New Jersey’s HIV Exposure Law and the HIV-Related Attitudes, Beliefs, and Sexual and Seropositive Status Disclosure Behaviors of Persons Living With HIV
The authors are with Center for AIDS Intervention Research, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. American Journal of Public Health
(Impact Factor: 4.55).
09/2012; 102(11):2135-40. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300664
We explored associations between awareness of New Jersey's HIV exposure law and the HIV-related attitudes, beliefs, and sexual and seropositive status disclosure behaviors of HIV-positive persons.
A statewide convenience sample (n = 479) completed anonymous written surveys during 2010. We recruited participants through networks of community-based organizations in the state's 9 health sectors. The survey assessed participants' awareness of New Jersey's HIV exposure law, their sexual and serostatus disclosure behavior in the past year, and their HIV-related attitudes and beliefs. We compared responses of participants who were and were not aware of the law through univariate analyses.
Fifty-one percent of participants knew about the HIV exposure law. This awareness was not associated with increased sexual abstinence, condom use with most recent partner, or seropositive status disclosure. Contrary to hypotheses, persons who were unaware of the law experienced greater stigma and were less comfortable with positive serostatus disclosure.
Criminializing nondisclosure of HIV serostatus does not reduce sexual risk behavior. Although the laws do not appear to increase stigma, they are also not likely to reduce HIV transmission.
Available from: PubMed Central
- "The primary legal justifications put forth for using criminal law to prosecute persons accused of potential HIV exposure are to deter certain behaviors and to impose retributive justice on those engaging in those behaviors [13, 7]. Some research has suggested that HIV-specific criminal laws may not alter behaviors among persons living with HIV [15, 20–22]. In one study comparing persons in a state with HIV-specific criminal laws to persons in a state without such laws, little difference in self-reported sexual behaviors was found, and persons who believed the law required safer sex practices or disclosure of HIV status to partners reported little difference in risk behaviors. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: For the past three decades, legislative approaches to prevent HIV transmission have been used at the national, state, and local levels. One punitive legislative approach has been enactment of laws that criminalize behaviors associated with HIV exposure (HIV-specific criminal laws). In the USA, HIV-specific criminal laws have largely been shaped by state laws. These laws impose criminal penalties on persons who know they have HIV and subsequently engage in certain behaviors, most commonly sexual activity without prior disclosure of HIV-positive serostatus. These laws have been subject to intense public debate. Using public health law research methods, data from the legal database WestlawNext© were analyzed to describe the prevalence and characteristics of laws that criminalize potential HIV exposure in the 50 states (plus the District of Columbia) and to examine the implications of these laws for public health practice. The first state laws were enacted in 1986; as of 2011 a total of 67 laws had been enacted in 33 states. By 1995, nearly two-thirds of all laws had been enacted; by 2000, 85 % of laws had been enacted; and since 2000, an additional 10 laws have been enacted. Twenty-four states require persons who are aware that they have HIV to disclose their status to sexual partners and 14 states require disclosure to needle-sharing partners. Twenty-five states criminalize one or more behaviors that pose a low or negligible risk for HIV transmission. Nearly two-thirds of states in the USA have legislation that criminalizes potential HIV exposure. Many of these laws criminalize behaviors that pose low or negligible risk for HIV transmission. The majority of laws were passed before studies showed that antiretroviral therapy (ART) reduces HIV transmission risk and most laws do not account for HIV prevention measures that reduce transmission risk, such as condom use, ART, or pre-exposure prophylaxis. States with HIV-specific criminal laws are encouraged to use the findings of this paper to re-examine those laws, assess the laws' alignment with current evidence regarding HIV transmission risk, and consider whether the laws are the best vehicle to achieve their intended purposes.
Available from: Vera Etches
- "In their survey of 248 persons who lived in Chicago and 242 persons who lived in New York City, these authors found that criminal laws which “regulat[e] sexual behaviour of HIV-infected” persons do not appear to affect most people’s sexual practices (p468). Similarly, Galletly and colleagues’ work , which involved statistical analyses of anonymous survey responses from a convenience sample of 479 persons who live in New Jersey, corroborated the idea that the criminal law has little impact on sexual behaviour. Whether or not Burris and colleagues’  and Galletly and colleagues’  findings apply to both HIV testing and the situation in Canada, however, remains unclear.e "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
During the past decade, the intersection of HIV and criminal law has become increasingly discussed. The majority of studies to date have approached this topic from a sociological or legal perspective. As a result, the potential effect of nondisclosure prosecutions on population health and HIV prevention work remains mostly unknown.
A descriptive quantitative-qualitative study was undertaken to examine HIV testing, HIV diagnoses, and the attitudes of men who have sex with men following regional media releases about a local nondisclosure prosecution. As part of this study, first, we reviewed the trends in HIV testing and HIV diagnoses from 2008 through 2011 in Ottawa, Canada. Second, we explored the attitudes and beliefs of local MSM about HIV, HIV prevention, HIV serostatus disclosure, nondisclosure prosecutions, and public health.
Quantitatively, the findings of this study revealed that, in comparison to the period preceding the media releases about a local nondisclosure prosecution, HIV testing and HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men did not significantly change after the media releases of interest. Qualitatively, a subgroup of 27 men who have sex with men (12 HIV-positive, 15 HIV-negative) noted their beliefs that the local public health department openly shares information about people living with HIV with the police. Moreover, some HIV-positive participants stated that this perceived association between the local public health department and police services caused them to not access public health department services, notwithstanding their desires to seek assistance in maintaining safer sexual practices.
Nondisclosure prosecutions likely undermine HIV prevention efforts.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This paper examines comprehensive data on arrests for HIV-specific crimes within a single jurisdiction, the Nashville Tennessee prosecutorial region, over 11 years. There were 25 arrests for HIV exposure and 27 for aggravated prostitution. Eleven of the arrests for HIV exposure involved nonsexual behaviors; none alleged transmission. Sixteen of the arrests for HIV exposure involved sexual behavior; three alleged transmission. Aggravated prostitution cases (i.e. prostitution while knowing one has HIV) often involved solicitation of oral sex; none alleged transmission. Maximum sentences for HIV-specific crimes ranged from 5 to 8 years. We conclude that enforcement of US HIV-specific laws is underestimated. Fifty-two arrests over 11 years were recorded in one jurisdiction. Over half of the arrests involved behaviors posing minimal or no HIV transmission risk. Despite concerns about malicious, intentional HIV transmission, no cases alleged malice or intention.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.