
Givan, D-Birmingham, said she stands behind her proposed legislation.
“This piece of legislation simply imposes greater penalties for those who maliciously with the intent to recklessly by some type of malice or reckless disregard for the life and the health of another human being intentionally goes out and infects another person,” she said.
Givan said the intent of the bill isn’t to keep anyone from being tested for HIV.
She said Alabama law already defines a sexually transmitted disease, but she would be open to amendments to her bill.
The lawmaker decided to propose the legislation, heightening the penalties under current law from a Class C misdemeanor to a Class C felony, after hearing about a Montgomery pastor confessing his HIV-positive status to his congregation and admitting he engaged in sex with unknowing women.
A Class C felony carries a prison sentence of one to 10 years. A Class C misdemeanor carries a maximum prison sentence of three months.
Givan thinks current law is too lenient, and people who are intentionally infected are too embarrassed and afraid to come forward to law enforcement.
Alabama is one of only 16 states in the nation where it is a misdemeanor offense to knowingly expose another person to a sexually transmitted disease, she said.
Juan McFarland, the former pastor of Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church in Montgomery, admitted during a sermon in September 2014 to being HIV-positive since 2003 and having sex with multiple women who weren’t aware of his status.
Montgomery police haven’t charged McFarland with any crime, but McFarland lost his job.
“It is pretty severe if you have been infected with HIV for a period of time and are having sexual intercourse with multiple women,” Givan said in a previous interview with AL.com. “You can only imagine that someone may have become infected.”
The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA) released statements against the criminalization of HIV.
“We oppose legal statutes that undermine public health by criminalizing transmission of HIV, viral hepatitis, tuberculosis and other infectious diseases,” the groups stated in a press release. “Studies have documented that these laws discourage individuals from being screened and treated for conditions when early diagnosis and treatment of infected individuals is one of the most effective methods to control the disease.”
Resources should be put behind evidence-based prevention methods not towards the criminalization, the groups said.
Hiers said everyone should take personal responsibility for protecting themselves against STDS, and criminalizing diseases doesn’t help.
“I think it lulls people into a false sense of security because if you make it all the responsibility of the HIV-positive person or the person who has the sexually transmitted infection then people may not practice universal precautions,” she said.
In this day and age, Hiers said everyone having sex needs to assume the other person has a sexually transmitted disease until they reach the point they are in a monogamous relationship and have been tested.
The Sero Project, a group working to end the criminalization of HIV, is expected to get involved and lead a grassroots effort against Givan’s bill if the lawmaker doesn’t table it herself.
Since research has proven that criminalizing HIV doesn’t reduce transmission, Sean Strub, the executive director of the group, said several states are considering decriminalizing it. Iowa became the first state to do so last year.
“So it is truly ironic that while much of the rest of the country is looking at changing these statutes, to slow the epidemic, a legislator in Alabama wants to make the statute more punitive, which will most likely make the epidemic in Alabama worse,” he said. “I’m sure that’s the opposite of what the legislator intends, but it is the likely outcome, which is tragic. Stopping this bill is, from Sero’s perspective, the single most compelling HIV prevention priority in Alabama right now.”
Germany: Aachen Court re-evaluates key ‘mens rea’ requirement in German law, rules HIV transmission without disclosure is negligent injury, not intentional harm
Last week, for the first time a German court ruled that HIV transmission without prior disclosure was negligent injury, rather than intentional harm.
The District Court of Aachen sentenced a 43 year-old man to one year and nine months on probation for having condomless sex with his former female partner without disclosing his HIV-positive status. The woman is now also HIV-positive. The maximum sentence for negligent bodily injury is three years in prison and a fine.
With this judgment the Court has created legal history – the first ruling since 1988 to change the way HIV non-disclosure cases are considered by German courts. Until now, the Federal Court, as well as lower courts, had always considered that HIV non-disclosure prior to sex without a condom meant that the defendant “considered acceptable” that their partner would acquire HIV. This concept, of dolus eventualis, is much closer to the common law definition of ‘recklessness’ than to malicious intent.
Leading HIV and human rights lawyer Jacob Hösl, who attended the hearing in an advisory capacity, told Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe: “The Federal Court has always said that the examination of pre-meditation requires a case-specific overall examination, which can vary greatly depending on the individual circumstances. The lower courts, however, have always assumed intent by default. For the first time this court sees it differently. ”
Hösl praised the fact that the court studied intensively the medical facts and personal circumstances of the accused. “The man did not want his partner infected – for him she was the love of his life,” he noted.
The presiding judge, Hans-Günter Goergen, began his oral verdict, stating: “We have learned a lot about HIV in this trial.” According to press reports, he noted that the defendant had concealed his HIV-positive status because he was afraid his partner would leave him, but that he had no desire for her to become HIV-positive.
The judge also accepted that the defendant had tried to protect his partner (by using condoms most of the time, and withdrawing before ejaculating), but failed due to the circumstances (she started taking contraceptive pills and desired condomless sex) and because of his fear of losing his partner. He noted that the defendant’s former wife had divorced him in 2007 after he had tested HIV-positive. Accordingly, the judge saw no evidence that the defendant acted with intent.
The Court also found the defendant not guilty with respect to three other charges relating to HIV non-disclosure and potential HIV exposure involving two women when the defendant’s viral load was undetectable.
A medical expert told the Court that during the relationship with the complainant that is now HIV-positive, the risk of transmission was low, as he had a low (but not undetectable) viral load. Dr. Heribert Knechten, a witness for the defence, who was also the defendant’s doctor, noted that in 2014, before commencing treatment, his patient’s viral load was stable at 85,000 copies per milliliter, which translated into the risk of HIV transmission during vaginal intercourse to be between 0.05 to 0.15 percent. He also testified that after the defendant’s viral load reached undetectable at the end of 2014 that he was very unlikely to be infectious.
Manuel Izdebski, Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe board member said in a press release:
“This verdict is a step of great value: the first time that a court recognizes that you cannot automatically assume intent in HIV transmission cases; it is almost always due to fear – as it was in this case – that people do not disclose. Accordingly, this must be taken into account. Criminal law is not an appropriate way to measure this. The decision of the District Court in Aachen is a pioneering step towards a legal system that no longer penalises HIV transmission as a criminal offence.”
The written judgement is expected soon. However, today, the prosecution has appealed the ruling, so this judgement may not be final.
Zimbabwe: HIV-specific criminal law on trial; ZLHR launches campaign highlighting impact of overly broad HIV criminalisation on women
The Court will hear arguments on behalf of two applicants – Pitty Mpofu and Samukelisiwe Mlilo – both of whom were unfairly convicted of “deliberate transmission of HIV” in 2012, and who are now represented by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZHLR).
“The provision is too wide, arbitrary and therefore violative of the protection of the law guarantee. It is submitted that the legislature has created an offence which is as scary as the evil that it seeks to redress.”Applicants head of arguments (1.1)
Law on trial
Although the ‘crime’ in Section 79 is called “deliberate transmission of HIV”, a wide range of variables are possible that involve neither being deliberate nor actually transmitting HIV.
It is a crime for anyone who realises “that there is a real risk or possibility” that he or she might have HIV to do “anything” that the person knows will involve “a real risk or possibility of infecting another person with HIV.”
This, argues the applicants, is overly broad and unconstitutionally vague.
”Criminal and/or public health should not include specific offences against the deliberate and intentional transmission of HIV but rather should apply general criminal offences to these exceptional cases. Such application should ensure that the elements of foreseeability, intent, causality and consent are clearly and legally established to support a guilty verdict and/or harsher penalties.”
It is eminently clear that Section 79 does not ensure that “elements of foreseeability, intent [or] causality” are adequately provided for, although there is a defence of informed consent via disclosure. (It is not clear, however, exactly what needs to be disclosed, given that it is possible to be prosecuted for anything that might be a risk even if you haven’t been tested).
Although the Zimbabwe law predates other African laws based on the flawed N’Djamena model law, funded and disseminated with US international aid money, it contains many of the same problems. (Zimbabwe passed the first version of Section 79 in 2001 and updated it in 2004 to include people who suspected they were HIV-positive, but were not yet diagnosed.)
Notably, it recommends defining ‘deliberate transmission of HIV’ as “transmission of HIV that occurs through an act done with the deliberate purpose of transmitting HIV”.
It further recommends that no criminal liability should be imposed upon:
an act that poses no significant risk of HIV infection.**
a person living with HIV who was unaware of his or her HIV infection at the time of the alleged offence.
a person living with HIV who lacked understanding of how HIV is transmitted at the time of the alleged offence.
a person living with HIV who practised safer sex, including using a condom.**
a person living with HIV who disclosed his or her HIV-positive status to the sexual partner or other person before any act posing a significant risk of transmission.
a situation in which the sexual partner or other person was in some other way aware of the person’s HIV-positive status.
a person living with HIV who did not disclose his or her HIV status because of a well-founded fear of serious harm by the other person.
the possibility of transmission of HIV from a woman to her child before or during the birth of the child, or through breastfeeding of an infant or child.
**The issues of significant risk and safer sex (along with the difficulties of proving timing and direction of transmission) are further expounded upon in UNAIDS expanded and updated 2013 guidance.
However, Zimbabwe could also decide to do away with Section 79 altogether, and implement a new law based on a model law developed for the Southern African Development Community (SADC; www.sadc.int), which comprises Angola, Botswana, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
This model law, which was unanimously adopted by the SADC Parliamentary Forum in 2008, integrates the protection of human rights as a key element of an effective response to HIV and has no specific provisions allowing for the criminalisation of potential or actual HIV exposure or transmission.
Today, they will launch the documentary in Harare under the banner; ‘HIV on Trial – a threat to women’s health’.
Ms Mlilo was found guilty of ‘deliberately’ infecting her husband with HIV and faces up to 20 years in jail despite there being no proof that she had infected her husband. She claims she had disclosed her status to him following her diagnosis during pregnancy, and that her husband only made the complaint in revenge for her own complaint of gender-based violence following the breakdown of their marriage.
“At this point we do not know who infected who,” ZLHR’s Tinashe Mundawarara told Voice of America News in August 2012. “This is an example of the violation of women’s rights. Women are likely to know of their status first. Mlilo might have been infected by her husband, no one knows, and got charged and convicted.”
The other applicant, Pitty Mpofu, was also found guilty of ‘deliberate’ transmission of HIV a month after Ms Mlilo.
It was alleged that he infected his wife sometime between October 2009 and June 2011 , although he wasn’t diagnosed until “sometime in 2010.” No proof regarding timing nor direction of transmission was provided during the trial.
Highest number of reported criminal prosecutions in Africa
The first known successful prosecution in Zimbabwe took place in 2008, although it is believed that more than 20 prosecutions had previously been attempted.
In this case, a 26-year-old woman who had mutually consensual sex with a male partner pleaded guilty to non-disclosure prior to unprotected sex. She was given a five-year suspended sentence, primarily because the partner – who had tried to withdraw the charges – did not test HIV-positive.
Bob Leahy: Thank you for talking to PositiveLite.com about your case. Now before we get in to that, I want you to tell me first your background. Ken Pinkela: Sure! Ken Pinkela is still a card-carrying Lieutenant Colonel in the (US) army.
Canada: Social media campaign ‘Think Twice’ uses video to ask gay men to reconsider pressing charges for HIV non-disclosure
Last week saw the launch of a new phase of a targeted social marketing campaign by AIDS ACTION NOW! (AAN) that features 42 short videos from members and allies of Toronto’s LGBTQI community.
‘Think Twice’ asks HIV-negative and untested gay, bi, queer and trans men to reconsider pressing charges for HIV non-disclosure (where there was no alleged HIV transmission) when they discover that a sexual partner has not disclosed their HIV-positive status before sex.
In October 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that non-disclosure of known HIV status can be charged as aggravated sexual assault – with up to life imprisonment and sex offender registration – even if the person with HIV uses a condom: in order to avoid legal liability, they must also have a low viral load.
‘Think Twice’ is an AAN campaign originally launched just prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling aimed at decreasing the number of criminal prosecutions related to HIV non-disclosure. AAN want people involved in the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure—people living with HIV, their sexual partners, police, Crown prosecutors, health care providers and others—to consider the complexity and uncertainty of Canada’s overly broad approach to HIV criminalisation, and the implications of their role in criminal prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure.
The first part of their campaign targeted Crown prosecutors since they play a pivotal role in driving criminal prosecutions.
Since December 2012, the ‘Think Twice’ campaign has also focused on another key advocacy target – potential complainants.
This new phase of the ‘Think Twice’ campaign focuses specifically on gay, queer, and trans men and other men who have sex with men, due a change in community norms in the past few years that has resulted in an increase in the numbers of men going to the police to lay charges against other men living with HIV.
According to the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, while the majority of cases in Canada are against men who had sex with women, an increasing number of gay men and other men who have sex with men are being charged and prosecuted in Canada. Whereas there were only five known cases prior to 2006, a further 25 cases have been tracked up to December 2013.
For this latest phase of the ‘Think Twice’ campaign, AAN placed an open call for gay, queer, bi and trans men, and their allies, to make a video that answered the question: ‘In 45 seconds what would you say to gay men to convince them to think twice before going to the police when a sex partner hasn’t disclosed to them.’
Although they only expected to make 25, a total of 42 individuals made videos, in a project organised by Jordan Bond-Gorr, Lauryn Kronick, Tim McCaskell and Eric Mykhalovskiy and filmed by multi-disciplinary artist, John Caffery, in Toronto over one weekend in August.
Germany: Female sex worker with HIV found guilty again of perceived ‘HIV exposure’ locked up for at least nine years under ‘preventive detention’ law [Updated]
The District Court of Oldenburg has sent a 30-year-old female sex worker to prison for at least nine years under Germany’s ‘preventive detention’ law, because she has shown a pattern of not disclosing to clients that she was living with HIV before they chose to have condomless sex with her.
The judge sentenced the woman from the north German port town and naval base of Wilhelmshaven to four years after finding her guilty of two counts of attempted aggravated assault (for perceived HIV exposure), with at least five years further ‘preventive detention’.
The woman had previously been found guilty of of attempted aggravated assault (for perceived HIV exposure) and sentenced to two and a half years in prison by the District Court in Wilhelmshaven in early 2010. This was increased to three and a half years by the Oldenburg District Court in late 2010.
According to the prosecution, this latest case involved three different male clients between August and November 2013.
This trial took place in private without any members of the media or public able to attend, apparently to protect the privacy of both the accused and her clients.
A spokesperson for the Oldenburg Regional Court told NDR.de that ‘preventive detention’ can be imposed for offenses “directed against life and limb. Also, for repeat offenders, the courts may order a preventive detention. In addition, preventive detention serves to protect the public from dangerous offenders.”
The Court believed they were justified under all three criteria.
The woman has been in custody since March 2014. After serving four years in prison for the ‘attempted aggravated assault’ charges (for perceived HIV exposure), she will remain in custody for a minimum of five more years. She will then be examined by an expert who will decide whether or not she can be released.
Deutsche AIDS Hilfe has reacted to the ruling with a strongly worded press release, confirming that this is the first German HIV-related case to involve preventive detention, and stating that anyone who has condomless sex – especially with a sex worker – needs to be aware of the risk of acquiring HIV since “HIV cannot be locked up”.
Germany’s top HIV legal expert, Jacob Hösl, is now supporting the woman, and hopes to take her case to the Supreme Court.
The press release (in German) can be read here. An approximate English translation is below.
Deutsche AIDS Hilfe: HIV cannot be locked away!
The Oldenburg District Court has imposed a prison sentence and preventive detention against HIV-positive woman – a fatal signal for HIV prevention.
The District Court of Oldenburg has sentenced a 30-year-old HIV-positive woman from Wilhelmshaven to four years in prison and five years of preventive detention because the sex worker had unprotected sex with multiple clients. No HIV transmission is alleged.
Manuel Izdebski, from the Board of Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe (DAH) notes:
“This ruling sends a completely wrong signal and harms HIV prevention. That the criminal law only places the responsibility for HIV prevention on people with HIV remains a scandal. Imprisonment and preventive detention create a dangerous false sense of security. Everyone needs to know that with unprotected sex there is a risk of HIV infection received, and must protect themselves. HIV cannot be locked away!”
To the knowledge of Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe, this is the nation’s first case of this kind, in which preventive detention was ordered. The female accused had already been convicted several times for similar “offenses”. To our knowledge no actual HIV transmission occurred in any of the cases.
In the current case, the court informed us on request that the woman had interrupted her HIV treatment during the relevant time and so HIV transmission was therefore possible.
In an earlier judgment, the Oldenburg District Court noted that the woman had a “personality disorder” and suffered from “multi-year alcohol abuse”. And before the sexual encounters she is said to have consumed alcohol to a considerable extent.
“That makes it all the clearer that you have to protect youself against HIV and not be allowed to rely on your partner,” says DAH Board member Manuel Izdebski. “Maybe they are just not in a position to assume this responsibility.”
The criminalisation of (potential) HIV transmission is considered by Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe to be counterproductive in every way. Criminal liability is also made on false premises. Manuel Izdebski notes:
“The victim-offender paradigm of criminal law is totally inappropriate for consensual sex without a condom, because it ‘takes two to tango’. The condition [that might support a prosecution] that the person with HIV wants to harm their partner has not been met here. The reasons for the abandonment of protection are much more complex. For example, it may be unspeakably difficult to address their own HIV infection, because it is associated with a great deal stigma and the fear of rejection”.
Uganda: Civil society coalition condemns President Museveni for signing HIV Prevention and Control Bill into law
[Press Statement from the Coalition for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Act]
Civil society organisations reacted harshly today to the assent by President Museveni on July 31 2014 to Uganda’s controversial HIV Bill, the HIV Prevention and Control Act of 2014, which was passed on May 13 2014 by Ugandan Parliament. This law has been publicly criticised by officials leading the HIV response in Uganda, such as the AIDS Control Programme of the Ministry of Health and the Uganda AIDS Commission, entities that repeatedly told media that this Act would take Uganda‟s AIDS response in “the wrong direction.”
“We are outraged that Uganda would willingly embrace backwards laws and policies,” said Lilian Mworeko of ICW East Africa. “How can we achieve the AIDS Free Generation that government has committed to when Uganda adopts such a law?”
The law has been assessed by experts in Uganda such as UNAIDS and the Ugandan Human Rights Commission, as discriminatory, with key provisions that will impede the fight against AIDS.The controversial provisions in the Act include: mandatory HIV testing for pregnant women and their partners, and allows medical providers to disclose a patient’s HIV status to others without consent. The bill also criminalises HIV transmission, attempted transmission, and behaviour that might result in transmission by those who know their HIV status.
“Why is Uganda avoiding evidence of what works in the AIDS response?” asked Kikonyogo Kivumbi of UHSPA. “It is founded on stigma and discrimination and based on outmoded and unnecessary approaches that have been condemned by health agencies as ineffective and violating the rights of people living with HIV.”
Mandatory HIV testing and the disclosure of medical information without consent are contrary to international best practices and violate fundamental human rights. The criminalization of HIV transmission, attempted transmission, and behaviour that might result in transmission by those who know their HIV status is overly broad, and difficult to enforce.
The organisations are exploring a legal challenge to the Act, considering these violations.
“We are gravely concerned that this Law will drive people at risk of HIV infection, in particular criminalised populations such as sex workers and gay men, further from life saving services they need,” said Asia Russell of Health GAP.
President Museveni‟s assent came despite criticism by the Ministry of Health’s AIDS Control Programme, and the Board Chair of the Uganda AIDS Commission, Professor Vinand Nantulya, along with many independent health rights groups in Uganda. They oppose the contentious clauses and called on Uganda to fight HIV with more effective legislation.
“For Uganda to address its HIV epidemic effectively, it needs to partner with people living with HIV, not blame them, criminalise them, and exclude them from policy making,” said Dorah Kiconco, executive director of Uganda Network on Law, Ethics & HIV/AIDS.
“We call upon those charged with enforcing such laws—from governors to prosecutors to police detectives—to halt the criminal prosecution and resulting persecution of any individual based on HIV status.”
(Washington, D.C. Thursday, July 17, 2014) – Lambda Legal today called for a moratorium on all HIV-based criminal prosecutions until state legislatures take action to implement the reforms recommended in the recent Department of Justice (DOJ) guidance advising states to eliminate such prosecutions absent clear evidence of an intent to harm and a significant risk of actual transmission.
“This is a watershed moment in the fight to decriminalize HIV. When the country’s leading law enforcement agency — working hand-in-hand with the country’s leading public health authority — reaches the conclusion that particular laws and criminal prosecutions are working at cross-purposes to our national strategy for ending the HIV/AIDS epidemic, it is time for those with the power to end these prosecutions to take immediate action,” said Scott Schoettes, HIV Project Director for Lambda Legal. “We call upon those charged with enforcing such laws—from governors to prosecutors to police detectives—to halt the criminal prosecution and resulting persecution of any individual based on HIV status.”
Earlier this year, the DOJ co-authored an article with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) analyzing the current landscape with respect to HIV criminalization laws in the United States. As a follow-up, the DOJ this week published guidance (“Best Practices Guide to Reform HIV-Specific Criminal Laws to Align with Scientifically-Supported Factors” [link]) noting that these laws are not based on a current understanding of HIV or the availability of biomedical techniques for preventing its transmission, were enacted when the prognosis of those with access to care was much different than it is today, and place unique and unnecessary additional burdens on people living with HIV.
Schoettes added, “For years, Lambda Legal has been advocating for the repeal or reform of HIV criminalization laws, assisting defense attorneys from behind the scenes, and—when the opportunity arose and a solid legal argument could be made—fighting in court ourselves against the most egregious application of such laws. Along with a wide range of allies we have refined the arguments against these laws, made our case to audiences both gay and straight, and pressed others to join our cause. The growing drumbeat against these laws and unjust prosecutions finally has reached the ears of those in positions of authority. And this summer, the tide has finally turned in our favor.”
Within the criminal justice system, prosecutors have a significant degree of discretion and represent the most important safeguard against unjust applications of the criminal law. In this circumstance, any government attorney who is currently prosecuting a criminal case that turns upon the HIV status of the defendant is invested with the power to consider whether that prosecution conforms to the best practices set forth by the Department of Justice guidance and to discontinue prosecutions that are not in line it. In situations involving consensual sexual conduct between adults, a prosecution would not move forward under the parameters of this guidance unless there is clear evidence of both the intent to transmit the virus and a significant risk of transmission as a result of that person’s conduct.
“Right now, dozens of individuals in states all across the country face prosecutions that are not justifiable under the parameters set forth in the DOJ guidance,” said Schoettes. “No person who is in a position to halt such a prosecution should stand idly by while these individuals are subjected to such unwarranted persecution. We call upon those who have pledged themselves to pursue justice on behalf of the communities they serve to fulfill that pledge now, to end all prosecutions based on HIV status, and to return these individuals to their families and their lives.”
Last month, in a pivotal appeal litigated by Lambda Legal, the Iowa Supreme Court set aside the conviction of Nick Rhoades, an HIV-positive Iowan who was initially sentenced to 25 years in prison, with required registration as a sex offender, after having a one-time sexual encounter with another man during which they used a condom. In reversing the conviction, the Court questioned whether HIV-positive individuals who have a reduced viral load as a result of effective treatment can transmit HIV through sexual activity.
The Iowa Supreme Court ruling in Lambda Legal’s case Rhoades v. Iowa is available here
You can select your preferred language from the 'Select Language' menu at the top of the page.
Continue
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to use our site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time if you want. Find out more in our Privacy & Cookie Policy.