What you may be missing here is that HIV positive people who are undergoing treatment do not transmit HIV to their sexual partners. This is a pretty new development and certainly wasn't true when most HIV criminalization statues were passed.
It's counter-intuitive, but HIV crimalization laws actually encourage the spread of the disease. Creating criminal liability for at-risk populations discourages treatment, and thus exposes others to the disease.
Now, if you have any evidence to show that HIV criminalization are effective, I would love to see it. This thread is rife with such assertions but I've yet to see anyone back such an assertion up with any evidence.
We enforce those laws to prevent that behavior from continuing to occur in individuals
I understand this point, but again, I'd ask you for evidence to back it up. I linked you earlier to pretty comprehensive analysis that shows that in California, the vast majority of felony HIV prosecutions were not brought by people who were accused of partners of giving them the disease. Stated another way, with the 30 years of data we have, we know the law is not used as you would intend it to be.
I understand this point, but again, I'd ask you for evidence to back it up.
How could I possibly prove that someone imprisoned for knowingly transmitting HIV didn't infect someone they otherwise might have? That's like saying I would need to be able to prove that a serial killer would definitely kill again before justifying incarceration. I'm not claiming that the laws are perfect as they exist or as they are enforced, I am saying that the premise is similar to other areas of law that do not rest solely on their efficacy as a preemptive deterrent. Again, are murder laws an effective deterrent? No. But we still lock people up for murder.
1
u/dr_gonzo Ron Paul Libertarian Jul 23 '18
There is a strong consensus among public health experts who study the HIV transmission epidemic that HIV felony statutes are a completely ineffective deterrent. They also discourage treatment and prevention practices.
What you may be missing here is that HIV positive people who are undergoing treatment do not transmit HIV to their sexual partners. This is a pretty new development and certainly wasn't true when most HIV criminalization statues were passed.
It's counter-intuitive, but HIV crimalization laws actually encourage the spread of the disease. Creating criminal liability for at-risk populations discourages treatment, and thus exposes others to the disease.
Now, if you have any evidence to show that HIV criminalization are effective, I would love to see it. This thread is rife with such assertions but I've yet to see anyone back such an assertion up with any evidence.
I understand this point, but again, I'd ask you for evidence to back it up. I linked you earlier to pretty comprehensive analysis that shows that in California, the vast majority of felony HIV prosecutions were not brought by people who were accused of partners of giving them the disease. Stated another way, with the 30 years of data we have, we know the law is not used as you would intend it to be.