Introduction

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

Every day, millions of individuals have unprotected sex with partners they must assume might be infected. They evidently rate the risks and benefits of sex differently than people who retrospectively judge sexual behavior in legal proceedings. Thus conduct that seems normal to many – ie, sex without protection despite the presence of risk – exposes those who have HIV to severe criminal penalties, including life imprisonment.

Professor Scott Burris and Justice Edwin Cameron, 2008.1

In criminal investigations and prosecutions for alleged HIV exposure or transmission, it is important to understand exactly how HIV can – and cannot – be transmitted and what factors increase or decrease the likelihood of transmission. This chapter examines the most commonly prosecuted behaviours from the standpoint of what the most up-to-date scientific evidence indicates about HIV risk levels. It also considers how this evidence has – or has not – been applied in jurisdictions worldwide.

Contents include:

  • an overview of pathways of HIV transmission

  • a detailed discussion about how different types of sexual intercourse carry different HIV risk levels for insertive and receptive partners

  • information about how condom use, viral levels, sexually transmitted infections and male circumcision affect HIV-transmission risk

  • explanations of why spitting, biting, fighting and needle-based assaults are extremely low HIV-risk behaviours

  • legal perspectives on HIV risk.

References

  1. Burris S and Cameron E The case against criminalization of HIV transmission. JAMA 300(5): 578-581, 2008

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.