Canada is amongst the many countries that have HIVE specific criminal law that persecute people for transmitting the disease. In Canada, It is illegal to engage In sexual activities without disclosing corrosive status unless there is a use of condoms and a low viral load is present. Criminal law as prevention for the transmission of HIVE seems reasonable, but upon examining a bit further In the topic, it appears that It Is Ineffective and might actually do more harm than good to those whom they aim to protect.
Examples of those negatively affected by this law are prison systems worldwide, women who are vulnerable to domestic violence and ender inequality. It also leads to an increase of stigma in today’s society towards PHILIP. Therefore, this law undermines the previous prevention effort and should not be recommended as a prevention method. The main purpose of crystallizing HIVE transmission is to hamper the spread of HIVE. Increase disclosure of segregationist to sex partner and the reduction of risky sexual practice is what some seek as an outcome of the implementation of HIVE transmission in the criminal law.
It Is Intuitive to think that by making an activity illegal will make It less likely to happen, however a ewe studies suggest that Is not the case. A study on criminal laws influence on HIVE risk behavior between Chicago, Illinois, a state with HIVE specific law and New York, a state without, found that there are insignificant differences between people’s sex behavior between the two states. (Burros, 2007) This suggests that crystallizing HIVE transmission does not lower the chances of people engaging in risky sex behavior, which is a one of the cause of HIVE transmission.
Burros’ study also points out that in the US from 1986 to 2001, only 316 people with HIVE were prosecuted for the remission of the virus. This study shows that the amount of people charged with the crime is insignificant when the estimated new HIVE incident is 50,000 per year in the US. (CDC, 2012) The results of this study raise the question on the effectiveness of HIVE specific law. Another study In New Jersey discovers salary results. Out of the 479 participants, 51% was aware of the HIVE exposure law In the State.
However there Is no difference in sexual abstinence, condom use, or surrogates disclosure between the people who know about the HIVE specific law and the ones that do not. (Gallery, 2012) Both studies allow us to see that the use of HIVE specific law is not effective and it does not decrease the spread of this epidemic. Another reason why there are supports for the crystallization of HIVE transmission is the belief that it can protect women and girls from sexual violence and HIVE transmission. J?urges, 2009) J?urges points out three reasons, which are also mentioned in Professor Karen Heartland’s class, explaining why HIVE specific law will backfire to prosecute women. First, women are more likely to know if they are HIVE positive compared to men because women use the health system more often due to heck ups for pregnancy and childbirth. Also, a HIVE specific law demands women to disclose their status to their partner, which we have learned In class, could lead to violence and other undesirable treatment.
Violence upon disclosure of HIVE status is murdered his mistress, Icicle Lee Bolder, a week after she disclosed her HIVE positive status to him. His reason for the murder is that he suspected that he was infected by her and accused her of killing him. (Emily, 2013) We cannot pin disclosure as the cause of violence, but Just as shown in this example, it can escalate to a violent legislation and it does not effectively protect women from violence, nor being transmitted with HIVE. The second reason proposed by J?urges (2009) is that “women are more likely to be blamed for HIVE infection”.
J?urges mentioned HIVE specific law could be used as a tool to oppress women. It can be used against them to disinherit them and to separate them from their child with HIVE being the reason. An example of this was looked at in the D. C case in 2005 when D. C. Was charged and convicted of aggravated assault and sexual assault when her ex-partner filed a complaint against her for failing to close to him that she was HIVE positive before they had sex for the first time. However, the complainant actually remained for another four year in a relationship with D. C. After D. C. Disclosed her HIVE status. Due to domestic violence, D. C. Quested police support and it is only then that the complainant mentioned to the police of D. C. Non-disclosure and charges were brought up. The complainant was discharged but D. C. ‘s conviction landed her in a 12-month’s house arrest. Finally, the Court of Appeal acquitted her in 2010, given the fact requirement to inflict serious body image is not found, because there is a undetectable Viral load in D. C. ‘s blood. (Canadian HIVE/AIDS Legal Network, 2012) This is a case where a victim of domestic violence was labeled a sex offender through using the Non-disclosure law. Should there not be a criminal law on the HIVE transmission, D. C. Ho is a victim of domestic violence would not have to face charges. Finally, J?urges’ suggested that crystallizing the transmission of HIVE could lead to the prosecution of the mother through the possibility of a transmission during pregnancy and breastfeeding. To prevent remission from mother to child or vertical transmission, pregnant women with HIVE need access to antiviral drug for Prevention of mother-to-child transmission (MATT), such as testing and counseling. However, in 2008 only an estimated 45% of pregnant women with HIVE in low to middle income country and 58% in Eastern and Southern Africa nation have access to antiviral drug. World Health Organization, 2010) The problem emerges because those who do not have access to MATT could be prosecuted for transmitting HIVE to their child. When MATT is not available, one might see abortion as an option. However, cases arise from India, Nepal, South Africa and Latin America, where women with HIVE was denied of the service because they are HIVE positive, their pregnancy does not comply with the condition needed or simply that their request was delayed until it is too late for an abortion. De Bruin, 2012) Furthermore, not all pregnancy are planned or desired by the women as in the case of rape, health issue, economic reason etc. It is unjust to punish the mother when MATT and abortion is not accessible, and it is not reasonable to take away a women’s right to become pregnant and to argue that omen with HIVE should avoid being pregnant in the first place since it is human convicted for the transmission of HIVE to the prison system. According to WHO, there is a high prevalence of people with HIVE in the prison system worldwide because imprisoning more people with HIVE might increase the chance of an outbreak.
The prisoners are beyond the reach of the health system that is promoting HIVE prevention since it is assumed that such campaign is not necessary for such a monitored environment as prisoners should not have any access to injection drugs or have the hence to engage in sexual contact. Coin United Nations Programmer on HIVE/AID, 2007) However, the reality is that these activities still exist in prison and HIVE can be transmitted through a shared needle used for drug injection, through high-risk sexual contact like anal sex and furthermore through the use of unsupervised needle in tattooing.
HIVE status can be used as a tool of injustice in normalizing prisoner with HIVE as seen in 1989, a prisoner in Taxes with HIVE, Curtis Weeks, was convicted of attempted murder when he spits on a prison guard while being transferred to another unit. Weeks, 1995) It is known the chances of HIVE transmission through saliva is near zero. The conviction is based on Weeks’ HIVE status since the saliva is nonlinear. Therefore, prisoners are more vulnerable to HIVE transmission if HIVE specific law is enforced.
Enacting a HIVE specific law can undermine other efforts aimed at HIVE prevention. According to a fact sheet by Global Commission on HIVE and the law (2012), 60 Countries have HIVE specific law in place, and 600 people with HIVE across 24 countries are convicted already. This can lead to further standardization and normalization of PHILIP, because people can use the crystallization of HIVE transmission to Justify their reason for discriminating people with HIVE. Just as people treat criminals with prejudice, they might treat PHILIP differently from others.
Two examples of PHILIP who were treated in an injustice way are Dong and Nick Rhodes; Dong, from Iambi is a pregnant woman with HIVE who was sterilized without her knowledge during labor because she carries the virus. (Sheerer El-Fake, 2012). Nick Rhodes, a gay man with HIVE was sentenced to 25 years in prison for having sex with another an, but he was in fact taking antiviral medication and used a condom, which reduces the chance of transmission to near zero and transmission did not take place. Hernandez, 2013) These examples show that people with HIVE are treated harshly through standardization, which labels them as subhuman deprived of their right, and through the legal system, which also labels them as criminals subjected to punishment on par with armed robbery, rapist or child molesters. It is unjust to use the risk of persecution as a way to prevent HIVE transmission because PHILIP are victims homeless. If we prosecute PHILIP, then should those who infected them face persecution too?
HIVE is a health issue and progress is being made as global new HIVE infection and deaths are decreasing due largely to increase access to anti-retrovirus therapy. (Sheerer El-Fake, 2012) Crystallizing HIVE transmission will steer PHILIP away from seeking health service fearing that their status could be used against them in a persecution thus hinder the progress of HIVE treatment. Crystallizing HIVE his or her own surrogates, they would not be prosecuted. Testing for HIVE status is one f the ways to prevent the spread of HIVE, therefore a law that pushes people away from getting tested will undermine the prevention effort.
Sheerer El-Fake, the vice- chairwoman of the Nun’s Commission on HIVE and the Law said in her presentation on Talked (2012) that “The Trend is clear where you criminality people living with HIVE or those at greatest risk you fuel the epidemic. ” In conclusion, using criminal law as a strategy to prevent HIVE transmission is ineffective as shown in the two studies done in the US. Crystallizing HIVE transmission does not change people’s attitude or behavior that are linked to remission of the virus, therefore its implementation is not recommended.
In the current climate, the success of prevention effort such as the access to intergenerational therapy is apparent. To introduce a criminal law as a tool to prevent HIVE transmission will only undermine the progress made by risk reduction and prevention effort. Criminal law can also be used unjustly on the people they aimed to protect as in the D. C case, or on pregnant women from vertical transmission. People are also punished excessively for crime that did not cause any damage as in the case of Nick Rhodes or Weeks.