HIV JUSTICE Toolkit to support advocacy against HIV criminalisation now online

HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE today announced the launch of the HIV Justice Toolkit, which aims to support advocates to oppose HIV criminalisation at all levels – from educating communities and lawmakers to defending individual cases.

Curated by Sally Cameron, Senior Policy Analyst at the HIV Justice Network (HJN) with input and assistance from HJN’s Global Co-ordinator, Edwin J Bernard and HJN’s Research/Outreach Co-ordinator, Sylvie Beaumont, the Toolkit’s creation was faciliated by the HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE Steering Committee, designed by Thomas Patterson/NAM, and supported by a grant from the Robert Carr civil society Networks Fund.

“We are delighted at the launch of this timely HIV Justice Toolkit. Advocates will find that the use of this Toolkit will increase collaborative and targeted responses for the most vulnerable – in our case women living with HIV, who often suffer the most because of HIV criminalisation. The Toolkit is timely in galvanising action and encouraging activists and communities to proactively mount evidence-based advocacy campaigns to end HIV criminalisation.”

Lynette Mabotte, Southern and East Africa Regional Programmes Lead,

AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA)

The Toolkit is a comprehensive compendium of almost 300 documents and videos, organised under twelve main headings, each of which is broken down into futher subsections.

  1. How HIV criminalisation undermines the HIV response
  2. What the experts says
  3. Organising advocacy
  4. Understanding the law
  5. Initiating policy and law reform
  6. Supporting fair and robust trials
  7. Using science to prove your argument
  8. Working with police
  9. Educating prosecutors
  10. Educating judges
  11. Getting the message right
  12. Other toolkits

The entire Toolkit is also searchable by keyword.

“This easy-to-read summary of critical resources is a tremendous contribution to the fight to end HIV criminalisation. We will reference and utilise this important new addition to the HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE site frequently.”

Sean Strub, Executive Director, Sero Project

Although the Toolkit is currently only available in English, where documents already exist in other languages, these are included.

HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE are now working on a French version of the Toolkit, with other languages (i.e. Spanish and Russian) due in 2018, depending on demand, capacity and funding.

Explore the resources contained within the HIV Justice Toolkit at: http://toolkit.hivjusticeworldwide.org/

If you find the Toolkit useful and/or you have resources you would like featured in the Toolkit please contact us.

New video advocacy tool: How to organise to change the law – the story of the Colorado Mod Squad

The Toolkit also features a new video advocacy tool, ‘The Colorado Story’ which explains in 15 minutes how a group of dedicated advocates in Colorado ‘modernised’ their HIV-related laws to improve the legal environment for people living with HIV.

Featuring Barb Cardell and Kari Hartel of the Colorado Mod Squad and Colorado State Senator, Pat Steadman, the video was written and introduced by HJN’s Edwin J Bernard, with interviews by Mark S King, and directed / produced by Nicholas Feustel for the HIV Justice Network/HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE.

About HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE

HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE is a growing, global movement to shape the discourse on HIV criminalisation as well as share information and resources, network, build capacity, mobilise advocacy, and cultivate a community of transparency and collaboration.

The mission of HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE is to seek to abolish criminal and similar laws, policies and practices that regulate, control and punish people living with HIV based on their HIV-positive status.

We believe that this HIV criminalisation is discriminatory, a violation of human rights, undermines public health, and is detrimental to individual health and well-being.

To learn more, visit http://www.hivjusticeworldwide.org

US: PJP update – September 2017

The September 2017 edition of the Positive Justice Project newsletter is available here.

US: Trevor Hoppe, author of Punishing Disease, talks about HIV criminalisation and homophobia

HIV Criminalization Laws Are Rooted In Homophobia — An Interview with Trevor Hoppe

Last week, the Missouri trial of Michael Johnson ended when Johnson pled guilty to HIV exposure to get 10 years in prison, rather than the maximum of 96 years he might face if his case went to trial.

For many people who are diagnosed with HIV today, it is a chronic manageable disease, and more and more health officials agree that people who are HIV-positive and undetectable don’t transmit the virus. But, in the eyes of the law in many states, an HIV-positive person’s sexuality is something to be handled by the criminal justice system.

For National Gay Men’s HIV/AIDS Awareness Day, INTO spoke with Trevor Hoppe, author of Punishing Disease: HIV and the Criminalization of Sickness, due out November 14th, about HIV criminalization laws. Hoppe enlightens us on why they’re bad, why they’re homophobic and why they should be tossed out.

One of the arguments you bring up in your book is that a lot of these HIV criminalization laws that we live with now were never really, when they were written, they were framed as fighting HIV, but they came from a place of “mortality” rather than trying to combat the spread of the virus.

Definitely. So that’s one of the points that I’ve been making in my research is that from day one, criminal justice officials and police have been lobbying for these laws on the basis that they wanted to punish people living with HIV. In particular, in the early days, police were very frustrated with prostitutes who were living with HIV who they couldn’t put behind bars for more than a couple of months because prostitution was a misdemeanor.

So they were seeking a felony penalty so they could keep these mostly women behind bars for longer periods of time. Then it transitioned from a kind of fear of sex work to a fear of gay sex and homophobia. It’s never been about public health. It’s always been about punishment and irrational fears — using punishment to police irrational fears of HIV.

When AIDS hit in the 1980s, the people that were most likely to be affected were people who Americans thought were already criminals — drug users, prostitutes, homosexuals. Highly denigrated groups of people whose behaviors were thoroughly criminalized under existing law already. It wasn’t a stretch to move from blaming these groups from spreading the disease to calling for them to be punished using the criminal law.

One of the things you mention in the book is that HIV transmission became a felony because sodomy was already a felony and they didn’t want to allow people to get away with sodomy to talk about an HIV transmission charge.

There was all this fear, particularly in Nevada, but in other places as well, that if we repealed the sodomy laws in place at the time, there would be this massive outbreak of HIV because if you made gay sex legal, it would be more permissive and people would go out and infect each other.

There was this great anxiety that this would happen. So one of the deals that got struck in many states was, OK if we decriminalize sodomy, at the same time we have to find a way to criminalize people living with HIV because we’re scared without a law criminalizing their behavior, the epidemic is going to run rampant.

One of the things I noticed in your chapter was that these HIV criminalization laws, you mention them being poorly written. They really remind me of the religious freedom acts now, where state legislatures kind of copy one another and lawmakers look at one another’s paper. It really just makes these easy McBills that are copied from state to state.

We have this idea that all state lawmakers get together and craft this individual, well thought out piece of legislation. Really, the way it works is that we have these lobbying groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council that create model statutes and then shop them out to legislatures across the United States. So we have a copy and paste situation for most states and that’s part of the reason we have so many messed up laws with HIV because most states didn’t take the time to think about the issues, they just copied what neighboring states were doing and said, “Well that’s good enough!”

I’m really interested in this parallel that you draw between HIV criminalization laws and early 20th century eugenicists and the ways these laws are about controlling a population. Can you elaborate on that?

There’s a long history of using the criminal law, but also the civil law and public health to control to populations that we think are dangerous, and often times that determination is based on prejudice. We have quarantine laws being more strictly enforced against Chinese populations in San Francisco. We have sex workers being rounded up in World Wars I and II because they were seen as vectors of syphilis and other diseases.

All these efforts frail from a public health perspective because they’re not aimed at controlling disease, they’re aimed at controlling stigmatized populations and controlling them because they’re members of that social group.

A lot of people don’t know there was a movement in the United States for a time to quarantine people living with HIV. You show in this chapter that one of the architects of the early HIV criminalization laws was also a fan of quarantining people with HIV.

These things went lock and step. You had people like William F. Buckley arguing that people diagnosed with HIV should be tattooed immediately upon diagnosis. You had public health experts publishing articles in the American Journal of Public Health arguing for what they called an “HIV parole system” which was effectively quarantine with the possibility of jail time if you didn’t shape up and act in a way they deemed appropriate.

There was a really widespread effort to try to regulate people living with HIV and it was really AIDS activists that we have to thank for the fact that many of those laws never came to fruition and that we don’t have quarantine for people with HIV.

Most of these laws, as we talked about earlier, end up punishing heterosexual people, but we know that one of the most high profile cases of HIV criminalization is Michael Johnson and HIV still disproportionately affects queer people. So these laws can end up criminalizing queer sexuality still.

Absolutely. We can’t just look at who is being punished under the law, we also have to think about those other effects of how the law creates or reinforces the symbolic stigma against people living with HIV.

I know plenty of people living with HIV who live in fear that their partners will turn on them or a one-night stand can land them in jail even though they did everything they could to protect that person and, in many cases, even if they disclose. There’s still this concern that their partner, whether a one night stand or a partner, can at one point wish revenge on them. That fear is really a dangerous thing.

It’s not productive, certainly from a public health perspective. It’s emotionally draining and interesting. Really, it’s not the way to live. I think these laws are more likely to do the opposite of what they’re supposed to do. These laws are poorly written, badly construed, bad for public health, and, most importantly, bad for social justice.

What would you say to another gay man who felt like these laws actually did protect them from people living with HIV?

I think many gay men have an idea of who is being prosecuted under these laws. They imagine it to be a kind of bogeyman intentionally trying to spread the disease to their partners. They have this scary image in their mind of who is being targeted.

When I went out to research these laws, I did not know who the average person being convicted under these laws was. What I found is that the vast majority of defendants are not this scary bogeyman. They’re someone who slipped up once and they owned up to the mistake and expressed regret about it or they’re someone who was in a relationship and was struggling with how to disclose in the beginning of that relationship. There are a lot of scenarios that are far more likely to play out instead of this bogeyman scenario that most people have in their heads.

I would ask people to take a moment and not just think about the worst case scenario but think about who is being punished under these laws. They’re people like a defendant in Tennessee who attempted suicide, woke up in a hospital distressed and bit a hospital attendant and was prosecuted under Tennessee law. If you really get down to brass tacks, those are not the people they think should be punished.

And yet that’s exactly who those laws are being used to punish. There’s a disconnect between how we think the law works and how the law actually does.

People still believe that HIV is an illness of personal responsibility. When HIV-negative people imagine these laws, they imagine an HIV-positive person who in the first place must have done something wrong to get it, and then they imagine that this person might do something wrong again because they’re already morally flawed. They don’t understand that HIV is a disease of poverty, racism, homophobia, and stigma and that they themselves can one day be on the other side of the law very easily. And in America, if you do something bad, you deserve to be behind bars!

These laws are based on the idea that telling someone you’re HIV positive will surely cause them to have a different kind of sex with you or no sex at all. And really at the end of the day we have so many prevention technologies now — PrEP, treatment as prevention — that can stop transmission in its tracks when you have sex with someone living with HIV.

The evidence really suggests that the best way to get HIV is to avoid having sex with HIV-positive people and only have sex with people who think they’re HIV negative.  If you think you’re keeping yourself safe by relying on people to disclose your status to you, you have another thing coming. The people most likely to transmit are people who don’t know they’re positive because their viral loads are high because they’re not on treatment.

It’s a false security blanket for many HIV-negative gay men and that’s what I guess at the end of the day, for our day to day lives, is the most important point. Have sex with someone who’s positive. That’s your best prevention strategy given the technologies that are available today!

Published in September 28, on Into

US: Update on HIV criminalisation laws in the US

HIV Criminalization update: Some U.S. Nondisclosure Laws Advance, While Others Recede

By Victoria Law

From TheBody.com

Table of Contents

First, the good:

California Law Modernizing HIV Criminalization Awaits Governor’s Signature

On Sept. 11, 2017, California lawmakers passed SB 239. As reported previously, the bill reduces HIV transmission from a felony to a misdemeanor. This means that people who are convicted will face no more than six months in jail rather than years in prison. The bill also eliminates several HIV-specific criminal laws that carry severe penalties, even for activities that do not risk exposure to HIV. SB 239 now awaits Governor Brown’s signature, the final step before becoming law.

For Nestor Rogel, a California activist living with HIV, the bill’s passage brings a sense of freedom. Rogel, who was born HIV positive, has always had to take numerous precautions to document his disclosure in order to avoid potential prosecution. Not only does the bill bring a sense of personal relief, but he’s hoping for broader changes in societal attitudes. “Decriminalization is a good step to destigmatization,” he told TheBody.com. “California is used as a model for so many things. I’m hoping that other states will take California as a model in this, as well.”

Idaho Statewide Coalition Created to Modernize HIV Criminalization Laws

In 2013, fewer than 30 people were diagnosed in Idaho, ranking the state 45th in the nation for HIV cases. That’s fewer than the number of state HIV criminalization prosecutions since its nondisclosure laws were enacted in 1988. It should be noted that, in Idaho, actual transmission is not required for prosecution.

Kerry Thomas was the first person ever prosecuted under these laws; in 1999, Thomas was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison for nondisclosure. In 2009, Thomas was prosecuted and again pled guilty to nondisclosure. This time, the judge sentenced him to 30 years. Thomas is not eligible for parole until at least March 2029.

In 2016, after attending the HIV Is Not a Crime conference, Kevin Lish of All Under One Roof LGBT Advocates of Southern Idaho began pulling together a statewide coalition to modernize laws and address the harsh penalties in the state’s HIV-specific codes. “We need laws that encourage people to be tested, know their status and have honest conversations with potential partners so that we can start curbing the number of new cases in Idaho,” he told A&U Magazine.

Now, the bad: Massachusetts Bill Would Criminalize Nondisclosure

Massachusetts Bill Would Criminalize Nondisclosure

Ten Massachusetts lawmakers are sponsoring H2295, which criminalizes HIV nondisclosure before sex or sharing needles. It also further criminalizes engaging in sex work (which is already a crime punishable by prison sentence) if the person is HIV positive, as well as donating or selling blood, organs, tissue and other bodily fluids or body parts. The proposed penalty would be a minimum of five years in prison (and a maximum of 15 years).

The bill has remained in the Joint Committee on the Judiciary since its introduction in January.

Maryland Adopts Law Authorizing Court-Ordered HIV and HCV Testing

In May, Governor Larry Hogan signed HB 1375 into law. The law authorizes judges to issue “emergency orders” for HIV and hepatitis C testing if the person is believed to have “caused exposure to a victim.” Victims include law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians (EMT), forensic scientists and health care workers collecting medical evidence of sexual assault. The law authorizes the test to be conducted via oral swab.

Tennessee Adopts Law Authorizing HIV, Hepatitis Testing of Arrested Individuals

May seems to have been a bad month for HIV criminalization. Tennessee also enacted a law requiring HIV and hepatitis testing. HB 1283 requires HIV and hepatitis testing for any arrested person if requested by a law enforcement officer, firefighter or EMT exposed to blood or bodily fluids “in any manner that presents a significant risk of transmission.” It also allows any employee of the state’s bureau of investigation’s crime laboratories who might have been exposed to bodily fluids to request such a test. Unlike the Maryland law, HB 1283 requires a blood test rather than an oral swab.

Maggi Duncan, executive director of the Tennessee Association of Police Chiefs helped draft the legislation. “We’re talking about a criminal,” she reportedly said, ignoring the fact that arrests do not automatically mean convictions or guilt. “In the course of being arrested, they could have possibly exposed a first responder.”

Published in the Body on September 21, 2017

US: New toolkit designed to support intersectional advocacy for HIV criminal law reform published by CHLP and the National LGBTQ Task Force

HIV Criminalization Beyond Non-Disclosure: Advocacy Toolkits on Intersections with Sex Work and Syringe Use, The Center for HIV Law and Policy and National LGBTQ Task Force (2017)

The Center for HIV Law and Policy (CHLP) and the National LGBTQ Task Force are pleased to announce the release of an exciting new resource that can help foster more intersectional advocacy for HIV criminal law reform. HIV Criminalization Beyond Non-Disclosure: Advocacy Toolkits on Intersections with Sex Work and Syringe Use is the sum of two toolkits designed for advocates who care about ending the disproportionate criminalization of people living with HIV.

The toolkits highlight the intersections between advocacy for HIV criminal law reform, decriminalization of sex work, and safe syringe access. These different advocacy communities share many common goals and constituencies, yet do not generally work in close collaboration or collectively strategize. The toolkits underscore the ways in which certain HIV criminal laws specifically target sex workers and people who inject substances, but also how these laws and those that prohibit sex work and drug use represent the systemic criminalization of safety and survival of Black and Brown bodies and of sexual and gender minorities.

The toolkits discuss the many ways in which these issues are connected and outline concrete steps advocates can take to strengthen their intersectional advocacy. They were developed in consultation with a broad range of stakeholders and organizations.

In producing the toolkits, CHLP and the National LGBTQ Task Force reaffirm their commitment to advancing progressive policy and grassroots movement rooted in bodily autonomy, self-determination, and racial and economic justice.

**Organizational sign-on/support is also welcomed and encouraged!**  For organizations interested in showing their support for the toolkits and this kind of intersectional advocacy, or for other questions, please contact  Kate Boulton at kboulton@hivlawandpolicy.org or Sabrina Rewald at srewald@thetaskforce.org.

The Colorado Story

(15 min, HJN, USA, 2017)

How a group of dedicated advocates in Colorado ‘modernised’ their HIV-related laws to improve the legal environment for people living with HIV. Featuring Barb Cardell and Kari Hartel of the Colorado Mod Squad and Colorado State Senator, Pat Steadman.

Interviews by Mark S King

Written and introduced by Edwin J Bernard • Directed and produced by Nicholas Feustel for the HIV Justice Network

US: Radio interview with Catherine Hanssens, founder of the Center for HIV Law Policy, on the obsolescence of HIV criminalisation laws in the US

HIV Criminalization Laws Not Keeping Pace With Research, Treatment

In many states across the country, one can be charged with a felony for not disclosing their HIV status. However, recent studies show that, when individuals are properly treated, HIV transmissions from sexual encounters can range from zero to 1.56 percent. Why aren’t HIV criminalization laws in sync with the realities of HIV treatment and prevention? Catherine Hanssens, founder of the Center for HIV Law Policy, weighs in. This segment is hosted by Todd Zwillich.

Published on Sept 8, 2017 on Player FM

 

US: Center for HIV Law and Policy releases updated ‘HIV Criminalization Sourcebook’

Today, the Center for HIV Law and Policy (CHLP) has released a third, updated version of their ‘Ending and Defending Against HIV Criminalization: State and Federal Laws and Prosecutions’ series, first published in 2010.

The renamed HIV Criminalization in the United States: A Sourcebook on State and Federal HIV Criminal Law and Practice updates and expands upon the previous versions with the inclusion of new reporting and analysis of laws and regulations allowing for quarantine, isolation and civil commitment of people living with sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV, in each jurisdiction.

This resource for lawyers and community advocates outlines punitive laws, policies, and cases affecting people living with HIV (PLHIV) and other communicable diseases in all fifty states, the military, federal prisons, and U.S. territories. It may be used as an aid for attorneys of people living with HIV prosecuted for “HIV exposure” or non-disclosure of HIV status, as well as for advocates who want to reform HIV-related criminal laws in their state.

The ‘HIV Criminalization Sourcebook’ catalogues and analyses state and federal HIV criminal laws in the United States, providing examples of recent prosecutions and explanations of the major cases applying these laws, along with text and analysis of state laws on other sexually transmitted diseases that involve criminal penalties or other restrictions for exposing another person to possible infection.

Specifically, it covers laws that:

1. criminalize non-disclosure of HIV status or exposure of a third party to HIV;

2. make exceptions to confidentiality and privacy rights of people living with HIV;

3. provide for sentence enhancements for people living with HIV convicted of underlying crimes such as ‘prostitution’ and ‘solicitation’; and

4. require sex offender registration for people living with HIV convicted of these ‘crimes’.

The Sourcebook is part of CHLP’s campaign to support state advocates through tools that expand legal literacy on HIV criminalization. In addition to the Sourcebook, CHLP’s website includes a separate page for each state summarizing relevant HIV and STI criminal law sections, so that users can download everything they need just for their state in addition to accessing the entire Sourcebook.

The Center for HIV Law and Policy will be co-hosting a webinar on October 11, 2017 to review ways to use the Sourcebook in HIV criminal reform efforts. The webinar also will explore some of the different strategic pathways to reform, along with benefits and drawbacks to those different options. The discussion will cover some of the key factors and questions to consider in deciding on what reform strategy makes the most sense in a given jurisdiction.

Read the full press release here

Download the HIV Criminalization Sourcebook here

US: PJP Update – July 2017

State Advocacy

Release of Consensus Statement on HIV “Treatment as Prevention” in Criminal Law Reform

The Consensus Statement on HIV “Treatment as Prevention” in Criminal Law was developed by ten organizations in response to concerns about the best way to use HIV treatment advances, “Treatment as Prevention” (TasP) or “Undetectable = Untransmittable” (U=U), in HIV criminal law reform advocacy.

Intended to serve as a resource supporting state advocates working on modernizing local HIV laws, The Consensus Statement on TasP flags ways to avoid inadvertently putting people of color and those without regular treatment access at increased risk of prosecution. The Center for HIV Law and Policy, The Counter Narrative Project, Housing Works, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Center for Transgender Equality, the National LGBTQ Task Force, PFLAG, the Prevention Access Campaign/U=U Campaign, the Treatment Action Group and Women with a Vision are the original endorsers of the statement.

“The groundbreaking science that proves a person living with HIV on effective treatment cannot transmit HIV is changing lives, dismantling stigma, and getting us closer to ending the epidemic. Its usefulness in the context of criminal law reform has raised questions, and this statement provides much needed guidance for using the science in advocacy,” says Bruce Richman, founder of Prevention Access Campaign “Undetectable = Untransmittable”, an originating statement endorser.

The power and reach of this advocacy tool is reflected by the quickly growing list of nearly 50 organizations and individuals that have endorsed the statement since its release two weeks ago, including Equality Alabama, Georgia Equality, HIV Modernization Movement – Indiana, the San Francisco AIDS Foundation and more.

Join us by endorsing the statement and spreading the word about this movement for clear guidance on how the science of HIV treatment and prevention relates to the reform of HIV criminal laws. Visit www.hivtaspcrimlaw.org for an FAQ, resources and a list of endorsing individuals and organizations.

State Advocacy Working Group Updates

CALIFORNIA

On May 31, SB 239—proposed legislation to modernize California HIV criminal laws—passed out of the California Senate and was referred to the California Assembly. The bill successfully made it through the Public Safety and Health Committees in the California Assembly, and will likely be heard in Assembly Appropriations in August. The most current version of the bill can be found here. Members of Californians for HIV Criminalization Reform are currently organizing in-district meets with members of the Assembly to advocate for the bill’s passage. The bill is a vast improvement over current law, in particular eliminating the felony punishment of sex workers arrested for solicitation while living with HIV and retroactively vacating felony convictions of sex workers previously convicted under this section of California law.

The bill has undergone changes as it has progressed through different committees, including the addition of a “reckless exposure” provision, which makes engagement in “particularized conduct that poses a substantial risk of transmission of an infectious or communicable disease” in violation of health officer instructions a misdemeanor. The conduct must occur within 96 hours of the instruction in order to be a violation and the provision is only applicable in “circumstances that make securing a quarantine or health officer order infeasible.” Given the lack of an intent requirement and terminology that remains vague or undefined, it is hoped this “reckless exposure” provision can be further narrowed to ensure it is not applied to already-marginalized populations, such as undocumented immigrants and sex workers.

If your organization is interested in supporting modernization of California’s HIV criminal laws, we invite you to join Californians for HIV Criminalization Reform (eqca.org/chcr). Please contact brad@eqca.org or 323-848-9801 for additional information.

GEORGIA

In conjunction with National HIV Testing Day on June 27, the Georgia Coalition to End HIV Criminalization sent an open letter introducing itself to AIDS Service Organizations (ASOs) throughout the state and encouraged them to contact coalition members for HIV criminalization trainings.

Members of the coalition convened in June and July, and have been in discussion with the Williams Institute on HIV criminalization research in Georgia.

Coalition members continue to monitor developments around House Resolution 240, which formed a committee tasked with examining barriers to health care for Georgians with chronic health conditions, including HIV. The resolution requires the committee to “[a]ssess the HIV laws’ alignment with current evidence regarding HIV transmission risk and consider whether these laws are the best vehicle to achieve their intended purpose.”

Meetings are held the first Thursday of the month from 4:00-6:00pm (ET) 

If you are interested in joining the Georgia Coalition to End HIV Criminalization, please contact Emily Brown (emily@georgiaequality.org) and visit the coalition’s coalition’s website for additional information.

LOUISIANA

In June, the coalition finalized its official name: Louisiana Coalition on Criminalization and Health (LCCH). The group is forming working groups focused on Education, Partnerships, Administrative, Legal/Policy, etc., to engage in more structured efforts to advance the LCCH’s goals of modernization in the state. The group is also working on mounting a rapid response to a recent prosecution in New Orleans. The case involves a man who allegedly spit at police officers, which is currently punishable by up to 11 years of incarceration under Louisiana state law.

Meetings are held on the second Wednesday of the month at 11:00am (CT).

If you are interested in information about HIV criminalization or actively participating in LCCH, please contact Chip Eakins at ceakins@philadelphiacenter.org.

MISSOURI

Missouri HIV Justice Coalition held community roundtables on July 18 and 20 in St. Louis and Kansas City to identify the perspectives and priorities of those who are most severely affected by Missouri’s HIV criminal law.

On August 5 and 6, the coalition is hosting a train-the-trainer event in cooperation with the Sero Project in Springfield.

Meetings are held on the fourth Friday of the month at 1:00pm (CT) via conference call.

If you are interested in becoming an advocate with the Missouri HIV Justice Coalition, please contact Ashley Quinn at ashley@empowermissouri.org, and visit the coalition’s website for additional information.

OHIO

On July 8, Ohio advocates held a community forum in Columbus, with support from the Positive Justice Project. The event included more than 50 attendees from across the state, many of whom were new to the issue of the HIV criminalization. The first half of the day provided an overview of Ohio’s HIV criminal law, as well as recent efforts relating to Batista and Ohio’s Criminal Justice Recodification Committee. The second half of the day was a participatory workshop where attendees worked together in breakout groups to map a strategy moving forward.

In June, the Ohio Criminal Justice Recodification Committee released its final recommendations to the state legislature. The recommendations can be found here. In brief, the proposal would remove HIV non-disclosure from Ohio’s felonious assault law, and create a new offense entitled “Dangerous Sexual Activity,” which would contain the following provisions: 1) intentional transmission of HIV by any means would be punished as a 2nd degree felony 2) non-disclosure of HIV status and sexual activity resulting in transmission would be punished as a 2nd degree felony and; 3) non-disclosure of HIV status and not taking “reasonable precautions” (ART or condom use) prior to sexual activity would be punished as a 1st degree misdemeanor. Refer to page 57 in the link for details. Coalition members wrote a letter to the Recodification Committee opposing a similar proposal in December 2016. That letter can be found here.

Meetings are the second Wednesday of the month at 5:00pm (ET). 

If you would like information on HIV Criminalization or are interested in becoming an advocate with the Ohio HIV Criminalization Working Group, please contact Arpita Appannagari at aappannagari@hivlawandpolicy.org.

TENNESSEE

The PJP Tennessee Working Group convened in June and July and reviewed updates from recent legislative advocacy efforts. This summer advocates are fine-tuning their legislative strategy, working on a rapid response plan and opportunities for prosecutorial and public defender education.

Meetings are held on the fourth Thursday of the month at 1:00pm (CT).

If you would like information on HIV criminalization or are interested in becoming an advocate with the PJP TN Working Group, please contact Arpita Appannagari at aappannagari@hivlawandpolicy.org.

TEXAS

Advocates are planning an HIV Criminalization 101 webinar in August to introduce new members to the basics of this advocacy work. The group convened in June and added many new members to their coalition.

Meetings are held on the third Thursday of the month at 6:00pm (CT).

If you are interested in information about HIV criminalization or actively participating in the Texas HIV Working Group, please contact Arpita Appannagari at aappannagari@hivlawandpolicy.org.

Criminal Case Update

CHLP’s assistance in criminal cases includes counseling defendants and their families, providing legal and trial strategy support to criminal defense attorneys, identifying and assisting with preparation of medical and scientific experts, drafting sections of court submissions, and submitting friend-of-the-court briefs.

MISSOURI

In April, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision overturning Michael Johnson’s conviction and remanding his case for a new trial. The case is back in the 11th Judicial Circuit Criminal Court, St. Charles County, Missouri. The trial has not started, as the case is in a preliminary stage. The next court date is August 28, 2017.

NEW YORK

On June 19, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Nushawn Williams’ request that it review the decision to indefinitely civilly commit him to a New York State Psychiatric Center as a dangerous sex offender based on his sexual activity while living with HIV. CHLP, along with other organizations and individuals, had filed a brief in support of Williams, arguing that his case was the only one in New York in which an individual was essentially isolated or quarantined based on his HIV status, in violation of his Constitutional rights and federal disability protections. His attorneys are analyzing next steps in his case.

OHIO

On May 17, the Supreme Court of Ohio heard oral arguments in Orlando Batista’s case. Batista was indicted for felonious assault in July 2014 for allegedly engaging in sexual conduct with his girlfriend without first disclosing his HIV status. After the trial court rejected his motion to dismiss, Batista pleaded no contest and the court sentenced him to the maximum term of eight years. CHLP, with support from the Gibbons P.C. law firm and the Ohio Public Defender, along with seven Ohio-based and national organizations, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Batista to the Supreme Court of Ohio. The ACLU of Ohio Foundation and Center for Constitutional Rights submitted a separate friend-of-the-court brief based on First Amendment grounds. No ruling has been issued to date.

If you are aware of anyone charged in an HIV exposure or transmission case, please refer them to our website, www.hivlawandpolicy.org and/or have them or their lawyer, contact CHLP for assistance at 212-430-6733 or pjp@hivlawandpolicy.org.

Join PJP and Take Action!