Avoid using criminal law for HIV/AIDS - UNAIDS

Introducing HIV/AIDS-specific criminal legislation and prosecuting people living with HIV/AIDS for risky behaviour could undermine public health initiatives to reduce HIV infection, according to a new UNAIDS report.

Such laws would reinforce HIV/AIDS-related stigma, and could lead to the belief that people living with HIV/AIDS were "potential criminals" and were a threat to the "general public", the report said.

Inappropriate, overly-broad-use of the criminal law also risks spreading misinformation about how HIV/AIDS is transmitted, and makes HIV prevention and education efforts more difficult.

The report said: "For example, in numerous jurisdictions, serious criminal charges have been laid against HIV positive people for biting, spitting or scratching, despite the evidence that the risk of HIV transmission in this fashion is extraordinarily small at most."

People would not seek HIV/AIDS testing, counselling, treatment and support if this meant facing such negative consequences, the report noted.

"For the last three or four years, we have seen an escalation of political leaders moving for HIV legislation or in the event of such legislation existing, calling for more prosecutions. This is an [overreaction] which is never based on objective rationale," Miriam Maluwa, UNAIDS Law and Human Rights Advisor, told PlusNews.

The Criminal Law, Public Health and HIV Transmission report calls for considered, reasoned approaches by law-makers in using criminal law to prevent HIV transmission. It also stresses that any legal response to HIV/AIDS must be consistent with international human rights principles.

"The policy paper was a call for legislators to think a little bit more on a case by case basis and only use criminal law as a last resort because it is not the best option to prevent HIV/AIDS infections," Maluwa said.

Criminalising the conduct of people living with HIV/AIDS could undermine people's confidence in counsellors and the health system if the information discussed with counsellors was used as evidence in court.

According to the report, criminalisation could be counter-productive and create a false sense of security among people not infected. People who were not infected might mistakenly think that this reduced the risk, and that they were protected, if not by behaviour, then by a legal framework.

The report suggests that using public health laws as an alternative to criminal law can often better achieve public health goals.

Maluwa said: "Public health laws are more flexible, allowing health officials to intervene privately on a case-by-case basis. They can also provide public health information and support.

"This report should help political leaders stop, think and adopt an appropriate use of law when it comes to HIV/AIDS."

To access the report:
http://www.unaids.org/publications/documents/human/JC733-CriminalLaw-E.pdf