Research agenda into the public health impact of overly broad HIV criminalisation highlights five areas where researchers and advocates can collaborate

A newly published report suggests a number of concrete ways that research into the impact of overly broad HIV criminalisation on public health can move the policy agenda forward, and help reform laws and create better policies for people living with HIV and most affected communities.

The report is the result of an international workshop on HIV Prevention and the Criminal Law held in Toronto, Canada on April 27th and 28th 2013 that also led to the creation of the HIV Justice Network’s video documentary, More Harm Than Good.

The workshop’s aim was to support, encourage and further develop emerging research on the public health implications of criminalising HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission. It was the first international meeting focused exclusively on sharing, critiquing and strengthening new empirical research on this topic.

The report explores three key themes that arose over the course of workshop discussions – (1) the relationship between research and advocacy; 2) the implications of HIV-related criminalisation for public health practice; and (3) the potential and limits of public health research for criminal law reform – and offers suggestions for new directions for future research on the public health implications of criminalizing HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission.

Workshop discussions emphasised that research on the public health implications of HIV-related criminalisation is able to do the following:

Identify the impacts of HIV-related criminalisation on HIV prevention, care, treatment and support. Research into such impacts is especially important in light of new approaches that respond to the HIV epidemic by increasing the uptake of HIV testing and counselling, linking HIV-positive people to health and social services, initiating HIV antiretroviral therapy as early as possible, and retaining people living with HIV/AIDS in medical care.
Elucidate the influence of criminalising HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission on the attitudes, opinions, beliefs and activities of people living with HIV/AIDS, people and communities at risk, service providers in public health and clinical settings and staff in ASOs and community-based organisations.
Inform efforts to respond to the potential discriminatory enforcement of criminal laws by identifying the demographic patterns associated with HIV-related criminal prosecutions.
Provide public health authorities with evidence required to become more engaged in the issue, to develop policy and programmes, and to comment publicly on an increasingly important facet of the HIV epidemic.
Identify legal, ethical and practice issues faced by public health and clinical staff as a result of HIV criminalisation, and provide evidence to support legally and ethically sound policy and practice.
Assess the efficacy and costs and benefits of different policy options to address HIV transmission.
Inform decisions by legislators, criminal prosecutors and courts in a number of jurisdictions.

The meeting identified five main suggestions for moving the research field forward.

1. Explore novel analytical and methodological approaches

Given the complexity of HIV criminalisation, applied and theoretical research agendas should be structured broadly, inquire into a wide range of possible “implications” and account for the intersectionality of factors such as race, class, migration, colonisation and gender. New research would benefit from a deeper engagement with socio-legal studies and criminology.

Further suggestions:

Ground research questions in a health and human rights or an intersectional/anti-oppression framework as alternatives to a public health implications framework.
Critically engage with mainstream feminist analysis that supports HIV criminalisation.
Use qualitative approaches, including narrative analysis, ethnographic methods and participatory action research to:
Capture issues of importance to, and respond to the needs of, communities of people living with and at risk of HIV;
Document and explore experiences of people who have been criminally charged and/or prosecuted as well as those who have brought forward police complaints;
Explore HIV criminalisation as a complex, constructed and varied social phenomenon.

2. Conduct intervention research

Research on the public health implications of criminalising HIV non-disclosure would be enhanced by studies exploring the processes and outcomes of interventions that offer alternatives to criminalisation and/or that seek to prevent HIV transmission.

Further suggestions:

Conduct research on and explore the implications of using restorative justice approaches for criminal offences related to HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission.
Evaluate the impact of new or existing case management strategies that focus on sexual activities that risk incarceration and HIV transmission:
Explore collaborations with HIV/AIDS Service Organisations (ASOs) and other community-based organisations as sites for intervention research. ASOs offer a less coercive and more supportive environment to address challenges of concern to the public health and the criminal justice systems;
Conduct ethnographic research on the “Calgary Model.” (See ‘A framework to consider for the non-disclosure of HIV/AIDS – the Calgary Health Region model’ halfway down this page) The Calgary Model is a policy-informed public health case management model that has been endorsed by policy makers in Canada, yet has not been empirically studied.

3. Conduct research on factors that underpin and drive HIV criminal prosecutions

Research on the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission has yet to rigorously explore the various factors that encourage criminal prosecutions. There has been very little research involving people who initiate criminal complaints, their motivations

for doing so, their relationships with people living with HIV/AIDS and their experience of the criminal justice system. Relatedly, we know very little about police and prosecutors, their understandings of laws related to HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission, their knowledge of HIV and HIV transmission, and their attitudes towards people living with HIV/AIDS. There is a strong need for research that explores the underlying social, structural, behavioural and cultural factors that drive HIV-related criminalisation.

Further suggestions:

Prioritize police, prosecutors and complainants in new research.
Conduct research on the moral and other discourses that underpin criminalization and that inform the perspectives of the general population, those living with and at risk of HIV, legislators and policy makers and those who work in the criminal justice and public health systems.

Potential research foci include:

norms of sexual practice in communities as contrasted with principles of “good behaviour” applied by courts;
lessons from harm reduction and drug policy reformists who have had some success in working with police in opposing drug prohibition and the “war on drugs”;
critical analysis of how the “good versus bad” person living with HIV/AIDS is discursively constructed in media and elsewhere;
how issues of “personal responsibility” and “wrong” conduct get constructed, expressed and enacted, and to what end;
redesigning existing quantitative surveys to more robustly inquire into the attitudes, opinions and beliefs of respondents;
a moral mapping and deconstruction of pro-criminalisation arguments.

4. Continue to research the implications of criminalization for those who work in HIV prevention and in clinical and support services for people living with HIV/AIDS

Additional research on how criminalisation affects the work of various practitioners engaged in HIV prevention and the treatment, care and support of people living with HIV/AIDS can further our understanding of the broad implications of criminalizing processes. Comparative studies across national jurisdictions would yield important results.

Further suggestions:

Build on existing studies by incorporating mixed methodologies into research designs:
Investigate innovative and more rigorous approaches to sampling than has been the case in existing studies.
Explore how changes in front-line practice related to criminalisation may be connected with broader policy and program changes.
Investigate the discursive and other bases of public health response (e.g. explore the origins and impact of “unwilling and unable” terminology in Canadian public health policy).

5. Conduct media research

The mass media are an important source of public information about the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission. While we have many accounts of how the media coverage of HIV criminal cases contributes to HIV-related stigma, we have little published research that draws on rigorous sampling methods to explore this question.

Further suggestions:

Conduct research to understand the impact of media coverage on communities and people living with and affected by HIV, the general public and legal and policy decision makers.
Inquire into the association between media coverage and stigma especially in relation to African, Caribbean and Black communities.
Systematically analyze the narrative and rhetorical conventions used by mainstream media when reporting on and editorialising about HIV criminal cases.
Investigate the use of media by police as an investigative tool.

This article is only a summary of the highlights of the report, and the entire meeting report is well worth reading.

Public Health Implications of Criminalizing HIV Non-Disclosure, Exposure and Transmission (January 2014)

The Criminalization of HIV Transmission and Exposure Working Group from Yale University’s Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS (CIRA) have also published a research agenda focused primarily on the the research needs of advocates in the United States. This was based on a meeting held in November 2011 and authored by some of the same participants that attended the Toronto workshop, including Carol L. Galletly, Zita Lazzarini and Eric Mykhalovskiy.

This meeting concluded that the research agenda should include studies of:

(1) the impact of US HIV exposure laws on public health systems and practices;(2) enforcement of these laws, including arrests, prosecutions, convictions, and sentencing; (3) alternatives to HIV exposure laws; and (4) direct and opportunity costs of enforcement.

You can read the full research agenda, originally published in the American Journal of Public Health in August 2013, below.

Criminalization of HIV Transmission and Exposure – Research and Policy Agenda (August 2013)

Canada: Study finds prisoners with unsuppressed viral loads nearly twice as likely to share used needles if they had been incarcerated

People living with HIV are more likely to share syringes and not disclose they are HIV positive when they are in jail, according to a new study by researchers at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. The study, conducted between May 1996 and March 2012, involved interviews with 657 people who used injection drugs and were HIV-positive.

It found the participants spent approximately 15 per cent of that time in jail, and while in jail they had a detectable amount of HIV in their bloodstream 83 per cent of the time, which meant they could transmit the infection to others because they were not taking their medication as prescribed. That rate dropped to 62 per cent when they were not in jail and back on their medication.

The study also found prisoners with unsuppressed viral loads were nearly twice as likely to share used needles if they had been incarcerated. “There is absolutely no reason why incarcerated individuals should not receive the same level of medical care as those in the public,” said Terry Howard, director of community based research at Positive Living B.C. and former prison outreach program co-ordinator.

He estimates about 20 per cent of prisoners are HIV positive, but the majority don’t disclose while in prison because of the stigma and direct repercussions to them. As an example, Howard said, if prisoners are using drugs and sharing a needle with other inmates, they don’t want to have to wait to be the last person to use the needle, which would be the case if the others knew they were HIV positive. “I’ve also heard horror stories about them being beaten up (for being HIV positive) and stigmatized by guards who will make a big show of snapping on gloves when transporting prisoners who are HIV positive,” Howard said.

He said guards have argued against a needed distribution program, saying the syringes could be used as weapons against them, but Howard said there’s never been an incident of corrections staff being stabbed by a contaminated needle in those countries that do have a safe needle distribution program. “It’s a red herring they fly but the government buys it, and our government doesn’t want to tolerate drug use in prison,” Howard said.

Experts agree: overly broad HIV criminalisation is doing more harm than good

The HIV Justice Network has today released a new documentary, More HARM Than GOOD: How overly broad HIV criminalisation is hurting public health which had its world premiere at the US Conference on AIDS in New Orleans on September 10th. We hope it will be useful for both education and advocacy. To watch the video and to see all the studies cited in the documentary, visit www.hivjustice.net/moreharm. Download the video from our Vimeo channel: www.vimeo.com/hivjustice/moreharm

In many countries around the world, people with HIV are being made criminally liable for HIV prevention.

Despite strong recommendations against this overly broad use of the criminal law by UNAIDS and the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, the latest report from the Global Network of People Living with HIV and the HIV Justice Network highlights that new laws continue to be proposed and enacted, and more prosecutions are taking place than ever before.

The most commonly cited rationale of the criminal law is to deter morally unacceptable behaviour through fear of punishment. Scott Burris and Zita Lazzarini were the first to explore whether US laws that criminalised HIV non-disclosure had the impact that the lawmakers intended.

Zita Lazzarini: We found that whether you lived in a state with a law or without a law had absolutely no effect.

Scott Burris: Criminal law is generally a very blunt tool, anyway. And if you think about it, punishment and fear rarely brings out the best in people, when they’re making individual behaviour decisions. And certainly, when it comes to sex, criminal law has a very limited record of getting people to change their behaviour.

Carol Galletly has added much to the body of evidence on the impact of laws that criminalise HIV non-disclosure. Working with a number of colleagues, she published a number of studies, including this one in 2006 and this one in 2012 examining whether or not these laws are having the impact they were intended to have.

Carol Galletly: We thought of every single way these laws could possibly be effective. Do HIV-positive individuals reduce number of sex partners? Do they choose only positive sex partners more than people who don’t know about the law? Are they abstinent more? Do they practice safer sex more? Do they engage in oral sex or less risky activities? So we looked at all these things and the data just stacked up – there were no significant differences. The strongest predictor of disclosure was actually comfort with disclosure. So what I concluded was, if you really want people to disclose, then what you should probably do is increase their comfort, do interventions, do whatever. And don’t do laws that could jeopardize people disclosing.

Most laws and prosecutions focus on disclosure – in other words, whether or not the person with diagnosed HIV told their sexual partner before having sex. Whilst this may be the right thing to do, does this actually benefit HIV prevention? Eric Mykhalovskiy organised an international meeting on HIV prevention and criminal law in Toronto in April 2013 precisely because his own research found that criminalising HIV non-disclosure was having the opposite effect of what was intended.

Eric Mykhalovskiy: We see how significant now disclosure, or questions around disclosure, are within HIV prevention counselling, to the point that there is too much of a focus. You know, Barry Adam and others have emphasised repeatedly that disclosure is not an effective HIV prevention mechanism. And yet what seems to have happened is that the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure has placed disclosure at the centre of people’s concerns around HIV prevention. And that is, I think, a serious challenge for people who are enlisted with the responsibility of trying to ensure that HIV transmission is lessened.

Barry Adam is Senior Scientist and Director of Prevention Research at the Ontario HIV Treatment Network and lead author of How criminalization is affecting people living with HIV in Ontario.

Barry Adam: Disclosure has become a bit of a red herring I think, in terms of HIV prevention because HIV prevention can and has for a long time happened without disclosure, anyways. To require disclosure doesn’t necessarily help. Sometimes, it could even hinder the process by creating a false sense of security among those who think that, if disclosure doesn’t happen, that their partner is negative. The social science evidence shows that, when people often get into the disclosure area, it’s in order to give themselves permission to have unprotected sex! People actually do have to know what their HIV status is in order to disclose it. And, there is a good deal of science these days that suggests that, it’s people who don’t know, who are newly infected, who are actually doing a lot of the infection.

Studies by Eric Mykhalovskiy, Chris Sanders and Martin French (the latter two are currently undertaking research studies and have not yet published their findings) have uncovered an unanticipated negative impact of HIV criminalisation on the healthcare workers who test and treat people with HIV, complicating their practice as public health professionals. They found that the criminal law is creating a chill, closing down discussions about HIV on both sides. (An in-depth report on the impact of HIV criminalisation on nursing practice can be found here.)

Chris Sanders: Criminalisation has complicated post-test counseling. Nurses are finding that clients shut down, they become very unwilling to speak openly about their sexual behaviour and they don’t want to share contact information because they’re worried that it might come back if they’re later charged with non-disclosure. And so, it makes nurses’ work more difficult. And that can impact HIV prevention as public health relies on contact tracing to be able to do quite a bit of their prevention work.

Martin French: I’m looking at this in Canada and the United States, and in spite of the fact that there are different approaches to public health I’m seeing some similar effects in terms of the anxiety that a number of providers are feeling about the issue of criminalisation as they counsel patients with respect to disclosure.

Trevor Hoppe found another, more sinister impact on healthcare workers. During his PhD research he discovered that some heath officials in Michigan’s public health system appeared to be invested in prosecuting people with HIV for not disclosing their status, resulting in some potentially problematic outcomes for HIV prevention.

Trevor Hoppe: This is the first piece of evidence that some health departments may be playing a role in facilitating criminal prosecutions. I can understand why people living in some of these communities would think twice before talking to health officials about their lives openly and honestly, given what health officials reported to me.

One of the most worrying aspects of HIV criminalisation is the additional disincentive it plays in a person’s willingness to take an HIV test: a significant number of new infections come from people who are undiagnosed. But testing is not just about knowing one’s HIV status to modify behaviour, it’s also the gateway to accessing HIV treatment and care.

New guidelines from the World Health Organization now highlight that HIV treatment works not only to keep people alive and well for a lifetime, but also prevents new infections by reducing HIV to undetectable levels. Where there is no virus, there can be no transmission. Since treatment is also prevention, then not testing or accessing treatment, hurts not only the individual but also the communities in which they live, harming the broader public health.

Laurel Sprague is the Research Director of the Sero Project, and oversaw their 2012 national HIV criminalisation survey.

Laurel Sprague: We asked people whether they thought it was not reasonable, somewhat reasonable or very reasonable to avoid getting an HIV test, or to avoid accessing treatment if someone tested positive because of HIV criminalisation. Those numbers should be zero. We shouldn’t have legal reasons for people not to get tested. We shouldn’t have a legal reason for people not to access care. And half of our respondents said that it was reasonable to avoid HIV testing because of HIV criminalisation and 42% of our respondents said it was reasonable, somewhat, or very reasonable to avoid getting HIV care once you’ve tested positive.

Patrick O’ Byrne is lead author of the 2013 review article, HIV criminal prosecutions and public health: an examination of the empirical research. He has also studied the impact of HIV prosecutions on gay men and documented how fear of HIV criminalisation has impacted their sexual and testing practices.

$Patrick O\'Byrne$

Patrick O’Byrne: Nobody – guys who were negative, guys who were positive – could make a distinction between the public health department and the police. It was a single institution. And this is problematic, right? How can you provide health care services when people think that you are a police agency? How do you provide care when people won’t access it? The laws have effectively rendered your HIV prevention health professionals useless.

Richard Elliott is the Executive Director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, and was an intervenor when the Supreme Court of Canada heard HIV criminalisation cases in 1998 and 2012.

Richard Elliott: How can it not have an impact on people and their decision as to whether or not to find out their HIV status, if you risk becoming a criminal. It may not at the end of the day dissuade a large number of people, but I think, it does dissuade a significant number of people and it probably, based on the evidence we have, dissuades some of those who are most likely to actually benefit from learning their HIV status, and all of the potential benefits to them, and others that may flow from that. So, why would we want to create an additional barrier, and why would we want to create a barrier to people actually seeking help from the helping professions? Because if we conscript those helping professions, to basically, become agents of law enforcement, that undermines their ability to help people, and that actually undermines the health of all of us.

Criminalisation is a divisive issue with strong opinions often informed by morality and a desire to achieve justice by punishing perceived wrongdoing. However, understanding the impact of HIV criminalisation on public health is critical to making informed policy decisions.

The 2013 UNAIDS guidance note, Ending overly-broad criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission: Critical scientific, medical and legal considerations aims to ensure that any application of criminal law in the context of HIV achieves justice and does not jeopardise public health objectives.

The guidance can be downloaded here.

Feature: Why overly broad HIV criminalisation is doing more harm than good

More HARM Than GOOD

Image 1 of 10

In many countries around the world, people with HIV are being made criminally liable for HIV prevention.

Zita Lazzarini: We found that whether you lived in a state with a law or without a law had absolutely no effect.

Scott Burris: Criminal law is generally a very blunt tool, anyway. And if you think about it, punishment and fear rarely brings out the best in people, when they’re making individual behaviour decisions. And certainly, when it comes to sex, criminal law has a very limited record of getting people to change their behaviour.

Carol Galletly: We thought of every single way these laws could possibly be effective. Do HIV-positive individuals reduce number of sex partners? Do they choose only positive sex partners more than people who don’t know about the law? Are they abstinent more? Do they practice safer sex more? Do they engage in oral sex or less risky activities? So we looked at all these things and the data just stacked up – there were no significant differences. The strongest predictor of disclosure was actually comfort with disclosure. So what I concluded was, if you really want people to disclose, then what you should probably do is increase their comfort, do interventions, do whatever. And don’t do laws that could jeopardize people disclosing.

Most laws and prosecutions focus on disclosure – in other words, whether or not the person with diagnosed HIV told their sexual partner before having sex. Whilst this may be the right thing to do, does this actually benefit HIV prevention? Eric Mykhalovskiy organised the workshop precisely because his own research found that criminalising non-disclosure was having the opposite effect of what was intended.

Eric Mykhalovskiy: We see how significant now disclosure, or questions around disclosure, are within HIV prevention counselling, to the point that there is too much of a focus. You know, Barry Adam and others have emphasised repeatedly that disclosure is not an effective HIV prevention mechanism. And yet what seems to have happened is that the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure has placed disclosure at the centre of people’s concerns around HIV prevention. And that is, I think, a serious challenge for people who are enlisted with the responsibility of trying to ensure that HIV transmission is lessened.

Barry Adam is Senior Scientist and Director of Prevention Research at the Ontario HIV Treatment Network and lead author of How criminalization is affecting people living with HIV in Ontario.

Barry Adam: Disclosure has become a bit of a red herring I think, in terms of HIV prevention because HIV prevention can and has for a long time happened without disclosure, anyways. To require disclosure doesn’t necessarily help. Sometimes, it could even hinder the process by creating a false sense of security among those who think that, if disclosure doesn’t happen, that their partner is negative. The social science evidence shows that, when people often get into the disclosure area, it’s in order to give themselves permission to have unprotected sex! People actually do have to know what their HIV status is in order to disclose it. And, there is a good deal of science these days that suggests that, it’s people who don’t know, who are newly infected, who are actually doing a lot of the infection.

Chris Sanders: Criminalisation has complicated post-test counseling. Nurses are finding that clients shut down, they become very unwilling to speak openly about their sexual behaviour and they don’t want to share contact information because they’re worried that it might come back if they’re later charged with non-disclosure. And so, it makes nurses’ work more difficult. And that can impact HIV prevention as public health relies on contact tracing to be able to do quite a bit of their prevention work.

Martin French: I’m looking at this in Canada and the United States, and in spite of the fact that there are different approaches to public health I’m seeing some similar effects in terms of the anxiety that a number of providers are feeling about the issue of criminalisation as they counsel patients with respect to disclosure.

Trevor Hoppe: This is the first piece of evidence that some health departments may be playing a role in facilitating criminal prosecutions. I can understand why people living in some of these communities would think twice before talking to health officials about their lives openly and honestly, given what health officials reported to me.

Laurel Sprague is the Research Director of the Sero Project, and oversaw their 2012 national HIV criminalisation survey.

Laurel Sprague: We asked people whether they thought it was not reasonable, somewhat reasonable or very reasonable to avoid getting an HIV test, or to avoid accessing treatment if someone tested positive because of HIV criminalisation. Those numbers should be zero. We shouldn’t have legal reasons for people not to get tested. We shouldn’t have a legal reason for people not to access care. And half of our respondents said that it was reasonable to avoid HIV testing because of HIV criminalisation and 42% of our respondents said it was reasonable, somewhat, or very reasonable to avoid getting HIV care once you’ve tested positive.

$Patrick O\'Byrne$

Patrick O’Byrne: Nobody – guys who were negative, guys who were positive – could make a distinction between the public health department and the police. It was a single institution. And this is problematic, right? How can you provide health care services when people think that you are a police agency? How do you provide care when people won’t access it? The laws have effectively rendered your HIV prevention health professionals useless.

Richard Elliott is the Executive Director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, and was an intervenor when the Supreme Court of Canada heard HIV criminalisation cases in 1998 and 2012.

Richard Elliott: How can it not have an impact on people and their decision as to whether or not to find out their HIV status, if you risk becoming a criminal. It may not at the end of the day dissuade a large number of people, but I think, it does dissuade a significant number of people and it probably, based on the evidence we have, dissuades some of those who are most likely to actually benefit from learning their HIV status, and all of the potential benefits to them, and others that may flow from that. So, why would we want to create an additional barrier, and why would we want to create a barrier to people actually seeking help from the helping professions? Because if we conscript those helping professions, to basically, become agents of law enforcement, that undermines their ability to help people, and that actually undermines the health of all of us.

The guidance can be downloaded here.

The HIV Justice Network has produced an accompanying video, ‘More HARM Than GOOD’ that we hope will be useful for both education and advocacy. Watch and/or download the video on our Vimeo channel: www.vimeo.com/hivjustice/moreharm

US: Sero Project and Transgender Law Center highlight the threat to transgender health created by HIV criminalisation

People living with HIV (PLHIV) who identify as transgender or third sex are more likely than any other group to feel that it is reasonable to avoid HIV testing (58%), disclosure of one’s HIV positive status to sex partners (61%) or accessing HIV treatment (48%) because of fear of HIV criminalization and distrust of the U.S. criminal justice system. The new findings from the National HIV Criminalization Survey were presented at the National Transgender Health Summit on May 15, 2013.

“These findings don’t surprise us,” said Cecilia Chung, Senior Strategist at the Oakland, California-based Transgender Law Center. “The data speaks to the long-standing history of stigmatization and discrimination of trans people, especially trans people of color, by the criminal justice system, because of either their race or their gender identity.” Chung was the first trans woman elected to chair the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, and she is currently a board member of the Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+).

More than 3,000 people living with and affected by HIV participated in the National HIV Criminalization Survey from June to August 2012, conducted online by the Sero Project in conjunction with Eastern Michigan University. The principal investigator, Laurel Sprague, is the Sero Project’s Research Director, Regional Coordinator of GNP+ North America, and a PhD candidate at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan.

Sprague noted, “Laws that criminalize non-disclosure of HIV status raise key issues about community norms, expectations of fair treatment by authorities, privacy and the increased vulnerability of certain communities.”

While the results revealed that HIV criminalization can discourage HIV testing—nearly 25% of HIV-positive respondents said that they knew one or more people who did not get tested for fear of criminal prosecution—when researchers returned to the survey results to closely examine transgender and third sex responses, they found that these particular respondents faced increased levels of vulnerability in relation to the U.S. justice system.

The majority of transgender and third sex respondents living with HIV (57%) reported that they feared false accusations of non-disclosure either a few times or frequently—a figure higher than that of any other group surveyed. Only 14% of transgender and third sex respondents living with HIV felt that a U.S. person living with HIV could get a fair court hearing if accused of non-disclosure.

When transgender and third sex respondents were asked their opinions about HIV criminalization, two out of three respondents (67%) said that non-disclosure of HIV status should not be criminalized. When asked if a sex worker living with HIV should disclose to clients, most transgender and third sex respondents (41%) said it depends on the circumstances. In fact, transgender and third sex respondents were the most likely to focus on the context (“it depends on the circumstances”) when determining whether there should be criminal charges for non-disclosure related to sex, drug use or sex work.

The transgender community’s historically fraught relationship with public health authorities, law enforcement and the criminal justice system also likely affects transgender and third sex attitudes about HIV criminalization.

Sprague shared a range of quotes from the survey to illustrate various nuanced transgender and third sex experiences and opinions regarding HIV criminalization:

• One trans woman explained why she didn’t press charges for non-disclosure: “In order to file charges, I [would have] had to disclose my rape, my [HIV] status and I would have to give up my privacy and be subjected to public scrutiny.”

• A third sex respondent said, “I think in cases of rape, incest and other power- or force-related situations, prosecutions should go forward. Otherwise, NO!”

• Another trans woman said that she didn’t press charges for non-disclosure because of the “difficulty in proving in court that he had infected me—and also accepting that we took equal risk in being intimate without protection.”

For policy makers and public health workers, the transgender and third sex responses to Sero’s National HIV Criminalization Survey should raise concern, especially the survey results that show increased barriers to HIV testing and treatment, as well as deep feelings of legal vulnerability due to HIV criminalization.

The responses highlight a critical need for access to legal education and legal services, safe and confidential locations for accessing health care, and support for spaces where transgender people living with HIV can share their experiences, provide mutual support, and work together to identify resilience strategies and advocacy priorities.