How the criminal law approaches responsibility

Twitter

  • Greece: Five (of 26) women in mass HIV criminalisation "sex worker" case acquitted http://t.co/LnDGFZJrfV 20 Mar 2013
  • US: Kansas to repeal ban on quarantining people with HIV, allow forced HIV testing following bodily fluids exposure http://t.co/jFZsLeD4Wg 20 Mar 2013
  • US: Illinois cop accused of HIV non-disclosure to be prosecuted under old unscientific HIV-specific law http://t.co/uZka8cQvTE #HIVisnocrime 18 Mar 2013
  • Canada: Police training and guidelines in criminal HIV non-disclosure cases urgently required http://t.co/twsGT55EBl @AIDSLAW #HIVCan 14 Mar 2013
  • Germany: National AIDS Council releases powerful policy statement on HIV criminalisation http://t.co/0vpT4r4kui #HIVisnocrime 13 Mar 2013
  • US: New study to explore effects of HIV criminalisation on health department policies and programmes http://t.co/S2qVzCXSuy 13 Mar 2013
  • UK: New research calls for better guidance for HIV service providers on criminal law, confidentiality and ethics http://t.co/0GdgIvxgQV 07 Mar 2013
  • New UK report from @SigmaResearch1 finds #HIV #criminalisation impact on healthcare workers and service providers http://t.co/85aCJmytz3 28 Feb 2013
  • US: HIV Experts Urge Minnesota Supreme Court to Consider the Science of HIV Transmission http://t.co/nNUJeEWymF 24 Feb 2013
  • @aidsactioneurop Thank you very much for publicising this important initiative. 20 Feb 2013
  • The latest HIV Justice Newletter is out today, on the one year anniversary of the Oslo Declaration http://t.co/W8ovLJG6 13 Feb 2013
  • UK: Updated guidance on HIV transmission, the law and the work of the clinical team now published http://t.co/E77K5uPd 13 Feb 2013
  • Nigeria: Advocates successfully argue for removal of HIV criminalisation clause from draft HIV Anti-Discrimination Act http://t.co/yZl6EMmU 13 Feb 2013
  • Australia: NSW man with HIV who "spat blood" on arresting officer pleads guilty to assaulting and intimidating police http://t.co/dxg7WUeL 12 Feb 2013

The criminal law's approach to the question of responsibility is one based on a model of subjectivity that will, and must, deny the specificity of individual human experience... one that will deny the relevance of particular individuals' attempts to behave responsibly (by practising safer sex rather than disclosing status, for example). To the extent that it does so, it undermines those attempts and ignores the very real impediments and barriers to behaving as the law demands.

Dr Matthew Weait, Birkbeck College, University of London, 2007.1

The criminal law's approach to responsibility for HIV prevention depends very much on the HIV-specific law (or interpretation of the general law) in each jurisdiction.

In some jurisdictions, the criminal law clearly obligates someone who knows their HIV-positive status to disclose this to their sexual partner(s) before any kind of sex takes place (and in others only before unprotected sex). Others make disclosure of known HIV-positive status an affirmative defence to allegations of potential or actual HIV exposure or transmission. In both cases, the issue at stake is not responsiblity for HIV prevention per se, but a duty to disclose a known HIV-positive status so that a sexual partner can make an informed decision about what – if any – HIV-related sexual risks they are prepared to take.

There are many variations regarding the legal responsibilities that people with HIV have in relation to potential or actual HIV exposure or transmission. See the chapter: Details for further information on individual jurisdictions and countries.

However, other jurisdictions do not consider disclosure of known HIV-positive status to be at issue. These jurisdictions criminalise unprotected sex by someone who knows they are HIV-positive, regardless of whether or not they have disclosed to their partner, and even if the partner consented to HIV-related sexual risk-taking. Disclosure of known HIV-positive status is not considered to be an affirmative defence during a prosecution for sex that potentially or actually risked HIV exposure. In effect, these jurisdictions are assigning responsibility for HIV prevention solely to the person who is diagnosed HIV-positive.

References

  1. Weait M Intimacy and Responsibility: the criminalisation of HIV transmission. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge-Cavendish, 2007

HIV Justice
Network

RSS Feed

A writer and advocate on a range of HIV-related issues, Edwin has a particular specialism in HIV and the criminal law. He works with national and international HIV organisations, including the International AIDS Society, GNP+ and UNAIDS, as well having as a long association with NAM as a writer on this topic and as the former editor of HIV Treatment Update. To visit Edwin's blog and respond to posts click here.

This content was checked for accuracy at the time it was written. It may have been superseded by more recent developments. NAM recommends checking whether this is the most current information when making decisions that may affect your health.