Scroll down to comment on this story.
by Jennifer Morton,Regan Hofmann and Oriol R. Gutierrez Jr.
More HIV-positive people are being criminally prosecuted for not disclosing their HIV status before sexual encounters—sometimes even when there is no intent to harm and no transmission occurs. We’re also getting locked up for not disclosing to dentists and for spitting, biting, marrying—even failing to take meds. Out-of-date laws and inconsistencies around the world make the spectrum of what constitutes criminal behavior dangerously out of sync with science and confusing for those of us living with the virus. A look at how criminalization backfires as a strategy for stopping
the spread of HIV and the information you need to know to stay free.
In 1990, in the dark, early days of the AIDS epidemic, Gregory Smith was sentenced to 25 years in prison for spitting at and biting two prison guards, allegedly exposing them to HIV. Given that no transmission occurred and that there was empirical data indicating that transmission was highly unlikely, it seemed an unfair verdict. But, back then the general public was unclear on how HIV could—and couldn’t—be spread, a fact that resulted in considerable hysteria around those living with the virus and the threat they allegedly posed. Neither the doctors and lawmakers involved in the case nor the media covering it educated the public about the lack of risk posed by spitting and biting. Smith and his, as it turned out, non-deadly saliva marked one of the first highly publicized cases of an “AIDS offender,” and at a time when an HIV diagnosis almost inevitably meant a death sentence, few people, let alone juries, or judges—maybe even understandably—cared to split hairs over relative, versus actual, risk.
Flash forward nearly 20 years. In 2008, Willie Campbell was sentenced to 35 years in a Texas prison for spitting on a police officer, allegedly exposing him to HIV. Given that no transmission occurred and given that we now definitely know how HIV is and isn’t spread, it seemed a grossly unfair verdict. Considering that the defendant claimed to want to hurt the police officer, there were certainly grounds for punishment. But locking him up for a quarter of a century? The fact that people living with HIV today are being given similar disproportionately harsh verdicts as they were decades ago points to the ongoing problem of HIV-related stigma and its impact on the criminalization of HIV transmission. This year, in Toronto, Johnson Aziga was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder and 10 counts of aggravated assault for transmitting HIV to two partners, both of whom eventually died from AIDS-related illness. Aziga set a worldwide precedent by being the first HIV-positive person charged with first-degree murder for HIV transmission.
It is time that the public’s understanding of HIV aligns with scientific evidence and high time that new laws are established to address the complex and nuanced nature of risk and responsibility between two people engaging in consensual sex when HIV is present.
It’s not just that it’s unfair; criminalization of potential and actual HIV transmission is backfiring as a prevention and public health measure. Putting someone in prison might stop that person from spreading HIV to the general public, but it has a ripple effect that could impact far more lives. Repeatedly sentencing HIV-positive people in ways that are dramatically disproportionate to the risk and outcome of their actions makes people afraid to get tested and treated for HIV. And it makes it less likely that people will disclose their HIV status to others—all of which enhances the possibility that HIV will be spread. If people are not afraid of getting locked up for having HIV, they might be more receptive to the idea of knowing their status. And, if they’re positive, they might be more likely to tell others and seek treatment that could lower their viral load and render them less infectious—which could mitigate the spread of the disease even if they—or their partners—don’t practice safer sex 100 percent of the time.
Without a doubt, HIV-positive people who know their status have a responsibility to keep others safe. But that responsibility should not be one-sided. Even if both partners had an HIV test, for example, and genuinely believed they are negative, that might not be the case. Given the lag time between exposure to HIV and when the body has produced the antibodies to the virus that result in a positive test for HIV, someone could be carrying HIV and not even know it. Understanding this scientific truth, all people should then realize that unprotected sex invariably involves risk, and that the risk must be accepted by both parties. This is true regardless of what questions you ask your partners, what their answers are, and whether or not they’re telling—or know—the truth.
According to the Global Criminalisation Scan (gnpplus.net/criminalisation), only eight U.S. states have no laws criminalizing exposure to or transmission of HIV (they are: Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wyoming). Only six U.S. states (California, Kansas, Maryland, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Washington) have laws that only criminalize exposure to HIV with intent (though what constitutes intent can vary). Throughout the rest of the country, the laws differ, but you should know that you can be charged in many states for not disclosing before sexual activity (which includes kissing in some states like Iowa!) even if you have no intent to harm and HIV isn’t transmitted. Thirty-six states have prosecuted HIV-positive people for criminal HIV exposure or transmission, but only 28 states have specific HIV-related criminal or public health laws.
For a sense of the complexity and breadth of different state laws, consider this: In Arkansas, people who are HIV positive must alert their physicians and dentists of their status before receiving any health care services. Failure to do so is a class A misdemeanor. In Missouri, performing an act of prostitution, which is normally a class B misdemeanor, becomes a class B felony if the prostitute knew beforehand that he or she was infected with HIV. Also in Missouri, a person can be sentenced to death if he or she transmits the virus as a result of exposure without disclosure. Using a condom is not a defense. In Oklahoma, it is a felony for any person, after becoming infected with a sexually transmitted infection (STI) and before being pronounced cured by a physician in writing, to marry any other person or to expose any other person to the STI.
Many of the criminal transmission laws were written in the late 1980s when then-President Ronald Reagan called for the establishment of the President’s Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic. The commission encouraged states to write criminal laws to impose an “affirmative” responsibility on people who tested positive to disclose their HIV status to potential sex partners. There was a hook: Only states that created criminal penalties for exposure to and transmission of HIV received federal dollars for AIDS care and education.
The 1990 Ryan White CARE Act made it possible for states to get funds for care and education of HIV, but by then, 32 states had created laws to specifically address HIV and all 50 states claimed they had laws in place to handle HIV transmission.
We have made enormous headway on the HIV treatment front, but when it comes to the general public’s understanding of HIV transmission we have a long way to go. Criminalization and disproportionately severe sentencing of people living with HIV are proof positive that society’s (and our legal system’s) comprehension of HIV is lacking. And, thanks to HIV-related stigma, HIV-positive people are often viewed as “guilty until proven innocent.” Three factors are supposed to play critical roles in determining sentences in cases of potential exposure to and/or transmission of an STI: intent, actual risk and outcome. But when people living with HIV stand trial, these factors are often obliterated in a flurry of fear, misunderstanding and discrimination.
While it’s difficult to track the exact number of HIV criminalization cases (as many are not reported) there is no question that the subject has been appearing in media coverage more frequently of late. Even the scope of what can and can’t be criminalized in relation to HIV seems to be growing.
It is important to know that the concept of criminalizing people with HIV is expanding beyond pre-intimacy disclosure. Recently, in Mississippi a woman was denied custody of her child because she is positive, and in Maine, a judge extended an HIV-positive pregnant woman’s incarceration to ensure she would get antiretroviral treatment in prison and
decrease the risk that her child would be born positive. (She has since been released and will have the baby in a hospital.)
In many other countries, the situation is even worse. In Sierra Leone, women can be fined and jailed for passing the virus onto their children. In Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali and Niger, a mother can be criminally charged if she doesn’t take steps to prevent HIV transmission to her baby, including taking antiretroviral meds. In Egypt, several people were arrested for merely being HIV positive. Globally, fifty-eight countries have laws to prosecute HIV transmission; 33 others are considering passing such laws; of those, 20 are in Africa.
What can HIV-positive Americans do to protect themselves? In theory, one defense is “informed consent.” If you can get a person to indicate that you have made it perfectly clear that you have HIV, and do so in front of a witness, such proof of disclosure may hold up in court. But unfortunately, many states do not define what constitutes “informed consent.”
You could ask the people to whom you disclose to sign a letter stating that they have been told—and acknowledge— that you’re HIV positive. It will need to be notarized (stamped by a notary public at the time of signing) to be effective. Another method is to tape record (or videotape, say, with your cell phone or a digital camera) your disclosure. Remember: For an audio or video file to be admissible evidence in court, you must state, on the file, that you request permission for the conversation to be recorded and the other person must verbally agree and state his or her full name.
You could also invite a friend to be present when you disclose to a potential partner. That friend should be willing to stand witness to the disclosure should charges ever be brought against you. Or you could take a potential partner to your doctor to educate him or her about HIV and its potential risks—so you have a witness to his or her awareness of your status.
Of course, it is also a good idea to use a condom. While not a legal defense in some states, condoms reduce the risk of spreading HIV. Historically, fewer people have been prosecuted for nondisclosure prior to sex when a condom was used.
Most important, the HIV community must lobby local, state and federal government officials and lawmakers to rewrite (or better yet, abolish) the laws that criminalize HIV transmission. Contact your mayor, your congress people, your state senators and their staff. Educate them about HIV risks and transmission, and hold their feet to the fire to ensure that all people living with HIV are not unfairly punished.
Those who have the power to put us away need to hear that locking up positive people will not only not stop the spread of the disease, but that, ironically, doing so may mean more people will contract HIV. And that would be a real crime.
Want to report your own incidence of HIV criminalization? Tell your story on criminalhivtransmission.blogspot.com.
Pages: 1 | 2
Search: transmission, crimes, criminalization, murder, laws
Scroll down to comment on this story.
comments 15 - 29 (of 42 total)
Miguel aka PRMike, Kissimmee FL, 2009-11-04 10:34:44
Hi Trish in responce to this question- if I were to get an STD from them (if they have one), should they be prosecuted for not disclosing that fact when they violated me against my will? BTW, they are in jail. I wasn't letting them get away this. NO WAY!
I would say Yes they should get charged because they have harmed you in another way not only by raping you but by giving you something I'm also glad that you stood up and made them pay for what they did to you Stay Strong always PRMike
Trish Steen, Kansas City,MO, 2009-11-03 11:06:10
In Missouri the law states you must disclose HIV status with a sexual partner even if a condom is used. Recently I was raped by two thugs. I disclosed my status to them hoping they wouldn't do anything to me, I was wrong... they said they didn't care about that. Stupid Morons! So if I were to get an STD from them (if they have one), should they be prosecuted for not disclosing that fact when they violated me against my will? BTW, they are in jail. I wasn't letting them get away this. NO WAY!
Jose, Miami, 2009-10-22 21:45:42
ANYONE who does not know how HIV is transmitted either was in coma the last 20 years or from another planet. It all comes down to personal responsibility period. If you have - consensual - unprotected sex you risk getting HIV, other STD's, etc. It is the fault of BOTH parties. Automatically the laws persecute the HIV+ person BUT the other person stupidly put themselves at direct risk. In this day and age, you must assume EVERYONE has something!
PozBiker, Long Beach, 2009-10-17 10:10:04
I contracted HIV from a person who did not disclose to me. I take my responsibility too, for I did not force the issue of protection. While it's no defense, I was naive about how HIV is transmitted. BUT, people like him should be held accountable for infecting people, He knew his status, I later found out. I also know of many guys on a gay dating sex personals site who claim to be negative, practice bareback sex, but who are positive. People like these folks should be jailed.
Chris, The Forsaken Midwest (less than a year remaining), 2009-10-14 22:55:52
It is funny how those living with HIV are prosecuted relentlessly without reserve. What is interesting, is what if someone who is HIV-positive contracts an STI from a HIV-negative person? Because we have a compromised immune system, do we get to prosecute? Technically, there is a far greater risk to our health than theirs...and yet we have no recourse! It seems as those who are HIV-negative get a free pass in regards to responsibility! They do not have to be ACCOUNTABLE for their choices!
Mike, New York, NY, 2009-10-13 08:24:12
ERRR, this country is becoming more an more like living in a Fascist State. If it's not criminalizing HIV, it's something else! Obama is just a puppet for this system of control and the only thing we have left to do is stand up, grab our brothers and charge the gates. It's time the Gay community got off their spoiled asses and rainbow painted parade floats and took a real stand, risking life and safety.
Bradley Fowler, Rex, 2009-10-09 00:15:09
I am taken aback by such ignorance when it pertains to this epidemic. As a result, I have taken the initiative to compose a book that will not only improve the method which those who are positive disclose their diagnoses with others, I share me own personal testimony on how I shared my diagnoses with potential partners and family. This book will be available sometimes next month. Email me at positivelightforliving at gmail.com to reserve your copy. Also can speak at any affair or up coming event
Baby Peaknut, , 2009-10-08 22:22:05
It was a mercy killing--he had a certain naive charm, but...
Nichole, Brooklyn, NY, 2009-10-08 18:08:30
What ever happened to personal responsiblity? People should wear condoms to begin with. Sure if i know i have HIV I should let others know, but its the next persons own fault for not putting one on to begin with. What if two HIV+ persons have sex with eachother without disclosure, who goes to jail then?!?
AR, , 2009-10-08 14:27:35
I bring my gf (whom I disclosed to) to appointments and introduce her to my providers whenever the opportunity presents itself. I don't think she would ever claim I didn't disclose my status to her; in fact, she is incredibly supportive. However, this is a pretty good method to preventing any claims of non-disclosure and your partner gets to be supportive. Just think of it, "Well mame, (or sir) what did you think you were doing with your partner in an AIDS clinic?"
Maya, , 2009-10-07 08:46:35
And to continue with the last post--intent to infect and proven transmission should be the only way it should be criminilized.It also should be able to be taken into account for rapes.Hiv neg people should treat every person as if they have HIV-sort of like the universal precautions we take in health care.There is no excuse for them to do otherwise-even if someone says they are HIV neg, there is absolutely no reason to beieve them unless you see a negative test on paper.
Maya, , 2009-10-07 08:43:48
The laws need to be updated.I had an ex that tried to say I endangered him by not telling him my status, even though I did tell him and we used condoms every time.He was just trying to get back at me for breaking up with him.This is the unintended consequences of these laws and why it makes people less likely to tell,because if you have a broad law and people can use it against you for whatever reason,why tell?And why can HIV-people sleep around with no consequences as if they had no part?
stuart, Omaha, 2009-10-06 18:55:06
I would never disclouse to anyone my status, or who my partners have been. I don't tell anybody about any of my illnesses period. What investagative information I have given to doctors, judges, lawyers, employers have always been false information. How many people tell others they have diabetes, or had cancer in the families if they even know. If they do, chances of them getting employed or staying employed are real slim, because being able to aquire healh /life insurance.
Lou, CA, 2009-10-04 16:40:06
Why must we lay blame? If you're negative, take steps to stay that way. Ask your partner's status. If you engage in behavior that puts you at risk, then the possibility of transmission is something for you to own. Your partner's lack of disclosure is a sad excuse for your failure to take care of yourself. Always assume your partner is positive and behave is manner that suits your definition of "safer" sex.
loretta, Chicago, 2009-10-01 18:04:09
comments 15 - 29 (of 42 total)
What about those who use your status against you. I was dating someone and told them I was positive, he then made advances towards my daughter, wanting to have sex with her for his own sick reasons, he then threatened me by saying that if I told the police that he wanted to have sex with my minor daughter, he would go to the cops and have me arrested for endangering his life by not revealing my status (even though he was told more than once). What kind of justice do we get in these situations?