Abstract
The year 2011 marked a quarter of a century since the first criminal HIV exposure laws were enacted. These laws—which typically criminalize undisclosed exposure to HIV through any of a number of sexual activities—have generated considerable commentary in the public health community, most of which has been negative. Two of the more memorable comments on these laws include Australian Justice Michael Kirby’s characterization of a second epidemic that arose in tandem with the HIV pandemic—the proliferation of what he described as “HIL,” or “highly inefficient laws,” among which were laws criminalizing HIV exposure [1]. In the first comprehensive survey and empirical investigation of state HIV exposure laws and associated criminal cases, Lazzarini et al. [2] reviewed classic purposes of criminal laws (deterrence and incapacitation) and upon finding little evidence that the laws achieve either, concluded that the actual purpose of HIV-specific exposure laws was largely symbolic, “rooted in the profound social differences over the acceptability of homosexuality and drug use, and the clash of values that those entail”.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
