US: Illinois modernises its HIV-specific criminal law

By Ramon Gardenhire (from AIDS Foundation of Chicago)

In my role as director of government relations for the AIDS Foundation of Chicago (AFC), I have to come to terms with the reality that the legislative process often means having to make ugly compromises.

This sentiment hit home this past legislative session, when the Illinois General Assembly passed a bill that would amend the state’s law that makes exposing someone to HIV a crime.

The Illinois criminal transmission of HIV law, on the books since 1989, has no basis in science, discriminates against people with HIV, and stigmatizes HIV.

AFC strongly opposes the law and fights for its repeal.  However, when it became abundantly clear that SB 3673 was going to pass with overwhelming support, we made a strategic decision to work the bill’s sponsor to minimize the legislation’s harm as much as possible.

We decided to make a bad law better.

SB 3673, introduced by Sen. Dale Righter (R – Mattoon) and sponsored in the House by Rep. Jim Sacia (R – Freeport) unanimously passed both chambers in the Illinois General Assembly. It amends the current HIV criminal transmission law to allow prosecutors to access medical records to learn if someone knew their HIV status, a fact that has to be established before an individual can be prosecuted.

This bill was a response to a tragic case in Whiteside County, Ill., in 2009, involving a man who allegedly knowingly exposed several women to HIV. The state’s strong HIV confidentiality law prevented police from accessing the suspect’s medical records to determine if he knew he had HIV. After charging him with 13 counts of criminally transmitting HIV to another person, the man was only sentenced with one count. There was no way to prove that he had knowingly exposed his partners to HIV.

We fear that the amendment to the law would deter individuals from testing for HIV because they could be prosecuted for criminal HIV transmission if they learn their status.  Earlier versions of the bill would have allowed access to social service agency and counseling records; AFC and allies were able to remove this provision, which would have had a chilling impact on testing and risk-reduction counseling.

AFC and our partners, ACLU of Illinois and AIDS Legal Council of Chicago, were able to negotiate significant changes to the underlying law in return for not working against the provision that allowed access to medical records.  The changes we made are below.  This bill:

1.    Requires that prosecutors prove that an individual specifically intended to transmit HIV to another individual  – This is an increased legal standard that prosecutors must meet and consider before bringing criminal charges.

2.    Limits acts of transmission to only “sexual activity without the use of a condom” – Prosecutors cannot charge individuals for activities that will not transmit HIV, such as biting or spitting.

3.    Defines the term “sexual activity” to include only sexual acts that include insertive vaginal or anal intercourse – This means no more criminal transmission cases for oral sex or kissing.

4.    Exemption from prosecution if a condom is wore during sexual activity – No more criminal charges if a person uses a condom.

Although the amended law significantly narrows the situations that could result in prosecution for criminal transmission, these cases are likely to always involve “he said he said” or “she said” cases that happen between the sheets with no witnesses.

It will be one person’s word against the other to determine if the couple used a condom and which sex acts they engaged in.  Cases will hinge on whether the infected partner disclosed his or her HIV status before having sex. Too often, former partners press charges for criminal transmission as retaliation when a relationship has soured.

The bill does include an important protection against prosecutorial abuse.  Judges must approve all requests for medical records, and the judge reviews records and determines if they are before they are turned over to prosecutors.  However, AFC and other advocates will remain vigilant to ensure that abuses do not occur.

The bill has been sent to Gov. Pat Quinn who will likely sign the bill into law.  According to the Center for HIV Law and Policy, 32 states and two U.S. territories have HIV criminal transmission laws.  The bill strikes an apprehensive compromise between HIV advocates and law enforcement. While the bill is an improvement, it still contains problematic sections.  AFC will continue to monitor the law once it is enacted, and look for opportunities to repeal it altogether.

Doing HIV Justice: Clarifying criminal law and policy through prosecutorial guidance (HJN, 2012)

Doing HIV Justice: Clarifying criminal law and policy through prosecutorial guidance

A video documentary by Edwin J Bernard and Nicholas Feustel
Produced by georgetown media for the HIV Justice Network

Doing HIV Justice demystifies the process of how civil society worked with the Crown Prosecution Service of England & Wales to create the world’s first policy and guidance for prosecuting the reckless or intentional transmission of sexual infection. The result is fewer miscarriages of justice and a better understanding of HIV throughout the entire criminal justice system.

This 30 minute educational and advocacy video explains how the guidance was developed, what challenges the key stakeholders faced and overcame, and what benefits have resulted.

Featuring

The financial contribution of UNAIDS is gratefully acknowledged

Press Conference (AIDS 2012)

HIV Criminalization – An Epidemic Of Ignorance?

Laws and prosecutions that single out people with living with HIV are ineffective, counterproductive and unjust.

As delegates from around the world met in Washington DC at AIDS 2012 to discuss how to “end AIDS” through the application of the latest scientific advances, this press conference highlighted how laws and policies based on stigma and ignorance are not only creating major barriers to prevention, testing, care and treatment, but also seriously violating the human rights of people living with HIV.

Hosted by (in alphabetical order): The Center for HIV Law & Policy / Positive Justice Project, United States; Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+), Netherlands; HIV Justice Network, United Kingdom/Germany; INA (Maori, Indigenous & South Pacific) HIV/AIDS Foundation, New Zealand; The SERO Project, United States; Terrence Higgins Trust, United Kingdom; UNAIDS, Switzerland.

Chaired by Paul de Lay, Deputy Executive Director, UNAIDS, Switzerland

Speakers:

– Nick Rhoades, HIV criminalization survivor, United States [from 03:28]
– Marama Pala, former complainant, New Zealand [from 09:15]
– Edwin J Bernard, Co-ordinator, HIV Justice Network/Consultant, GNP+ [from 14:35]
– Laurel Sprague, Research Director – SERO, United States [from 23:15]
– Lisa Fager Bediako, Congressional Black Caucus Foundation/ Positive Justice Project, United States [from 33:10]

Video produced by Nicholas Feustel, georgetownmedia.de, for the HIV Justice Network

HIV prosecutions: global ranking (AIDS 2012)

Presented by Edwin J Bernard at 19th International AIDS Conference, Washington DC, July 22-27, 2012.

Video produced by Nicholas Feustel, georgetownmedia.de, for the HIV Justice Network

Introduction by Susan Timberlake [00:00]
Introduction by Laurel Sprague [01:54]
Start of Edwin J Bernard’s presentation [03:33]
Slide 01: Overview [04:40]
Slide 02: Global Commission on HIV and the Law [05:19]
Slide 03: Case Study: Take a Test, Risk Arrest [05:21]
Slide 04: Global Overview of Laws and Prosecutions [08:29]
Slide 05: Law Enforcement: Top 30 Jurisdictions [09:47]
Slide 06: Law Enforcement Hot Spots [10:58]
Slide 07: Top 15 Global HIV Criminalization Hot Spots [11:19]
Slide 08: Focus On Africa [12:09]
Slide 09: Focus On Africa: Positive Developments [13:08]
Slide 10: Focus On Europe and Central Asia [14:10]
Slide 11: Focus On Europe and Central Africa: Positive Developments [15:18]
Slide 12: Oslo Declaration on HIV Criminalisation [17:45]

Updated abstract based on final data

Criminal prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission: overview and updated global ranking

E.J. Bernard (HIV Justice Network, Berlin, Germany/ Criminal HIV Transmission (blog), Brighton, UK)
M. Nyambe (Global Network of People Living with HIV, GNP+, Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Background: Many jurisdictions continue to inappropriately prosecute people living with HIV (PLHIV) for non-disclosure of HIV-positive status, alleged exposure and non-intentional transmission. Although most HIV-related criminal cases are framed by prosecutors and the media as being cases of ´deliberate´ HIV transmission, the vast majority have involved neither malicious intent nor has transmission actually occurred or the route of transmission been adequately proven.

Methods: This global overview of HIV-related criminal laws and prosecutions is based on latest data from GNP+ Global Criminalisation Scan and media reports collated on criminalhivtransmission.blogspot.com. Final ranking will be based on the total number of prosecutions by July 1 2012 per 1000 PLHIV.

Results: At least 66 countries have HIV-specific criminal laws and at least 47 countries have used HIV-specific (n=20) or general laws to prosecute HIV non-disclosure, exposure or transmission. Despite growing national and international advocacy, prosecutions have not diminished, particularly in high-income countries, with the greatest numbers in North America. Since 2010, prosecutions have taken place in Belgium and Republic of Congo for the first time. In 2011, although HIV-specific laws were suspended in Denmark and rejected in Guyana, Romania passed a new HIV-specific criminal statute. In Africa, the continent with the most HIV-specific criminal laws but with few known prosecutions, Guinea, Togo and Senegal have revised their existing HIV-related legislation or adopted new legislation in line with UNAIDS guidance.

Conclusions: Given the lack or inadequacy of systems to track HIV-related prosecutions in most places, it is not possible to determine the actual number of prosecutions for every country in the world. These data should be considered illustrative of a more widespread, but generally undocumented, use of criminal law against people with HIV. Improved monitoring of laws, law enforcement, and access to justice is still required to fully understand impact on HIV response and PLHIV.

Global Commission on HIV and the Law: an analysis of their HIV criminalisation recommendations

Today, the Global Commission on HIV and the Law finally issued its long-awaited report, ‘HIV and the Law: Risks, Rights and Health.’  It was well worth the wait.

“Fundamentally unjust, morally harmful, and virtually impossible to enforce with any semblance of fairness, such laws impose regimes of surveillance and punishment on sexually active people living with HIV, not only in their intimate relations and reproductive and maternal lives, but also in their attempts to earn a living.”

That’s how the Chapter 2 of the report, focusing on the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, potential exposure and non-intentional transmission begins.  The rest of the chapter pulls no punches either.

Of course, the Global Commmission, and the report itself, cover much more than HIV criminalisation, and it pulls no punches recommending repeal of punitive laws impacting consensual same-sex sex, sex work, drug use and patent laws affecting access to HIV treatment.  However, since this blog – and the focus of my work – is specifically about HIV criminalisation I’m only going to focus on the six pages in the report (and five pages of references) that specifically addresses this issue. 

Five recommendations on HIV criminalisation: click on image to enlarge

To cut to the chase, the report recommends the following:

To ensure an effective, sustainable response to HIV that is consistent with human rights obligations:

2.1. Countries must not enact laws that explicitly criminalise HIV transmission, HIV exposure or failure to disclose HIV status. Where such laws exist, they are counterproductive and must be repealed. The provisions of model codes that have been advanced to support the enactment of such laws should be withdrawn and amended to conform to these recommendations.
2.2. Law enforcement authorities must not prosecute people in cases of HIV non-disclosure or exposure where no intentional or malicious HIV transmission has been proven to take place. Invoking criminal laws in cases of adult private consensual sexual activity is disproportionate and counterproductive to enhancing public health.
2.3. Countries must amend or repeal any law that explicitly or effectively criminalises vertical transmission of HIV. While the process of review and repeal is under way, governments must place moratoria on enforcement of any such laws.
2.4. Countries may legitimately prosecute HIV transmission that was both actual and intentional, using general criminal law, but such prosecutions should be pursued with care and require a high standard of evidence and proof.
2.5. The convictions of those who have been successfully prosecuted for HIV exposure, non-disclosure and transmission must be reviewed. Such convictions must be set aside or the accused immediately released from prison with pardons or similar actions to ensure that these charges do not remain on criminal or sex offender records.

The first four points are consistent with the 2008 UNAIDS/UNDP Policy Brief recommendations but go further in terms of tone. For example, using “must” rather than “should”.

Point 2.3 on vertical transmission really needs no further explanation and should be implemented immediately. 

But what did the Commission mean by some of the recommendations, which, when you read them from the point of view of a legislator, or someone who can affect policy in the criminal justice system, might not be quite as clear as they could be?

And what about point 2.5 recommending that anyone imprisoned for HIV non-disclosure, potential exposure or non-intentional transmission have their case reviewed?  Although it doesn’t spell out the criteria for review, they should be consistent with the International Guidelines on HIV and Human Rights published by UNAIDS and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).  Since 1998 they have recommended that in order for someone to be convicted, “the elements of foreseeability, intent, causality and consent [must be] clearly and legally established to support a guilty verdict….” If we now consider that the Commission recommends that only intentional and malicious transmission should be a crime, if the above criteria have not been met (and in most cases they have not), the Global Commission recommends immediate release from prison, a pardon and removal of criminal records (and in the US and Canada, removal from the sex offender registry).

I asked Professor Matthew Weait, who served as a member of the Technical Advisory Group for the Commission (the TAG), with particular responsibility for HIV criminalisation about how we should interpret recommendations 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4 in the real world.

The excellent working paper that he prepared for the Commission, The Criminalisation of HIV Exposure and Transmission: A Global Review is also now available to download. A second paper, Criminalisation and the Moral Responsibility for Sexual Transmission of HIV by Matthew and his fellow TAG member, Professor Scott Burris is also now available.

Q: In 2.1 Does the Commission only recommend repealing laws that explicitly criminalise non-disclosure, exposure or transmission?  What, for example, does that mean for Canada, which uses general laws to prosecute non-disclosure?

It’s a good question!  Before I answer it, can I emphasise that what I say here should in no way should be seen as reflecting the views or interpretation either of other TAG members, the Commissioners, or the UNDP Secretariat that provided logistical and other support.  They are personal views.  So – with that in mind – I think it’s important to read this Recommendation in the context of the Report as a whole. What is abundantly clear is that the Commission believes that only the actual and deliberate transmission of HIV may legitimately be criminalised, and all the Recommendations need to be read in that light. This means, in my view, that countries which criminalise HIV under their general laws are also being addressed here.  The reason is that in many such countries it is only HIV transmission, exposure and non-disclosure which is prosecuted in the criminal courts under general provisions which could also be used in the context of other diseases.  The fact that other diseases are not, or extremely rarely so, means that HIV is – to my mind – explicitly criminalised.  Just because HIV is criminalised under a general law doesn’t detract from the fact that such criminalisation is explicit in practice.  You’ll have to follow this up with the Commission though!

Q: In 2.2 Does the Commission mean that law enforcement authorities can prosecute for HIV exposure and non-disclosure where there is proof of intentional or malicious transmission?

I don’t think so, no.  The “must not” construction of the Recommendation does not imply the opposite, especially where to read it this way would be against the entire tenor of the Report. It is very important, in my view, that law enforcement authorities do not take this as a “green light” – not only because it would lead to over-criminalisation (belt and braces) – but it would serve no purpose.  

Q: In 2.4 Does the Commission suggest that prosecutions can still take place that aren’t malicious?  How do you prosecute “with care”?

This Recommendation is in permissive language, similar to that used in the UNAIDS 2008 Policy Guidance, and does not – I think this is important – mandate criminalisation as such.  It seems to me to be intended to provide states with a “let out” clause, reflecting the views of many in the wider HIV policy community, and is politically pragmatic and realistic. Some might think it is a unfortunate that this is in a list of Recommendations, but I think I understand why it has been. It might have been better to phrase the Recommendation in the form, “If countries wish to criminalise HIV, they should only do so in cases of actual and intentional transmission”, but I don’t think we should get too hung up on the exact language here. As with the other Recommendations, it has to be read in the light of everything else in the Report, where it is clear that Commission is arguing for the most restrictive approach possible. It will also, by the way, be important to see whether the Report itself addresses in more detail what is meant by intentional and malicious. Different jurisdictions interpret these terms is in a variety of ways – some equating them with knowledge of status, some with knowledge of the risk of transmission, and some with deliberate or purposive intent (or a combination of all these). The fact that the Commission uses the term “malicious” in Recommendation 2.2 suggests that it has in mind deliberate and purposive intention

As for question of pursuing prosecutions ‘with care’, it is clear that the Commission has affirmed what has been emphasised in a number of recent policy documents, including a recent initiative of UNAIDS.  The highest (I would personally have preferred that, rather than “high”) is necessary when dealing with liability based on expert evidence (as transmission cases typically are, at least where the scientific analysis facilities are available).

Catherine Hanssens highlights the problem with US HIV disclosure laws

This morning, the Global Commission held a press conference that featured several of the Commissioners: US Congresswoman Barbara Lee; Canada’s Stephen Lewis (Co-Director and Co-Founder of AIDS-Free World); and His Excellency Mr. Festus Gontebanye Mogae, former President of Botswana.

Three members of civil society also participated: Nevena Ciric, More than Help, AIDS +, Serbia; Maurice Tomlinson, AIDS-Free World, Jamaica and Nick Rhoades, Positive Justice Project, The Center for HIV Law and Policy, United States.

Nick Rhoades spoke with clarity and power about the lessons learned from his own terrible experience. HIV criminalisation wastes money, harms prevention and human rights, he concluded. Return sanity, science and justice to HIV laws.

I was convicted in 2008 under Iowa’s law titled “criminal transmission of HIV” although HIV was not actually transmitted.  This involved a one-time, consensual sexual encounter with another adult.  My viral load was undetectable, I used a condom – and again, I did not transmit HIV.  However, none of these facts mattered in the eyes of the law.  The judge imposed the maximum sentence of 25 years in prison and the requirement to register as a sex offender for the rest of my life.  After sentencing, the judge was subject to a significant amount of pressure from advocates in the U.S. and even Europe – requesting my sentence be reconsidered.  After being incarcerated for over a year, he released me on five years probation, but I am of course, still a sex offender. [Nick is now appealing his conviction.]

During my course through the correctional system, I transferred facilities four times.  Each time I was transferred, I would be either without medications or missing certain medications for a period of days. And when I was released, I had lost my place on the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, so I was put on a wait-list. The correctional system offered no assistance in finding a social worker or medication assistance once I was released from prison.

The personal toll this has taken on me and my family and friends cannot be measured.  This has caused great mental anguish, financial burdens and major professional barriers for me, now that I am a sex offender.  I have been virtually unemployable.  I am fortunate enough now to be employed from home by The Center for HIV Law & Policy, but most aren’t so lucky.  To this day, I deal with terrible depression.  It’s not easy.

What’s more, the price to enforce these archaic laws is considerable.  The approximate cost to tax-payers to incarcerate just one individual in Iowa – factoring in the cost of medications and routine medical care is approximately sixty-five to seventy thousand dollars annually. This cost is borne by tax-payers and doesn’t include the lost income and contribution to society that incarceration causes. Then consider the price to supervise people convicted under these laws while on probation or parole – often being forced to add in the costs of monitoring offenders on the sex offender registry – and the public is paying an incredible amount of money for enforcing laws that, more often than not, are punishing people for not transmitting HIV.  In many cases, such as mine, taxpayers are paying for the enforcement of laws that punish people with HIV who actually follow the primary prevention messages of public health counselors: stay in treatment, keep your viral load as close to undetectable as possible, use condoms – and otherwise, keep sex safe[r].

These laws enhance stigma that cripples people living with HIV/AIDS from accessing services. They make disclosure issues much more difficult due to ramifications one may face with a mere accusation. I also believe stigma, made thicker by these laws, is keeping people from getting tested.

Furthermore, I have been a member of the Iowa HIV Community Planning group – chaired by the Iowa Department of Public Health – since 2009.  I see all the data.  This year, the Iowa Department of Public Health’s prevention-based budget faced a 25% decrease which will eventually grow to 55% over the next five years. Dollars marked to treat people in care are next for slashing.  Those in care and with undetectable viral loads are up to 96% less likely to transmit the virus, yet we are cutting funding away from proven HIV prevention programs while increasing costly prosecution and imprisonment of people like me living with HIV.  When one considers that there is no evidence that these laws have any impact on people’s sexual behaviors, it is clearly not an effective use of our resources while infringing on individuals’ human rights and working in conflict with public health goals.

Criminal laws and policies that target people based on their HIV status must be repealed.  Please support Congressperson Barbara Lee’s “Repeal HIV Discrimination Act” now, and engage with those who are promoting the movement to return sanity, science and justice to the law’s treatment of HIV.

Following Nick’s powerful testminony, much of the rest of the Global Commission press conference mostly focused on HIV criminalisation in the US and Canada – as it should since the vast majority of prosecutions take place in these two countries, a fact highlighted by Stephen Lewis and echoed by Nick Rhoades.

I was very honoured to be quoted in the report.

I asked Rep. Barbara Lee how it is posssible to change these bad laws when it appears that they have popular support. “Modernising these laws won’t be easy,” she said. “But I have to tell you that the public isn’t really aware of these laws. Once you explain it to them, they’re shocked. What we have to do is mount public education campaigns about these laws. At state level, many state legislators don’t know these laws are on the books, and they can change them if there is the political will. So we need public and political education and civil society support for a political movement to hold politicians accountable. But… yes we can!”

As for other countries using general criminal laws to prosecute non-disclosure, potential exposure and transmission, in the next few months UNAIDS will be releasing a policy consideration document that will help countries understand exactly how to limit their application through a better understanding of HIV science as well as public health and human rights principles. 

There’s going to be a lot more happening around the Global Commission’s Report and all of the amazing evidence the Commission accrued during it’s two year existence.  I recommend spending time on the Global Commission website where you will now find a treasure trove of documents to help further anti-criminalisation advocacy and eventually lead to HIV justice for all.

Dominican Republic: Urge President Fernández to repeal HIV criminalisation laws

A campaign to request the urgent modification of two HIV-specific criminal statutes in the Dominican Republic has gone viral.

I first became aware of the campaign via Twitter (in Spanish) and now ITPC (the International Treatment Preparedness Coalition) has circulated an English translation (see below) and are urging their members to sign on.

Please consider joining them by asking President Fernández to repeal HIV criminalisation laws §78 and §79. You might also want to refer him to the Spanish version of the Oslo Declaration on HIV Criminalisation which can be downloaded directly here.

To the President of the Dominican Republic

The signatories below, which include members of regional networks, non-governmental organizations, community-based organizations, request the urgent modification of Law 135-11 (known as the HIV/AIDS law) for violating the National Constitution as well international agreements that the Dominican Republic has signed up to.

Moreover, the law violates the human rights of Dominican citizens, in particular those living with HIV. We emphatically reject articles 78 and 79 of the law for promoting the criminalization of the transmission of HIV.

Such measures violate the rights of people living with HIV, ignore international good practice, undermine prevention efforts and increase stigma and discrimination. We request a swift amendment to the law and attach UNAIDS policy guidelines on the criminalization of HIV transmission.

In the absence of an amendment to the law, we will support Dominican citizens and organizations in condemning the law at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and at the Organization of American States.

In the hope of a favorable response, respectfully,

In order to sign the petition, visit this link (in Spanish) and please fill the form above with your Apellido (surname), Nombre (first name), País (country), Correo electrónico (email) and, optionally, the name of your organisation.  You can link to, or paste, the Spanish version of the Oslo Declaration, in the Comentarios box.

More background on the law can be found on the International HIV/AIDS Alliance blog.

Futher Background: from http://leysidarepdom.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/rechazo-al-articulo-78-y-79/

Reject Article 78

On the 7th June 2011, the president of the Dominican Republic enacted Law 135-11, known as the “HIV/AIDS Law”- the regulations thereof are still being finalised. This national law is the result of five years of multisectorial work, and although most of its articles are very progressive, at the same time it includes the criminalization of HIV transmission. The most questionable parts of the law are to be found in the following articles:

Article 78: Obligation to disclose one’s sexual partner. Any person who knows that they are HIV positive and does not tell their sexual partner can be sentenced to two to five years’ imprisonment. 

Article 79: Intentional transmission of HIV. Any person who intentionally transmits HIV, via any means, can be sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment.

This law, and in particular the two aforementioned articles, promote the criminalisation, persecution and seclusion of people living with HIV in the Dominican Republic. It violates their human rights and contradicts a number of international agreements.

Join the campaign to amend law 135-11 (known as the HIV/AIDS law)

On Facebook, post your support on your wall, on the wall of the President of the Dominican Republic and the wall of the National HIV/AIDS Commission
 
On Twitter, use the folllowing hashtags and twitter handles when expressing your support #leysida @conavihsida @presidenciaRD
 
Send an e-mail or a letter to the Dominican Republic Embassy in your country, find the contact details here  

US: New York Court of Appeals Says HIV+ Man’s Saliva Is Not a “Dangerous Instrument” (Press Release)

New York Court of Appeals Says HIV+ Man’s Saliva Is Not a “Dangerous Instrument”

Punishing People on the Basis of Physical Attributes Would Create “Sliding Scale of Criminal Liability”

New York, June 7, 2012 – Legal and public health experts are applauding the New York Court of Appeals, decision today to vacate the 2006 conviction and sentencing of David Plunkett, an HIV-positive man, for aggravated assault for biting a police officer. The state prosecutor argued that Plunkett had used his saliva as a “dangerous instrument” when he allegedly bit a police officer during an altercation involving several police who were restraining him following an outburst in a medical facility. Plunkett currently is serving a 10-year prison term in Sing Sing.

New York’s highest court vacated Mr. Plunkett’s conviction and dismissed the aggravated assault complaint against him on the basis that his saliva, or any body fluid or part, cannot be treated as “dangerous instruments” and a basis for charging someone with aggravated assault under New York law.

In a 1999 decision, The NY Court of Appeals had ruled that a person’s teeth cannot be characterized as a dangerous weapon, or “instruments” under the terms of the law, as an element of an assuault charge.  The prosecutor and lower court attempted to get around this by stating that the “dangerous instrument” in the indictment was in fact the defendant’s saliva, which was “readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury.”

In its ruling, the Court “sought not simply to reach a textually and historically correct understanding of what the Legislature meant” the law to include, but also to avoid the injustices that “would result if criminal liability varied with the corporeal attributes of assailants and their victims.”  This interpretation would make an individual’s health, disability or even physical characteristics relevant to a determination of the ability to do harm, resulting in a “sliding scale of criminal liability,” the Court concluded.

The ruling is particularly important because it makes clear that a person’s health status, disability or other physical attributes should never be the basis for increased charges or sentencing.

Medical and public health experts long-ago dismissed the risk of HIV transmission through spitting or biting as near-zero, too small even to be measured.

“HIV is not a particularly easy virus to transmit, and it is virtually impossible for it to be transmitted through biting,” explained Terrance Moore,Director, Policy and Health Equity at the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD). “However, it is important that we realize that treating HIV or any disease as something that should be the basis of criminal charges, absent actual harm, is terrible for public health efforts. The Court’s implicit recognition of the injustice of basing liability on health status is a huge boon for our work.”

The Plunkett case is one of hundreds across the country where HIV-positive individuals face criminal charges and long sentences on the basis of their HIV status for no-risk conduct and consensual adult sex. Members of the Positive Justice Project, a national group challenging the medical, legal and ethical support for such laws, object to the gross scientific mischaracterizations reflected in HIV-specific criminal laws and prosecutions as “flying in the face of national efforts to get people with HIV tested and into treatment.”

“The decision has important implications for cases where people with HIV essentially are being charged and imprisoned on the basis of their health status rather than any intent to do harm,” said Catherine Hanssens, Executive Director of the Center for HIV Law and Policy (CHLP). “The Court of Appeals has gone beyond the issue of transmission risk to say that relying on disability or health status at all is an unfounded and unjust application of aggravated assault statutes.”

Dr. Jeff Birnbaum, Executive Director of the Health and Education Alternatives for Teens (HEAT) Program and the Family, Adolescent and Children’s Experience at SUNY (FACES) Network added, “I have to battle the type of stigma reflected in the prosecutor’s point of view all the time.  I treat young people who are being told on one hand that HIV is something they can manage, that it doesn’t make them a pariah, and on the other that their spit and blood are lethal weapons and that they are dangerous to be around. The prosecutors bringing these cases make my job so much harder. Today’s decision is really good news.”

Dozens of U.S states and territories have laws that criminalize HIV non-disclosure and “exposure,” such as through spitting or biting. Sentences imposed on people convicted of HIV-specific offenses have ranged as high as 50 years, with many getting decades-long sentences despite lack of evidence that HIV exposure, let alone transmission, even occurred. A growing number of defendants are also being required to register as sex offenders.

In New York, prosecutors have used the general criminal law to pursue people with HIV charged with HIV transmission or exposure, resulting in long prison terms despite a lack of proof that the individual charged even was the source of a partner’s infection, and even when no transmission occurs.

David Plunkett was represented by Audrey Baron Dunning. Lambda Legal submitted an amicus brief joined by the the American Academy of HIV Medicine, the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, the Center for HIV Law and Policy, and the HIV Medical Association

###

The Positive Justice Project (PJP) is the first coordinated national effort to address HIV criminalization in the United States, and is coordinated by the Center for HIV Law and Policy. For more information on PJP and HIV criminalization, go to http://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/public/initiatives/positivejusticeproject.

U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (Sero, US, 2012)

U.S. Representative Barbara Lee has long been a champion in the US Congress for people with HIV.  Here she discusses H.R. 3053, the Repeal HIV Discrimination Act, which would require states to review their HIV criminalisation statutes with incentives to modernise them to reflect contemporary science.

This short film is part of Sero’s ongoing documentation of the experiences of people with HIV who have been prosecuted for “HIV crimes”.  Visit Sero’s video pages for a growing collection of video interviews.

Scotland: New guidance on prosecutions clarifies law, recognises treatment’s impact on infectiousness

On May 1st, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) published their Guidance for Scotland on ‘Intentional or Reckless Sexual Transmission, or Exposure to, Infection’.

According to COPFS, the policy aims to “provide guidance to prosecutors but also provide clarity and consistency about this area of the law.”

As well as being helpful in Scotland, the guidance should also be a useful educational and advocacy tool for those many other jurisdictions around the world that prosecute alleged HIV exposure as well as transmission.

Scotland is only the second jurisdiction in the world that uses general criminal law for (mostly) HIV-related prosecutions to produce such guidance. They were a direct result of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for England and Wales’ policy and guidance, first published in March 2008 and updated in July 2011.  In fact, the COPFS guidance specifically states that

where possible, COPFS has sought to reconcile our policy and practice with the policy in England and Wales.

The CPS policy and guidance came about through a process initiated by key individuals from civil society although they are ‘owned’ and produced by the CPS. Like the CPS guidance, the COPFS guidance was advocated for by some of the same key individuals who were also consulted during the process. Unlike the CPS guidance, however, there was no public consultation.

THT, which advocated for, and were consulted on the guidance, along with NAT and HIV Scotland, welcomed the guidance with cautious pragmatism.

Catherine Murphy, Head of Public Affairs for the Terrence Higgins Trust, said: “Crown Office has a duty to prosecute criminal behaviour, but it also has a responsibility to ensure that the law is fair and fit for purpose. We hope this policy will provide greater clarity on a complex and highly sensitive issue. For good public health reasons people with HIV must be able to seek advice on sexual health issues without fear of being reported to the police. Nor should they be subjected to unjustified investigations because the law is vulnerable to misinterpretation by police and the courts.

Being consulted on, but not ‘owning’ the guidance, gave NAT, especially, the freedom to be quoted in the official COPFS press release as being supportive of the guidance but to highlight their concerns in their own press release, which also led to a news story in The Herald with the headline “Fears raised over ‘punitive approach’ to HIV exposure”. In their own press release, NAT’s Executive Director, Deborah Jack states

The Guidance allays many of our most significant worries – but we do still hope that a way can be found to end prosecutions for exposure to risk of HIV infection. Such prosecutions unjustly target people with an HIV diagnosis with all the responsibility for safer sex, despite the fact most transmissions are from the undiagnosed. They also encourage fear and secrecy rather than honesty and openness as we talk about sex – and so harm public health.’

Like the CPS guidance, the COPFS guidance is not HIV-specific despite the fact that all four prosecutions of sexual transmitted infections in Scotland so far have been for HIV (although Giovanni Mola was convicted of both HIV and Hepatitis C transmission). This was welcomed by the US Center for HIV and Policy in their note on the guidance, which states

In a particularly positive development, the guidelines do not single out HIV for special treatment, unlike the dozens of HIV-specific statutes that exist and are enforced in the United States.

Although the guidance has been broadly welcomed by civil society organisations working on HIV in Scotland (and elsewhere) they are a pragmatic response to an unwelcome situation. Guidance cannot change laws, but it can clarify uncertain aspects mitigating the harm of the overly-broad application of the criminal law.  (However one area not covered in this guidance are prosecutions and enhanced sentencing for spitting, biting and/or scatching whilst HIV-positive.  Scotland has had several of these recently, including this case reported today).

There is no legislation that specifically criminalises sexual HIV (or other STI) transmission in Scotland. Although it is possible to prosecute alleged intentional transmission as assault, all cases so far have been for ‘reckless’ exposure or transmission under the Scottish common law offence of ‘culpable and reckless conduct’.

Until the guidance was released yesterday it was unclear whether disclosure in the absence of condoms could be seen as a legitimate defence to accusations of ‘culpable and reckless conduct’ (for alleged sexual exposure or transmission) because Scots law does not recognise consent as a defence to an assault charge.  The guidance has now clarified that prosecutions “will be unlikely” if disclosure of known HIV-positive status has taken place.

Importantly, the guidance has also clarified that alleged sexual HIV exposure charges will not be filed if the accused is on treatment with an undetectable viral load and was counselled that this meant there was a low risk of transmission. Specifically, the guidance states that

Prosecution will be unlikely where the following circumstances apply:

  • The accused did not know that he/she was HIV positive
  • The accused did not understand how HIV is transmitted
  • The accused disclosed his or her HIV positive status to the victim
  • The accused took reasonable steps to reduce the risk of transmission, for example, by using recommended precautions or avoiding higher risk acts
  • The accused was receiving treatment and had been given medical advice that there was a low risk of transmission or that there was only a negligible risk of transmission in some situations or for certain sexual acts

Prosecution will be likely where the following circumstances apply:

  • The accused deliberately misled or concealed information from the victim
  • The accused did not attempt to reduce the risk of transmission, for example by failing to take prescribed medication or by failing to follow particular medical advice
  • The victim was particularly vulnerable in some way
  • There is evidence that the accused had intentionally embarked on a course of flagrant conduct

Download ‘Sexual Transmission or Exposure to Infection – Prosecution Policy’ from the COPFS website.

Norway: First gay man to be prosecuted goes public, makes a real difference (corrected)

Correction: Louis Gay tells me that he is not the first gay man to be prosecuted in Norway.

I am the first one to be prosecuted for practicing “safer sex” (oral sex, only. with no condom and no contact with sperm or precum), without transmitting any virus!

Original post: Yesterday, Bent Høie (Conservative), the leader of the Standing Committee on Health and Care Services, raised the issue of HIV in the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget). He was concerned about the rise in new diagnoses in the country, and discussed increases in unprotected sex amongst gay men and other men who have sex with men, as well as lack of knowledge of HIV and HIV-related stigma within broader Norwegian society.

Notably, he linked these concerns with Section 155 of the Norwegian Penal Code. This infectious disease law enacted in 1902 is known as the ‘HIV paragraph’ since it has only ever been used to prosecute sexual HIV exposure or transmission. By placing the burden on HIV-positive individuals to both disclose HIV status and insist on condom use, the law essentially criminalises all unprotected sex by HIV-positive individuals even if their partner has been informed of their status, and consents. There is no distinction between penalties for HIV exposure or transmission. Both “willful” and “negligent” exposure and transmission are liable to prosecution, with a maximum prison sentence of six years for “willful” exposure or transmission and three years for “negligent” exposure or transmission.

The law is currently in the process of being revised by the so-called Syse-committee (named after its chair, Professor Syse but officially titled The Norwegian Law Commission on penal code and communicable diseases hazardous to public health), but at the moment, the current law stands.  At least seventeen individuals have been prosecuted since 1999 – and until this year all prosecutions were as a result of heterosexual sex despite the fact that most HIV transmission in Norway is the result of sex between men.

Earlier this year, Norwegian prosecutors decided to prosecute the first gay man under this draconian law. Although transmission had been alleged, phylogenetic analysis ruled out Louis Gay’s virus as the source of the complainant’s infection. Still, he is being prosecuted for placing another person at risk despite the only possible risk being unprotected oral sex, and despite Louis disclosing his HIV-positive status prior to any sex (which the complainant denies).

Louis decided to go public in November 2011 during the initial police investigation. Since then he has given interviews to some of the largest circulation newspapers and magazine in Norway, as well as to national TV and radio. I had the pleasure of meeting Louis in Oslo in February when he addressed the civil society caucus that produced the Oslo Declaration.

As well as his own blog, Louis now also blogs about his experience for POZ.com.  In his second post he notes that

I chose to go public before any final decision was made from the State attorney office, with the chance of provoking them to prosecute me because they don’t want to risk being criticized by media of giving in to pressure. This is fine with me.  Like I’ve stated before I want to have my case tried before a court. Anyway! Now we all have to wait until the trial before we get any further answers about my case. In the meantime the discussion whether we should have a law like this (and using it like in my case) is protecting the society from more infections or just making it worse, continues.

So, yesterday, Louis’s brave stand paid off.  Conservitive MP Bent Høie, the leader of the Standing Committee on Health and Care Services, mentioned Louis’ case in Stortinget.

Then it is a paradox that the social-liberal Norway still has an HIV-paragraph that is criminalizing HIV-positive people’s sexuality. This has now been brought to a head by the public prosecutor who has brought charges against HIV-positive Louis Gay, who has not infected any other person and who conducted what we call “safer sex”, which in reality is the health authorities’ recommendations. I am aware that Syse-committee is now working on this issue, but it is still necessary to highlight this in this debate, because current criminal law works against prevention strategy and stigmatize HIV-positive people. I hope that today’s debate could be the start of that we again have a strong political commitment to reducing new infections of HIV and to improve the lives of those who are HIV-positive – which in reality are two sides of the same coin.”

(Unofficial translation by Louis Gay)

I’m so impressed with Louis’s courage and determination, and I think that he actually might just be making a difference by going public.  If you support Louis, let him know by leaving a comment here, or on his own blog, or at POZ.com.