US: Ohio Supreme Court considers challenge to State HIV-specific assault law

Court weighs 1st Amendment challenge to Ohio HIV assault law

An Ohio law requiring HIV-infected individuals to tell sexual partners of their status before having sex or risk criminal charges is unconstitutionally based on outmoded stigmas against the gay community and doesn’t take into consideration current survival rates for people with HIV, say lawyers challenging the law in a case before the state Supreme Court.

Ohio’s HIV assault law also violates free speech rights because it focuses only on disclosure, not the actual transmission of the disease, say attorneys arguing against the law on behalf of an Ohio man convicted of failing to tell his girlfriend he had HIV after they started having sex.

Breaking the law is considered a felonious assault with a possible prison sentence of up to eight years.

“The targeting of HIV and no other chronic illnesses reinforces the notion that HIV is a death sentence, which does not reflect the medical reality of HIV,” Raymond Faller, a public defender representing defendant Orlando Batista, said in a court filing last year.

The law discourages people from getting tested for HIV, since individuals can’t be prosecuted if they don’t know their status, Faller said. There’s also evidence showing people take sexual risks with partners despite knowing they’re HIV positive.

Focusing on sexual transmission ignores the other ways HIV can be transmitted, including by needles, Faller said.

“It is akin to trying to end wars by banning swords,” he said.

Prosecutors argue the law upholds a compelling state interest in discouraging exposure to and spread of an incurable disease.

The law does not require abstinence, limit sexual conduct to a certain type or dictate use of safe sex measures, Paula Adams, an assistant Hamilton County prosecutor, said in a February court filing.

The law “simply ensures that sexual conduct under these circumstances is truly consensual and hopefully from there, common human decency will prevail and those consenting adults will make prevention decisions as they see fit,” she said.

The law is not a free speech violation because it covers both the failure of a partner to explain something and having sex without a partner being fully informed, Adams said.

The state Supreme Court is expected to rule by this fall.

In Missouri, a former college wrestler is using similar arguments to challenge his conviction and 30-year sentence for infecting another man with HIV and endangering four other sexual partners.

Thirty-four states including Missouri and Ohio have HIV-specific assault laws, according to the New York-based Center for HIV Law and Policy. More than 300 people have been charged under these laws since 2008, the center says.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates 1.1 million people live with HIV in the US, with 1 in 7 of them not knowing it. The estimated number of annual HIV infections declined 18 percent from 2008 to 2014, according to the CDC.

Canada: Richard Elliott, Executive Director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, explores the history of HIV criminalisation in Canada and asks fellow Canadians to support their call for HIV Justice

How everyone living with HIV in Canada became a potential criminal

Add your voice to the growing call for prosecutorial guidelines today

By Richard ElliottAug 08, 2017, 8:44 PM EDT

I couldn’t believe it, and yet I shouldn’t have been surprised, given what I knew.

A friend of mine had just been informed that his HIV test was confirmed positive. And in that moment, as my friend’s life changed forever, the well-meaning doctor tried awkwardly to fill the silence — with some remarks about how my friend could be criminally charged if he didn’t disclose his status to every sexual partner.

As a lawyer well-versed in this area of law, I knew why the doctor was saying that. In a decision the year before (in September 1998), the Supreme Court of Canada had confirmed that someone with HIV could be prosecuted for aggravated assault for not disclosing to a sexual partner, at least in some circumstances.

I also knew that what the doctor was saying wasn’t entirely correct because precisely which circumstances trigger a legal duty to disclose HIV were still unclear then — and the issue remains contentious to this day, nearly 20 years later.

Legal issues aside, it’s wrong to greet newly diagnosed people with a threat that they could go to jail if they don’t disclose. But my friend’s experience is not unique. Many physicians and public health nurses are quick to inform people that they must disclose and use condoms (each and every time

regardless of what the actual risks of transmission might be in a given instance) — and that if they don’t, there’s the risk of possible criminal charges.

And, of course, each time police issue a press release with the name and photo of someone accused of not disclosing, every person living with HIV is reminded that they live under the shadow of possible prosecution — and accompanying trial in the court of public opinion — that could be just one allegation away.

How did we reach the point where every person living with HIV is considered a potential criminal?

The early years of the epidemic

To answer that question, we need to go back to the early years of the HIV epidemic, and consider the combination of factors that contributed to the criminalization of HIV in the first place and how these factors have shaped its evolution since.

We start in North America in the early– to mid–1980s with the basic ingredients: A frightening new, and apparently communicable, disease that progresses rapidly, most often to death, with no known effective treatment and a lack of information — even active misinformation in some quarters — about how it spreads. The resulting fear of contagion sparks an understandable human impulse to contain, to distance, and to avoid harm, whether real or simply perceived.

Add several layers of inequality and misguided morality, because the epidemic is particularly identified in marginalized populations already subject to social disapproval and state surveillance. Gay sex, blamed early on for the spread of AIDS, had only been decriminalized a few years earlier in Canada (and remained a crime in many US states), and of course gay people were still widely stigmatized across the continent. Sex workers remain heavily stigmatized, and criminalized, to this day.

Infections were also appearing among people who inject drugs, who already carried the deep stigma of addiction and were also facing a deliberately intensified “war on drugs,”  a program of criminal prohibition and incarceration rooted in and reinforcing what was already a centuries-long history of racismagainst Black and Indigenous people in North America.

HIV therefore entered the public consciousness as a disease of perceived deviance, whether in relation to sex, drugs or both.

Now, add a handful of ostensible cases of “wilful HIV transmission” sensationalized in media reports that often reinforced the same prejudices and assumptions about sexuality, gender, race, sex work and drug use. (Consider, for example, the front page of the Halifax Chronicle Herald in late September 1988— “AIDS Fiend Strikes Again” — which kicked off its coverage of a “bisexual AIDS carrier” charged in the first Canadian criminal prosecution for HIV nondisclosure to a sexual partner.)

Finally, throw in some prosecutors and legislators acting from a variety of motives. Some are no doubt well-intentioned, acting out of a legitimate concern about trying to prevent the harm of further infection. But there are also plenty of moral entrepreneurs perfectly willing or eager to seize upon a new disease as “proof” of degeneracy, or cite a sensational media case as evidence of the need for a “tough” response to protect society.

It’s therefore no surprise that, within a few years of what was later called the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) being identified in 1983, a new front opened up in the emerging epidemic: the resort to criminal law as a tool to respond to the perceived threat to public health.

It’s also no surprise that the same pre-existing prejudices that pushed a criminal response onto a health epidemic saw the criminal justice system quickly go overboard in applying those laws.

And that’s exactly what has played out in many countries, including Canada.

The rulings begin

Canada witnessed its first prosecution for HIV nondisclosure to a sexual partner in 1988 in the R v Wentzell case. Responding to a small but growing number of cases and with no clear legal precedent to apply, prosecutors pursued convictions using various crimes in the Criminal Code, seeing what would stick. Charges laid included “criminal negligence causing bodily harm,” being a “common nuisance” by endangering the health and safety of the public, and “administering a noxious thing” (ie. semen containing HIV). And in a handful of cases, prosecutors pursued charges for assault or sexual assault.

Many of these early prosecutions in Canada resulted in guilty pleas. The handful of cases that actually went to trial saw mixed results from different courts. But in the early 1990s, one case set the stage for the past two decades of growing HIV criminalization.

The case, R v Cuerrier, began in a BC court in 1992 and eventually reached the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998. This was the first chance for the country’s highest court to decide if not disclosing your HIV-positive status to a sexual partner might be a crime —and specifically, an assault.

The Supreme Court decided that there is no blanket duty to disclose your HIV-positive status to a sexual partner, unless you’re having sex that carries a “significant risk of serious bodily harm.” The court ruled that not revealing your HIV status in that case counts as “fraud,” which means your partner’s consent to sex isn’t legally valid, and therefore you have assaulted them. But the court failed to clearly define what counts as a “significant risk” of transmission. (It did suggest that using condoms might lower the risk enough that it wasn’t “significant,” which led to many lawyers arguing about “protected” versus “unprotected” sex in courts over the next few years.)

Guilty pleas and convictions began to accumulate more rapidly in the years following the Supreme Court decision. The charge most frequently laid has been “aggravated sexual assault,” one of the most serious offences included in the Criminal Code. (The maximum penalty upon conviction for this offence is life imprisonment, plus mandatory registration as a sex offender.)

And because the Supreme Court’s ruling required only that there be a “significant risk” of transmission — not actual transmission — a substantial majority of prosecutions and convictions in Canada to date involve allegations of exposure to HIV. In the majority of known prosecutions, HIV has not actually been transmitted.

In fact, over nearly 20 years of documented prosecutions in Canada, many prosecutions have involved zero to minimal risk of actual HIV transmission.

In 2012, a pair of appeals — one from Manitoba, the other from Quebec — brought the issue back before the Supreme Court of Canada, but the rulings were a profound disappointment. The court said there is a “significant risk of serious bodily harm” when there is a “realistic possibility” of transmitting HIV. But despite stating that it didn’t want to criminalize people in cases where there was only a small possibility of transmission, it nonetheless did so — and a number of other courts have followed suit.

The rulings have also raised more questions about what counts as a “realistic possibility” of transmission, and when a person with HIV has done enough to reduce that possibility so that they are no longer criminals if they don’t disclose their status. The Court seemed to backtrack dangerously on its earlier suggestion that using a condom might be adequate to lower the risk so that no disclosure would be required; this remains an ongoing fight in some court cases.

And to this day it remains a live issue whether someone who has a low or undetectable viral load is a criminal if they don’t disclose their status This aspect of the law continues to evolve, given the additional scientific evidence emerging about the effectiveness of anti-HIV drugs and the reality that the risk of transmission from someone living with HIV with an undetectable viral load is nearly zero. The result is that the law is still unclear, courts are still reaching contradictory conclusions — and people living with HIV are still being prosecuted for a very serious criminal offence, for not disclosing their HIV status even where there is zero risk or an exceedingly small risk of transmission.

Demanding change

But people are resisting the ongoing miscarriages of justice. Human rights groups, people living with HIV, and community organizations are going to court and speaking out in the court of public opinion. We are picketing outside courthouses, and protesting in front of the attorney general’s office in Ontario. We are taking action online to send a message to politicians, and meeting with them to lobby face-to-face.

Health care providers are outlining the many ways in which the climate of fear, misinformation and stigma created by these prosecutions makes their work of preventing HIV, and encouraging HIV testing, more difficult.

Scientists are also getting involved. Dozens of leading Canadian scientific experts on HIV have issued a consensus statement on what the science tells us about the possibility of transmission through various sexual acts. They are concerned that the criminal justice system’s approach to this issue is increasingly out of step with the available science.

Women’s rights advocates and feminist legal scholars are increasingly expressing concern about how using sexual assault to prosecute allegations of HIV nondisclosure is both being driven by HIV stigma (including against women living with HIV), and also risks damaging some important, hard-won protections in sexual assault law.

And thanks to the work of advocates such as the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, on World AIDS Day 2016, Canada’s federal justice minister made a historic statement publicly recognizing the problem of over-criminalization of HIV, and committing to look at options to address it, including in discussions with provincial governments, scientific experts and communities affected.

For years, advocates have urged provincial attorneys general to use their clear legal authority to adopt sound guidelines for prosecutors, reflecting solid science and a concern for protecting human rights, that would limit, in practice, the cases in which charges are pursued.

Guidelines could help forestall prosecutions in cases where a condom is used, for example, or where a person living with HIV has a low or undetectable viral load, or only had oral sex — because the possibility of transmission in such cases isn’t substantial enough to warrant using the harsh, blunt tool of the criminal law. (These aren’t the only circumstances where there should be no prosecutions, just some obvious examples of what guidelines could address.)

Guidelines could also require prosecutors to ensure that scientific experts are consulted about the actual possibility of transmission, and to have to justify why a prosecution should proceed if the science doesn’t establish a substantial risk.

Guidelines could address important practical issues such as releasing people on bail pending a trial, how prosecutors should avoid contributing to media sensationalism about cases, and sentencing requests by prosecutors in the event of a conviction. This sort of measure has been taken in the United Kingdom, leading to a measurable reduction in prosecutions where they were inappropriate. It should be part of the solution to the problem of overcriminalization in Canada too.

The campaign for prosecutorial guidelines has been particularly focused on Ontario, the worst offender in Canada when it comes to overly broad prosecutions. A loose coalition of HIV organizations and people living with HIV, the Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law and HIV Exposure (of which our organization is a member), has been leading that effort, including putting forward numerous recommendations for prosecutorial guidelines in 2011.

Yet those proposals have been flatly disregarded. Successive attorneys general in Ontario have so far refused to adopt any sound guidelines for prosecutors.

But community activists continue to build pressure. And while discussions continue between the federal, provincial and territorial governments about ways to limit unjust use of the criminal law, we are calling for an immediate moratorium on prosecutions for HIV nondisclosure, except in cases where it is alleged that someone intentionally infected someone with HIV.

Prosecutorial guidelines won’t be a panacea, but they could have a substantial impact in limiting unjust prosecutions. No doubt other measures will be needed as well. We may even need to get the federal government to change the Criminal Code to stop prosecutions for HIV nondisclosure as “sexual assault” and more narrowly define the circumstances in which there may be some criminal offence — a step that needs to be considered and done very carefully, with commitment from the federal justice minister and in consultation with community advocates and legal experts, in order to achieve this desired outcome.

But unless and until we get attorneys general and their prosecutors, as well as the police, to stop laying and prosecuting charges for alleged HIV nondisclosure as widely as they have been doing for the last two decades, the shadow of unjust criminalization will continue to hang over all people living with HIV in Canada.

It will also continue to undermine truly effective HIV prevention efforts, as federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould publicly recognized last December. “The over-criminalization of HIV nondisclosure discourages many individuals from being tested and seeking treatment, and further stigmatizes those living with HIV or AIDS,” she said.

So join the call from the Ontario coalition for a moratorium on prosecutions and for sound prosecutorial guidelines. Add your voice to the growing demands for HIV justice by sending a message to Ontario’s Attorney General Yasir Naqvi.

Help us stop the witch-hunt.

Richard Elliott is the executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network (aidslaw.ca), which works to protect and promote the human rights of people living with HIV and of communities particularly affected by the epidemic.

US: Relying on modern medicine as the basis for reforming HIV criminalization laws overlooks these laws' underlying problems

Focusing on ‘Treatment As Prevention’ for HIV Criminal Law Reform Fails Marginalized Populations

By Victoria Law

From TheBody.com

AUGUST 3, 2017

“There is increasing agreement that risk of HIV transmission from a person living with HIV (PLHIV) who is on antiretroviral therapy (ART) and has a continuously undetectable viral load is effectively zero.”

This statement has been widely acknowledged by people living with HIV and advocates fighting HIV criminalization laws. However, in many states, the legal system has yet to catch up and continues to criminalize and imprison people for years, if not decades, under outdated laws. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 24 states have laws requiring people living with HIV to disclose their status to sexual partners, 14 states have laws requiring them to disclose to needle-sharing partners, and 25 states have laws criminalizing “one or more behaviors that pose a low or negligible risk for HIV transmission.”

In pushing for the repeal — or at least the drastic reform — of these HIV criminalization laws, advocates have pointed to the strides made in modern medicine. The CDC has agreed with this approach, noting, “The majority of laws identified … were passed before studies showed that ART reduces HIV transmission risk[,] and most do not account for HIV prevention measures that reduce transmission risk, such as condom use, ART, or pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).” Therefore, the CDC has “encouraged states with HIV-specific criminal laws to use its findings to re-examine state laws, assess the laws’ alignment with current evidence regarding HIV transmission risk, and consider whether the laws are the best vehicle by which to achieve their intended purposes.”

But does reliance on modern medicine merely continue the exclusion and condemnation of those with the least access to health care? And, given the Congress’s efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), what might such reliance mean for those most at risk for losing access to health care?

In July, 10 organizations came out with the Consensus Statement on HIV “Treatment as Prevention” in Criminal Law Reform. The statement recognizes the strides made by modern medicine but notes that relying solely on prevention through medical treatment overlooks the two underlying problems with HIV criminalization laws: First, current laws focus on a person’s failure to disclose their HIV status rather than their intention to do harm. Second, current laws treat any risk of HIV infection as the equivalent of murder or manslaughter and impose severe sentences.

Sometimes the sentence for HIV exposure or transmission is even more severe than one for murder or manslaughter. This was the case for Michael Johnson, a black college student in Missouri who was convicted of four counts of failing to disclose his HIV status and one count of HIV transmission. Though no one was killed, he was sentenced to 30 years in prison. (In April, the state supreme court upheld Johnson’s right to a new trial, though no new trial date has yet been announced.)

In contrast, Missouri’s sentencing guidelines for voluntary manslaughter call for five to 15 years in prison, and its guidelines for second degree murder call for 10 to 30 years.

Relying medical tools as the basis for reforming HIV criminalization laws overlooks these laws’ underlying problems. If prevention through receiving medical treatment and having an undetectable viral load becomes the basis for reform, prosecutors and the legal system will then have another tool in their arsenal: a person’s inability or failure to access health care. It could also lead policymakers and prosecutors to argue that people living with HIV who are not virally suppressed pose a significant risk to their sexual partners. This ignores the CDC’s findings that, even without treatment and condom use during receptive anal sex (the sex act most likely to result in HIV transmission), the transmission rate is less than 2%, or two in 100.

Furthermore, the focus on viral load and medical treatment detracts from the fact that HIV is now a chronic, manageable disease, similar to type 2 diabetes. “To treat it otherwise by making its transmission a felony with a long sentence reinforces what likely is the most serious source of HIV stigma, discrimination, and violence against PLHIV,” declares the Consensus Statement.

Finally, focusing solely on medical advances continues to ignore the ways in which criminalization targets people who are most marginalized, specifically people of color who lack the resources to access continued treatment. “You cannot talk about one form of criminalization without talking about the others,” Deon Haywood, director of Women With a Vision, told TheBody.com in January 2016. “You can’t talk about HIV criminalization without talking about race, without talking about access and without talking about privilege.”

In Louisiana, where Women With a Vision organizes with low-income African-American women, many of whom are living with HIV, a focus on medical advances doesn’t address the ways in which HIV criminalization has been used a prosecutorial tool. Nia Weeks, Women With a Vision’s policy director, pointed out to TheBody.com that the New Orleans district attorney threatens to upcharge (or increase the criminal charges) or to use the state’s habitual offender laws to coerce people to plead guilty. Weeks, who previously worked as a public defender, described one client who was charged with domestic abuse and battery, including the accusation of a bite. The prosecutor’s office threatened to add the charge of intentional exposure to HIV if Weeks’ client did not plead guilty to the domestic abuse and battery charge. It did not matter that the man that she allegedly bit, her soon-to-be ex-husband, was also HIV positive. What mattered was that, under Louisiana law, if she were convicted of intentional exposure, she would face not only a 10-year prison sentence but also placement for life on the state’s sex offender registry. HIV criminalization is “part of a whole system of forcing pleas to not harm yourself more,” stated Weeks.

Furthermore, a focus on treatment and undetectable viral loads fails to address people’s precarious access to health care, access that may be further undercut as the GOP pushes to repeal or undermine the ACA.

Even with the ACA, Weeks noted, “people can very easily find themselves off the health care system in the blink of an eye.” All it takes is a missed bus or a family emergency that results in a missed Medicaid appointment, she explained. That missed appointment leads to the loss of Medicaid, leading to the loss of access to medications. In other words, health care access is already precarious. Cutting the ACA means that even fewer people will have access to the health care and medications that could make their viral loads undetectable.

“The ultimate goal is decriminalization, period,” declared Weeks. “There’s all the pieces that are helpful and steps forward, but it won’t be done until HIV is decriminalized.”

Victoria Law is a freelance writer and editor. Her work focuses on the intersections of incarceration, gender and resistance. She is the author of Resistance Behind Bars: The Struggles of Incarcerated Women. You can find more of her work at Victorialaw.net.

Published in the Body on August 3, 2017

China: Supreme Court publishes new measures to severely punish wilful transmission of HIV through prostitution, even when a condom was used

New Supreme Court Standards Address Prostitution, HIV

Judicial authorities hope new measure will better protect China’s women, children, and marginalized communities.

China’s highest court and public prosecutor have outlined a series of standards to mete out punishment for crimes relating to prostitution and the transmission of HIV.

The joint legal interpretation, released Sunday and effective since Tuesday, aims to strengthen the protection of children, women, and other vulnerable groups. It stipulates that forcing girls under age 14 into prostitution is categorized as a “serious violation” under the crime of coercing others into prostitution, and is punishable by a minimum of 10 years to life in prison.

The stipulation emphasizes that individuals do not need to have coerced more than one child into prostitution or committed the crime multiple times to be charged with a “serious violation.” Recruiting more than 10 people into prostitution, or more than five people from vulnerable groups — including minors, pregnant women, and the mentally disabled — also constitutes a “serious violation.”

Another significant point highlighted in the new interpretation is that people with HIV who knowingly transmit the virus to others through prostitution — as either buyers or sellers of sex — will face severe punishment for intentionally causing injury, even in cases where barrier contraception, such as a condom or diaphragm, was used. Punishments for those who transmit HIV through sexual conduct other than prostitution, however, will be considered on the basis of whether individuals are deemed to have intentionally neglected to take precautionary measures.

“The primary consideration is that those with HIV should be able to lead a normal life, that they should not encounter discrimination in making friends, and that their dignity should be respected,” an official at the Supreme People’s Court told ChinaCourt.org, a state-run website for judicial affairs.

“AIDS patients face discrimination in society generally,” Lü Xiaoquan, a women’s legal aid lawyer at Qianqian Law Firm in Beijing, told Sixth Tone. “The disease causes them to suffer not only physical harm, but also mental harm.” Lü added that in his view, the new guidelines are clearly intended to protect potential victims rather than further stigmatize carriers.

The interpretation also mentions that using social networks to sell sex is punishable by law, and that those who lure people into prostitution, provide premises for the sale and purchase of sex, or solicit sex themselves can be convicted of the crime even if they have not profited from it.

The previous interpretation on prohibiting prostitution was published by the same judicial authorities in 1992. Lü believes the fact that the former interpretation lagged behind the practical need to fight crime today is what led to this new interpretation, based on the ninth amendment to the country’s penal code, passed in 2015.

“The interpretation provides clear and unified standards for fighting crime, and this has the potential to eradicate random enforcement and unfair penalties,” Lü said. “However, good legislation is not enough — fair judgment and strict enforcement of the law are also needed.”

Published on July 26, 2017 in Sixth Tone

Jamaica: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions recommends legislation making wilful transmission of STIs a crime

Prosecutors want Law making wilful transmission of sexual disease a crime

Jovan Johnson, Parliamentary Reporter

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has recommended that the Parliament make it clear in law that knowingly transmitting a sexual disease is a crime.

Assistant DPP, Adley Duncan, said the offence exists at common law but there is no legislation explicitly stating that the act is illegal.

He made the recommendation this afternoon during a parliamentary committee reviewing Jamaica’s sex laws.

Duncan said the position of the Office of the DPP stemmed from last year’s case involving George Flowers, who was ordered extradited from Jamaica to Canada on allegations he knowingly transmitted HIV to four women in the North American country between 1996 and 2012.

Flowers reportedly fled to Jamaica in 2012, the same year Canadian police issued an arrest warrant and later an extradition request.

Jamaica and Canada have an extradition treaty, which has the DPP’s office as the central authority or the representative of the requesting foreign state.

Duncan said an issue developed following the request in 2013 as Flowers argued that the offence was in Canadian law but not in Jamaica’s and therefore by the rules, he could not be extradited.

The assistant DPP said prosecutors successfully argued that the offence is recognised at common law and the courts upheld the order.

He also noted that under Jamaica’s marital rape law, knowingly or recklessly transmitting a sexual offence is a crime.

But Duncan said, making it clear in law that such an action is a criminal offence would remove any doubt.

Mexico: Organisations call for the withdrawal of initiative aiming to criminalise HIV-transmission in Quintana Roo

Call ATTENTION TO A MEMBER of the legislative body Congresswoman BERISTAIN: STOP CRIMINALIZATION OF HIV INITIATIVE

NOTICARIBE

POSTED ON JUNE 08, 2017, 11:44 PM 6 MINS POST Views: 1,135

By Leslie Gordillo

CANCUN, MX,- Members of associations called for the commissions of Justice, Human Rights, Development and Family groups in situations of vulnerability and of the Great Commission, in particular Mrs Laura Esther Beristain Navarrete, to reconsider the criminalization of HIV and to lower this initiative, which aims to put people with HIV under a status of potential criminals.

“We cannot allow actions that criminalise and punish and much less from a party that supposedly embraces the causes and unveiled an agenda where you will work with at-risk groups, then it is not being consistent, much less the party and its members in this case, the member of the Commission on Health,” said Roberto Guzman, Network Posithiva of Quintana Roo AC, which joined ICW Mexico and UNAYAC.

This call was made through a letter delivered in the city of Chetumal to groups already mentioned, where the points for consideration, knowing that these commissions are responsible for determining the initiative of “Decree amending Article 113 and is added in the third section, crimes against society, the seventh title, crimes against public health”, which seeks to amend article 113 of the criminal code and the punishment of 5 to 25 years with imprisonment from spreading or becoming infected with dangerous viruses to other people.

Before this, expressed in the letter some clarifications requested were taken into account to avoid an initiative “that violates the dignity and promotes stigma toward people living with HIV”, among which are: the importance of promoting actions in favour of the recognition of the human rights of women in the international order of the various instruments in this field has signed and ratified the Mexican State; not to seek punishment for behaviour that is perceived as wilful misconduct in relation to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, because the scientific evidence indicates that HIV prevention is not achieved with punitive measures, but with public health policies that facilitate actions that promote changes at the structural level.

Also mentioned that the criminalization stigma and discrimination toward people living with HIV, including girls, children, adolescents and women, so that it is contradictory to promote actions that are contrary to the dignity of these vulnerable groups; the difficulty of determining causality, fraud, the intentionality as a number of factors in HIV transmission, such as: the possibility of the transmission, the type of exposure, the use or not of the condom, the stage of the infection, if you take your antiretroviral treatment or not, if you have a detectable load or not, if there are concomitant diseases, the status of the receiving partner and agreements established between couples.

They emphasized that the punitive measures, such as which is intended to legislate, could hinder and affect the various multisectoral action in the field of prevention, detection and care in our state. Could influence that people perceive HIV risk factors, to bypass an early detection in order not to know their status, in virtue of preventing a possible criminal proceedings.

In addition to the specific content of this initiative of “danger of contagion” could cause the legal responsibility of the HIV prevention falls only on those living with HIV, and this could be invisibilizarse the public health message that sexual partners have shared responsibility about their sexual health. And that this type of adjustments to the Criminal Code will promote higher levels of stigma and discrimination toward the various populations with HIV and their families.

Contrary to this, recounted in the Charter, should label resources to prevent, detect and respond in a timely manner HIV; to improve the quality and comprehensiveness of care services provided from the capasits and hospitals in the health sector; and reduce stigma and discrimination toward the populations affected by HIV and other STIS.

———————————————————–

Le Llaman la atención a Diputada Beristain: Piden asociaciones detener iniciativa de penalización del VIH

Leslie Gordillo

CANCÚN, MX,- Integrantes de asociaciones exhortaron a las comisiones de Justicia, Derechos Humanos, Desarrollo Familiar y Grupos en Situación de Vulnerabilidad y de la Gran Comisión, en particular a la diputada Laura Esther Beristaín Navarrete, a reconsiderar la penalización del VIH y a bajar esta iniciativa, que pretende colocar a las personas con VIH bajo un estatus de posibles criminales.

“No podemos permitir acciones que criminalidad y penalicen y mucho menos a partir de un partido que supuestamente abraza las causas y dieron a conocer una agenda donde va trabajar con los grupos de riesgo, entonces no está siendo congruente el partido y mucho menos sus integrantes en este caso la diputada de la comisión de salud”, expresó Roberto Guzmán, de Red + Posithiva de Quintana Roo AC, organismo que se unió a ICW México y UNAYAC.

Este llamado se hizo a través de una carta entregada en la ciudad de Chetumal a los grupos ya mencionados, en donde expresan los puntos a consideración, a sabiendas que estas comisiones son responsables de dictaminar la iniciativa de “Decreto por el que se reforma el Artículo 113 y se adiciona dentro de la sección tercera delitos contra la sociedad, el titulo séptimo, delitos contra la salud pública”, la cual pretende reformar el artículo 113 del código penal y castigar de 5 a 25 años con prisión a quien contagie o infecte con virus peligrosos a otras personas.

Ante esto, manifestaron en la carta algunas precisiones que pidieron fueran tomadas en cuenta para evitar así una iniciativa “que atenta contra la dignidad y promueve el estigma hacia las personas con VIH”, entre las que destacan:

La importancia de impulsar acciones a favor del reconocimiento de los derechos humanos de las mujeres en el orden internacional de los diversos instrumentos que en esta materia ha suscrito y ratificado el Estado mexicano; no buscar castigo para las conductas que se perciben como dolosas en relación al VIH y otras infecciones sexuales, ya que la evidencia científica  señala que la prevención del VIH no se logra con medidas punitivas, sino con políticas en salud pública que faciliten acciones que promuevan cambios a nivel estructural.

Mencionaron también que la penalización favorece el estigma y la discriminación hacia personas con VIH, incluyendo a las niñas, niños, adolescentes y mujeres, por lo que resulta contradictorio impulsar acciones que contravienen a la dignidad de estos grupos vulnerables; la dificultad de determinar la causalidad, el dolo, la intencionalidad ya que intervienen diversos factores en la trasmisión del VIH, como: la posibilidad de la trasmisión, el tipo de exposición, el uso o no del condón, la etapa de la infección, sí lleva tratamiento antirretroviral o no, si tiene carga detectable o no, si existen enfermedades concomitantes, el estado de la pareja receptora y los acuerdos establecidos entre parejas.

Enfatizaron que las medidas punitivas como las que se pretende legislar, podrían obstaculizar y afectar las diversas acciones multisectoriales en materia de prevención, detección y atención del VIH en nuestro Estado. Podría influir a que las personas que se perciban con factores de riesgo ante el VIH, omitan realizarse una detección temprana a fin de no conocer su estado serológico en virtud de prevenir un posible proceso penal. 

Además de que el contenido en específico de esta iniciativa de “Peligro de contagio” podría provocar que la responsabilidad jurídica de la prevención del VIH recaiga solamente en quienes viven con VIH, y con ello podría invisibilizarse el mensaje de salud pública de que las parejas sexuales tienen responsabilidad compartida sobre su salud sexual. Y que este tipo de adecuaciones al Código Penal promoverán mayores niveles de estigma y discriminación hacia las diversas poblaciones con VIH y sus familias.

Contrario a esto, relataron en la carta, deberían etiquetar recursos para prevenir, detectar y atender oportunamente el VIH; mejorar la calidad e integralidad de los servicios de atención otorgados desde los CAPASITS y hospitales del sector salud; y disminuir el estigma y la discriminación hacia las poblaciones afectadas por el VIH y otras ITS. 

Mexico: Senator in Quintana Roo presents initiative to sentence people living with HIV to up to 25 years in prison in cases of alleged HIV transmission

PRD proposes 25 years of imprisonment to anyone who transmits HIV in Quintana Roo.

Laura Esther Beristáin Navarrete, a local senator from the PRD, presented an initiative to the Congress of Quintana Roo to sentence with up to 25 years in prison those who transmit HIV to another person.

The initiative has been described as stigmatising and a violation of the human rights of people living with the virus.

Faced with the proposal of the PRD, a group of civil organisations that fight against HIV, among them the Positive Network of Quintana Roo, ICW Mexico and Unayac, addressed a letter to the local congress in which they ask the Commission for Justice, Human Rights, Family Development and Vulnerable Groups to discard this initiative to criminalise people with HIV.

“We will not allow AIDS to be penalised by a party like the PRD, who claims to fight for the underprivileged and social causes” said Roberto Guzman, a member of the Positive Network of Quintana Roo.

The initiative seeks to reform Article 113 of the local Penal Code in order to include in the third section about “Crimes against Society”, a point that will detail crimes that threaten public health. In this way, those who transmit HIV to another person will be punished with a sentence of up to 5 to 25 years in prison.

The activists said that if this amendment to article 113 was approved, it would undermine the dignity of people living with HIV by listing them as alleged criminals, and warned that the initiative has as a background the promotion of stigma towards this population.

They also clarified that Mexico has signed international agreements in favour of the rights of people with the virus and against its criminalisation.

“The evidence points out that to prevent HIV, punitive measures are not recommended, but public health policies that promote structural changes are,” said Guzmán, who insisted that the penalty will directly affect other prevention strategies, as people will resist having an HIV test out of fear of stigma, which will interfere with the timely detection of the virus and its treatment.

In response to the demands of civil society, Beristaín defended her proposal and said that the initiative is not against people with HIV, but seeks to care for the health of the inhabitants of the state and punish those who pose a threat against it.

Finally she invited the activists to read the initiative in full. “The proposal has nothing against infected people. The only thing that seeks to take care of the health of the Quintana Roo society, it is not criminalising anyone, “said the deputy.

———————————————————

Laura Esther Beristáin Navarrete, senadora local de la bancada del PRD, presentó una iniciativa ante el Congreso de Quintana Roo para castigar con hasta 25 años de prisión a quienes transmitan el VIH a otra persona. La iniciativa ha sido calificada de estigmatizadora y de ir en contra de los derechos humanos de las personas que viven con el virus.

Frente a la propuesta de la perredista, un grupo de organizaciones civiles que luchan en contra del VIH, entre las que se encuentra La Red Positiva de Quintana Roo, ICW México y Unayac, dirigieron una carta al congreso local en el que solicitan a las comisiones de Justicia, Derechos Humanos, Desarrollo Familiar y Grupos Vulnerables que descarten dicha iniciativa por criminalizar a las personas con VIH.

“No permitiremos que se penalice el Sida por un partido como el PRD, que afirma luchar por los desvalidos y las causas sociales, anunciaron que la propia sociedad de Cancún trabajará por los grupos de riesgo”, declaró Roberto Guzmán, integrante de la Red Positiva de Quintana Roo.

La iniciativa busca reformar el artículo 113 del Código Penal local con el fin de incluir en la tercera sección los “Delitos contra la Sociedad”, punto en el que se detallarán los crímenes que atentan contra la salud pública. De esta forma, se castigará con una pena de 5 a 25 años de cárcel a quienes transmitan el VIH a otra persona.

Los activistas señalaron que de ser aprobada esta reforma al artículo 113 se atentaría contra la dignidad de las personas que viven con VIH al catalogarlas como presuntos criminales, además, alertaron que la iniciativa tiene como trasfondo la promoción del estigma hacia este sector poblacional. Asimismo, aclararon que México ha firmado convenios internacionales a favor de los derechos de las personas con el virus y en contra de su criminalización.

“Las pruebas señalan que para que la prevención del VIH no se recomiendan medidas punitivas, sino políticas de salud pública que promuevan cambios estructurales”, comentó Guzmán, quien insistió en que la penalización afectará de forma directa otras acciones de prevención, pues las personas se resistirán a hacerse una prueba de VIH por temor al estigma, lo cual se interpondrá en la detección oportuna del virus y en su tratamiento.

Ante los reclamos de la sociedad civil, Beristaín defendió su propuesta y dijo que la iniciativa no está en contra de las personas con VIH, sino que busca cuidar la salud de los habitantes del estado y castigar a quienes atenten contra ella. Finalmente invitó a los activistas a leer de forma completa la iniciativa.

“La propuesta no tiene nada en contra de las personas infectadas. Lo único que busca es cuidar la salud de la sociedad quintanarroense, no se está criminalizando a nadie”, señaló la diputada.

Con información de Milenio y Noticaribe. Imagen tomada del Congreso del Estado de Quintana Roo.

US: California State Senate votes to make HIV-exposure a misdemeanour instead of a felony, in line with other communicable diseases

Knowingly exposing others to HIV should no longer be a felony, state Senate says

The state Senate on Wednesday voted to no longer make it a felony for someone infected with HIV to knowingly expose others to the disease by having unprotected sex without telling his or her partner about the infection.

The crime would be downgraded to a misdemeanor, and the bill would also apply to people who donate blood or semen without telling the blood or semen bank that they have acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, or AIDS, or have tested positive for human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, the precursor to AIDS.

The measure, which next goes to the Assembly for consideration, was introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who said it is unfair to make HIV/AIDS the only communicable disease given such harsh treatment by prosecutors.

“These laws are irrational and discriminatory,” Wiener told the Senate, adding that the current felony status is “creating an incentive not to be tested, because if you don’t know your status you can’t be guilty of a felony.”

The measure was widely opposed by Republican lawmakers including Sen. Joel Anderson of San Diego.  “If you intentionally transmit something that is fundamentally life-threatening to the victim, you should be charged and go to jail,” he said.

Sen. Jeff Stone (R-Murrieta) said, “My friends, it’s not a gay issue. It’s a public health issue. We shouldn’t allow someone to play Russian roulette with other people’s lives.”

Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), a physician, voted for the bill and argued that it undermines public health to imprison those with HIV under the current law.

US: Lambda Legal describes California Senate Bill purpose to update HIV criminalisation laws

SB 239: A Long-Overdue Update of CA’s Discriminatory HIV Criminalization Laws

Lambda Legal | Scott Schoettes – California Senate Bill 239 is a long-overdue update of California’s outdated and discriminatory criminal laws targeting people living with HIV. As a co-sponsor of this important legislation, Lambda Legal wants to correct some misperceptions and clarify the purpose of this bill.

SB 239 was introduced to improve public health by creating an environment in which more people are willing to get tested for HIV, to obtain the medical treatment they need to protect their own health and the health of others and to discuss their HIV status with sexual partners.

By singling out people who know they are HIV-positive for severe criminal punishment as a result of sexual activity, regardless whether there was any real risk of transmission or any harm actually occurred, current law inhibits rather than encourages the exact practices that will help combat HIV/AIDS.

Let’s get the biggest misperception about SB 239 out of the way first.

SB 239 does not change California law with respect to disclosure of a person’s HIV status.

Current law does not require disclosure of one’s HIV-positive status prior to sexual activity. While it is true that the current HIV exposure statute applies only if the person did not disclose their HIV-positive status; mere nondisclosure isn’t a violation of the law. Rather, the person must also act with the specific intent to transmit HIV.

SB 239 would not change that.

Instead, SB 239 updates the law to incorporate the current scientific understanding of HIV.

For example, we now know that people living with HIV who are taking HIV medications—and therefore have a suppressed viral load—cannot transmit HIV to their sexual partners. With that in mind, SB 239 clarifies that activities undertaken to reduce the risk of transmission—such as using a condom or being on treatment—demonstrate a lack of intent to transmit HIV (or, for that matter, any other disease).

These refinements of the law help define the limited circumstances under which it is appropriate to penalize disease transmission.

SB 239 also eliminates the injustice in California criminal law for people living with HIV.

Under current law, HIV is the only medical condition that can result in a felony conviction. And individuals with HIV can be subject to a longer potential sentence than for certain types of manslaughter.

Exposure to all other infectious or communicable diseases—several of them also incurable or potentially fatal if untreated—would result in at most a misdemeanor conviction.

Given that HIV is now a manageable condition for people with access to care, it is time to stop putting it in a class all by itself. SB 239 would pull HIV out of its own separate statute and include it in the law that applies to every other serious communicable disease.

Eliminating this type of discrimination against people living with HIV is an important step in achieving the public health goals of SB 239.

Thanks to modern medical science, we now have the tools needed to make AIDS a thing of the past.

People who are diagnosed with HIV in a timely fashion and receive the necessary medical care can expect to lead long, healthy lives. But currently, approximately one in seven people living with HIV in the United States is unaware of their HIV-positive status, and only 40% of people living with HIV are engaged in medical care and have a suppressed viral load.

We must increase the number of people who know their HIV status and are on treatment, and SB 239 will help achieve that.

There is a tremendous amount of work to be done to eliminate public misconceptions about HIV, the routes and relative risks of transmission and the stigma that stems from these misconceptions.

But one thing California can do immediately is remove the discrimination in the law against people with HIV.

That is what SB 239 is designed to do and that’s why over 100 organizations support the bill, including APLA Health, the Black AIDS Institute, Equality California, Positive Women’s Network-USA, ACLU of California, National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD), HIV Medicine Association, SF AIDS Foundation, Bienestar, Planned Parenthood of California, Transgender Law Center and Human Rights Watch.

Together, we can make California law on this subject a model for the whole country.

US: HIV criminalisation laws are outdated, stigmatising and applied unfairly and it’s time to end the cycle says Erika D. Smith

The AIDS crisis is over. Why are people still going to jail over HIV? 

BY ERIKA D. SMITH

I’m not in the habit of quoting Ronald Reagan. But on Monday, as legislation that would greatly reduce the criminal penalties for transmitting HIV moved one step closer to a vote in the California Senate, I couldn’t help but think of words penned by the former president.

The year was 1990 and my teacher handed out a Washington Post article for the class to read.

“We owe it to Ryan to make sure that the fear and ignorance that chased him from his home and his school will be eliminated,” Reagan wrote. “We owe it to Ryan to open our hearts and our minds to those with AIDS. We owe it to Ryan to be compassionate, caring and tolerant toward those with AIDS, their families and friends.”

He was reacting to the death of Ryan White, a blond-haired boy from the Midwest who had contracted HIV during a blood transfusion for hemophilia and was diagnosed with AIDS. White wasn’t like the then-mysterious gay men in California and New York, or even the IV drug users in inner cities, who had been falling ill and dying by the thousands. He was an “innocent” victim.

At 13 years old, he got thrust into the national spotlight because he wanted to go to school with his friends. But because it was the height of the AIDS epidemic, an era when fear and willful ignorance regularly trumped facts, the school district fought his family at every turn.

As a 13-year-old girl in a Midwestern suburb, I identified with him.

Over time, that vague fear of AIDS that I once had has been replaced with an understanding that HIV is a chronic illness that can be easily managed with medication. It’s no longer a death sentence. What’s more, it’s highly unlikely that someone with an undetectable level of HIV in his or her blood, which is pretty common these days for undergoing treatment, will transmit the virus to anyone else.

Heck, hepatitis C kills three times as many people as HIV does.

But in California and more than 30 other states, dozens of laws remain on the books to punish people who willfully expose others to the virus. To this day, people still get charged with felonies over HIV and go to prison for five, 10 or even 20 years. In some states, those convicted must register as a sex offender for life.

These laws aren’t “compassionate,” “caring” or “tolerant” toward people with HIV or AIDS. They’re fear-based holdovers from the days of the “gay plague,” which in many ways, the Reagan administration callously let happen by ignoring the disease and its victims for far too long. Back in the 1980s, Reagan wasn’t “compassionate,” “caring” or “tolerant.”

San Francisco was ground zero, with three times as many AIDS cases per capita as New York and 10 times as many as Los Angeles. At one point, about half of San Francisco’s gay men were infected and most expected to die within 10 years. I’ve heard horror stories from gay men with gray hair, many of them tearing up just thinking about all the friends and partners they lost.

So it’s telling that it’s a gay man from San Francisco, Sen. Scott Wiener, who is pushing the bill that would greatly reduce the penalties for transmitting HIV.

Where California now has four felony offenses on the books for people who deliberately pass along the virus, Senate Bill 239 would repeal two of them and reduce two others to a misdemeanor, just like the intentional transmission of every other infectious or communicable disease.

The bill advanced out of the Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday and Wiener hopes to get it to the Senate floor by May or June.

So far, only the California Right to Life Committee has come out in opposition. Meanwhile, the list of groups in support is long, from the California Medical Association to Equality California to the ACLU.

Their reasoning is pretty plain. One is that threatening to punish people for transmitting HIV does absolutely nothing for public health. It only encourages people to hide their status or not get tested at all. You can’t be charged with infecting someone with something you didn’t know you had.

Another reason is that research shows that the laws are applied unfairly. White men, for example, make up 40 percent of the people diagnosed with HIV in California, but only 16 percent of the individuals who’ve had contact with law enforcement over it, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA.

Meanwhile, black women make up only 4 percent of the Californians diagnosed with HIV, but account for 21 percent of people who have gotten in trouble for it. A good number of them are sex workers, turning a potential misdemeanor prostitution charge into a felony.

Only about 1,260 people were accused of an HIV-related crime in California between 1988 and 2014. Of those who were convicted, 85 percent were sent to prison.

So far, only Iowa and Colorado have acted to repeal their laws. If California is next, it could potentially accelerate a fledgling national trend toward decriminalization.

There’s little hope of accomplishing change at the federal level, even though public health officials have been pushing for it for years. In Congress, Reps. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., introduced the Repeal HIV Discrimination Act, but it’s likely to go nowhere. There has been resistance, particularly among Republicans.

Like the Reagan administration, red state lawmakers started paying attention to AIDS because of Ryan White, a boy unfairly marginalized by people who didn’t understand HIV or how it is contracted. Following an early provision in the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act, which provided funding for education and treatment, they passed misguided laws to prosecute people over HIV or AIDS.

California just beat middle America to the punch.

Now the remnants of those laws are being used to marginalize a whole new group of people with HIV, many of them opioid addicts in red states spreading the virus through dirty needles. It’s time to be “compassionate,” “caring” or “tolerant.” It’s time to end the cycle.

Published in the Sacramento Bee on April 24, 2017