Types Of Exemptions Research Articles

Consequences of failure to pay a court fine

The article discusses issues that arose during enforcement of the new grounds for exemption from criminal responsibility, enshrined in 2016, in connection with a court fine (Article 76.2 of the Criminal Code). Despite the criticism of its legislative regulation, demand for a new way of ceasing criminal prosecution began to appear in connection with the non-payment of a fine. Having determined the voluntary execution of a court fine, the legislator did not settle the issue of the further execution of the fine in cases where there are valid reasons for non-payment. After analyzing the existing proposals to solve this problem, the author confirms that the elimination of the gap would be facilitated by the legislative obligation of the bailiff to establish the circumstances by which the judicial penalty is not paid, as well as the addition of the list of decisions made by the bailiff to suspend enforcement proceeding. Analysis of judicial practice showed that Art. 76.2 of the Criminal Code began to be applied in cases where the court has justification for implementing less onerous grounds for the defendant to be exempt from criminal liability. Legislative duplication of the conditions under which criminal prosecution can be terminated for various reasons calls into question the wide alternative of the latter, as well as the embodiment of the idea of humanizing criminal law, which is the basis for securing a new ground for exemption from criminal liability. The article substantiates the proposal to supplement the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court dated June 27, 2013 with a provision allowing the release of a person from criminal responsibility with a judicial fine in cases where the court has no basis for suspending criminal prosecution for unconditional types of exemption from criminal liability. The author draws attention to the gap in the legislation, part 3 of Article 78 of the Criminal Code, which is related to the renewal of the statute of limitations for criminal liability when an individual avoids paying a court fine.

Estimation of the number of HCV-positive patients in Italy.

BackgroundHCV is one of the main causes of cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and liver transplantation.AimThe aim of this study was to estimate the number of living individuals diagnosed with hepatitis C in Italy. This study also aimed to stratify these subjects as diagnosed and cured, diagnosed awaiting a cure, and undiagnosed (individuals who were not diagnosed, living or lived with hepatitis C).MethodsTo quantify the number of ill patients in Italy, an inquiry was conducted based on questionnaires submitted to three nationally representative regions, namely, Campania, Lazio and Piemonte, as representatives of the three main areas of Italy (North, Centre and South regions). The data were collected through a questionnaire to acquire demographic and clinical information on patients in the participating hospitals. The questionnaires contained 6 questions on sex, age, region of residence, disease condition, type of exemption and category. The questionnaires were administered individually to consecutive patients through face-to-face interviews conducted by specialised personnel in each centre. Data were collected between September 2017 and January 2018.ResultsIn total, 2,860 questionnaires were analysed. They were completed by the patients (55% male), who had an average age of 61 years (64 years for women and 59 years for men). In total, 54% of the sample declared that they were still infected with HCV (1,548 patients out of 2,860 respondents), while the remaining subjects declared that they had been cured. The inquiry showed that 46.6% of the sample had at least a 016 exemption (chronic hepatitis), while more than 51% (1,469 interviewed patients out of 2,860 respondents) had a different type of exemption. Only 2% of the respondents declared that they had no exemption. Assuming that the analysed sample is representative of the actual HCV-positive population in Italy and considering the number of 016 exempt patients in the regional data, the model estimates that there are 443,491 cured and HCV-positive living patients and 240,043 ill patients who have yet to be treated.ConclusionsAlthough this study has limitations, it represents a considerable improvement over the previously available studies. This study can help decision-makers implement more effective strategic planning to eliminate hepatitis C.

Improvement of Institution of Parole Release and Its Implementation Practices

The scientific article is devoted to the study of parole from serving a sentence as the most important incentive institution of criminal and penal law. The study of this type of exemption from punishment revealed a number of moments not sufficiently regulated by the legislator, affecting the grounds for both the application and non-application of parole. As a basis for exemption from criminal punishment, not any assessment of the degree of correction of the convicted person was recorded, but only one that contributes to acceptable correction and positive resocialization of the offender without actually serving the unserved part of the criminal sentence. It is important that the legislator determines the inadmissibility of unjustified release of convicts from serving their sentences. The problematic issues of applying this institution are: the grounds for parole, which are not sufficiently clarified; situations concerning the objectivity of decision-making on granting or refusal to grant parole; the absence of a legislative specific specialized state body endowed with powers to control the behavior of those released on parole, capable of effectively implementing them. The article proposes solutions to these problems, providing a qualitative increase in the effectiveness of the application of the considered incentive institution.

Improvement of Institution of Parole Release and Its Implementation Practices

Abstract The scientific article is devoted to the study of parole from serving a sentence as the most important incentive institution of criminal and penal law. The study of this type of exemption from punishment revealed a number of moments not sufficiently regulated by the legislator, affecting the grounds for both the application and non-application of parole. As a basis for exemption from criminal punishment, not any assessment of the degree of correction of the convicted person was recorded, but only one that contributes to acceptable correction and positive resocialization of the offender without actually serving the unserved part of the criminal sentence. It is important that the legislator determines the inadmissibility of unjustified release of convicts from serving their sentences. The problematic issues of applying this institution are: the grounds for parole, which are not sufficiently clarified; situations concerning the objectivity of decision-making on granting or refusal to grant parole; the absence of a legislative specific specialized state body endowed with powers to control the behavior of those released on parole, capable of effectively implementing them. The article proposes solutions to these problems, providing a qualitative increase in the effectiveness of the application of the considered incentive institution.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY ALL BEFORE THE LAW ON THE ORDER OF PAYMENT OF COURT FEE IN THE CIVIL PROCESS

In the scientific article the content of the principle of equality of all before the law is examined, taking into account the presence of a whole spectrum of points of view on this issue in the science of civil procedural law and legal positions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the nature of the influence of this principle on the procedure for payment of a court fee when appealing to the court in civil proceeding. Formal equality of all before the law is considered in its inextricable connection with the principles of justice and the rule of law,requiring the accessibility of justice for all segments of the population. It is stated that the differentiated attitude towards the subjectsis important, taking into account their individual characteristics, and the undoubted necessity of the existence of compensators for thefinancial insolvency of certain groups of citizens to pay court fees in the amount established by law. The article analyzes the provisions of the current legislation, which provide for privileges to pay court fees. Two main types ofexemption from payment of a court fee are investigated: according to the law, when the plaintiffs are released from their payment forfiling individual claims, as well as certain categories of persons, determined by law, regardless of the type of claim and court decision,when the person is released by a court from the duty to pay the court fee is only ad hoc, that is, in relation to this particular case. The necessity to distinguish cases of exemption from payment of a court fee, provided by law, and cases where the court fee is notpaid at all, is proved. The distinctive differences between these cases are established. The grounds and procedural order of defermentand deferral of payment of court fee, as well as reduction of its size by court, are characterized. The peculiarities of the distribution of court costs in cases where the person who appealed to the court was dismissed from payment of court fee, if it was arranged by a courtor delayed its payment or reduced amount of payment of court fee. Also, the article identifies the shortcomings of legal regulation of issues related to the payment of court fees when appealing to acourt with a statement on the cancellation of a court order and formulated a proposal for their correction.

ЗАРУБІЖНЕ ЗАКОНОДАВСТВО ПРО ЗВІЛЬНЕННЯ ВІД ВІДБУВАННЯ ПОКАРАННЯ ВАГІТНИХ ЖІНОК І ЖІНОК, ЯКІ МАЮТЬ ДІТЕЙ

The article is devoted to a comparative analysis of legislation on exemption from punishment for pregnant women and women with children. The criminal laws of Eastern European and post-Soviet countries were analyzed using a methodological approach to considering a particular type of exemption from punishment, which includes five characteristics of the development of criminal law relations that exist between this woman and the state: prerequisite, basis, order, conditions and criminal legal consequences. exemption from punishment. In many countries, these norms are formulated as a deferment of punishment. At the same time, the legislation of individual countries allows such an extension both during the court’s sentencing and in the process of serving it. Only in the Criminal Code of Tajikistan these regulations are formulated as an exemption from punishment. In foreign countries, the common cause for all is the occurrence of pregnancy in a convicted woman. In addition, in some countries the second alternative basis is defined differently. In some countries, such a reason is the birth of a child by a woman while serving a sentence, in others, the very fact that a woman has a child, regardless of whether she was born during or before the beginning of serving a sentence. Moreover, in different countries the maximum age of such a child is determined differently. In addition, attention is drawn to the fact that in most of the studied foreign criminal codes, pregnancy or childbirth are self-sufficient grounds for the release of a convicted person from punishment or postponement of his execution.

шляхи вдосконалення кримінально-правового забезпечення оперативно-розшукової діяльності Державної прикордонної служби України

The ways to improve the criminal legal support of the operative and search activities of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine are discussed in the article. We propose specific amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which take into account the cases of harm during the operative and search activities of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine. It is concluded that compulsory harm to the interests protected by the law will be duly regulated during the conduct, in accordance with the law, of operative and search, counter-intelligence measures or not public investigative (search) actions by an employee of an authorized state body, or on behalf of such person, cooperating with that authority, if the cause of action is to prevent, detect, detect or investigate criminal offenses, to prevent, to disclose and to suspend criminal proceedings identification and / or subversive actions if the stated objective could not be otherwise achieved.It is emphasized that there is a problem in the national criminal law theory and legal regulation of operative-search activity of criminal-legal foundations of carrying out the whole complex of operative-search measures. There is no proper legal mechanism for carrying out most of the operative-search measures.The conditions for the lawfulness of causing harm are considered during the conduct of operative and search measures and the corresponding not public investigative (search) actions, which would be expedient to be disclosed in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court, as well as to supplement the list of mitigating circumstances stipulated in the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Art. 66).It is noted about the fact that there is an operative-search type of exemption from criminal responsibility, which indicates the need for a criminal-legal settlement of such a situation.It is emphasized that the effective activity of the State Border Service of Ukraine provides for the application by operational units of a set of operative and search measures, which are possible only in case of making appropriate changes and additions to the normative legal acts of the state.

The concept and classification of special types of exemption from criminal liability

The article is devoted to the analysis of the notes to the articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation containing special rules for exemption from criminal liability. The article presents the historical development of this institution, and it also examines the various points of view of the authors on the topic of research, gives the concept of exemption from criminal liability. Until now, the concept of special types of exemption from criminal liability has not been defined in the Russian criminal legislation, and there is no systematisation of them. Based on what was studied, the authors cite the concept of special types of exemption from criminal liability. The classification of special norms of exemption from criminal liability on the grounds, such as the first time that the person committs the crime, is given. In this regard, special rules are divided into exemption from criminal liability for committing a crime for the first time and exemption from criminal liability, which does not have the condition to commit a crime for the first time.

ПРОЦЕСУАЛЬНИЙ ПОРЯДОК ЗВІЛЬНЕННЯ ВІД ПОКАРАННЯ ЗА ДІЯННЯ, КАРАНІСТЬ ЯКОГО ЗАКОНОМ УСУНЕНА

Analysis of the criminal procedure for exemption from punishment on the ground of legal act on decriminalization provided; analysis of current status of the problem provided; the key problems and legislative gaps identified, and respective solutions developed. The study revealed that the procedure for exemption from the court-sentenced punishment on the ground of legal act on decriminalization provided, has no sufficiently and precise regulations in the criminal procedural legislation. The goal of research is analyzing procedural order of exemption person from appointed sentence of court for action, the punishment of which is eliminated by law, identifying a range of problems which connects with procedural order of exemptions from the sentence imposed in connection with adoption of the law which eliminates the criminal act and amendment of improving current criminal procedural legislation. In the framework of the analysis of the recent studies, researches and respective publications it has been examined the current status of the scientific researches of the issues on exemption from the court-sentenced punishment on the ground of legal act on decriminalization provided (part 2 of the Article 74 of the Criminal Code). The grounded conclusion reads that that the procedure for this type of exemption from the court-sentenced punishment is insufficiently studied. Within the framework of implementing the tasks on analyzing the procedure for exemption from the court-sentenced punishment on the ground of legal act on decriminalization provided, detection a range of issues related to the procedure for exemption from the court-sentenced punishment on the ground of legal act on decriminalization provided and contributing recommendations for improvement of the current criminal procedural legislation, the following conclusions and recommendations were proposed. In particular, the application of of legal act on decriminalization at the criminal proceedings does not require a specific regulations. However, the general procedure for examining issues while executing a sentence requires taking into account specific cases of exemption from court-sentenced punishment. The ensuring of the prescribed by the Part 2 of Art. 74 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine "immediate" release of a person from a punishment sentenced by a court, should be supported by improving the procedural terms of consideration of the petition for release and introduction of a separate regulations. It is recommended to implement into the procedure a list of grounds (issues) that the court must consider during a trial and resolving the issue of release from punishment on the ground of legal act on decriminalization provided. In addition, it is appropriate in our opinion to oblige the court in deciding whether to release a person from punishment on the ground of legal act on decriminalization provided, while applying the exemption from punishment under Part 2 of Art. 74 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, to consider the issue of eradication of conviction the person who was sentenced.

Умови звільнення від відбування покарання вагітних жінок і жінок, які мають дітей віком до трьох років

Статтю присвячено умовам звільнення від відбування покарання вагітних жінок і жінок, які мають дітей віком до трьох років. Цей вид звільнення від відбування покарання є умовним тоді, коли передумовою звільнення від відбування покарання є обмеження волі або позбавлення волі на певний строк.Розкрито зміст семи вимог для остаточного звільнення жінки від відбування покарання. Сприятливі кримінально-правові наслідки настають у випадку виконання всіх семи вимог.

Trends in Kindergarten Rates of Vaccine Exemption and State-Level Policy, 2011-2016.

BackgroundKindergarten-entry vaccination requirements have played an important role in controlling vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States. Forty-eight states and the District of Colombia offer nonmedical exemptions to vaccines, ranging in stringency.MethodsWe analyzed state-level exemption data from 2011 to 2012 through 2015 to 2016 school years. States were categorized by exemption ease and type of exemption allowed. We calculated nonmedical exemption rates for each year in the sample and stratified by exemption ease, type, and 2 trend categories: 2011–12 through 2012–13 and 2013–14 through 2015–16 school years. Using generalized estimating equations, we created regression models estimating (1) the average annual change in nonmedical exemption rates and (2) relative differences in rates by state classification.ResultsThe nonmedical exemption rate was higher during the 2013–2014 through 2015–2016 period (2.25%) compared to 2011–2012 through 2012–2013 (1.75%); more importantly, the average annual change in the latter period plateaued. The nonmedical exemption rate in states allowing philosophical and religious exemptions was 2.41 times as high as in states allowing only religious exemptions (incidence rate ratio = 2.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.71–3.41).ConclusionsThere was an increase in nonmedical exemption rates through the 2012–2013 school year; however, rates stabilized through the 2015–2016 school year, showing an important shift in trend.

Complete and voluntary repentance: problems of structuring art. 75 of the criminal code of the Russian Federation

The article provides a critical analysis of Art. 75 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, two parts of which combine rules different in their legal purpose. It is proved that this Article establishes two types of exemption from criminal liability: actual and voluntary repentance applied in order of encouragement and concessions that lies in the basis of a compromise. Differentiation of these norms is based on the method of legal effect, the content of legal relationship, the type of criminal law effect, the content of legally significant circumstances and the functions of the criminal law. It is alleged that only the first part of Article 75 of the criminal code is referred to active repentance as a variety of a criminal-law encouragement. Part two of the Article establishes the rule that has a compromise rather than encouraging nature. To prove this conclusion the following arguments are given: no need to verify deserved post-crime behavior of a perpetrator while applying Paragraph 2 Article 75 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; a forced nature of putting this norm in the criminal law that allows by means of concessions in the form of exemption from criminal responsibility prevent harmful consequences of committed crimes that cannot be eliminated in other ways; avoidance of the loss of public danger of an offender, etc. The author finds it inappropriate to harmonize Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 of Article 75 of the RF Criminal Code by means of transferring the active repentance norm from encouraging into compromise because this can result in excessive leniency of the criminal law. Based on systematization of research positions, as well as doctrinal interpretation of criminal law, comparative analysis of both parts of the criticized Article, the author offers to put Paragraph 2 of Article 75 of the Criminal Code beyond the active repentance, or even abandon its consolidation in the criminal law, as it duplicates the provisions of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Legal Regulation of the Execution of a Fine

А court fine is characterized not only by criminal law features as a measure of criminal law and procedural order, but also by special rules for its execution. Based on the Federal law On Enforcement Proceedings the article examines the functions of bailiff and persons released from criminal liability under Article 762 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Using case materials the author considers the rules for determining terms of payment of court fines. It is concluded that, given the time limit for the court decision to become effective and to enable the appeal period, the term should be limited by the number of days starting from the date of the court decision becoming effective but not the set due date. The author analyses the differences between a court fine and a fine as a criminal penalty. The author suggests that the court ruling should first explain the obligation to provide information about the payment of court fines to the discharged person, then the consequences of non-payment. Based on the conditional nature of this type of exemption from criminal responsibility the process of evasion from a court fine is considered. It is argued that the failure to pay a court fine should definitely, irrespective of the causes of deviation, lead to the abolition of the exemption from criminal responsibility. The author suggests regulating the execution of a court fine not by the Federal Law On Enforcement Proceedings but by the Penal Code of the Russian Federation.

Identifying United States and Territory Education Requirements for Childhood Vaccination Exemptions

Background: Children are required by law to receive vaccinations to enter school. States and territories offer exemptions for parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. Types of exemptions vary by state or territory, as does the exemption filing process. The purpose of this research was to identify the various education-related processes implemented by states and territories which allow parents to exempt children from vaccinations. Methods: A questionnaire was distributed to immunization program managers in the 50 United States, District of Columbia, the United States Indian Health Service, and eight United States territories. Managers reported vaccination requirements for their jurisdiction (collectively referred to as state). Education-related questions identified which states required parents to: 1) read and sign a vaccination risk/benefit statement prior to exemption; 2) complete mandatory vaccine education before obtaining vaccination exemption; 3) complete education within a certain time period before school admission. Additionally, states were asked how parental vaccine education was regulated. Results: A parent-signed risk/benefit statement was required by 25 states for religious exemptions, 12 states for personal exemptions, 10 states for medical exemptions, and 1 state for temporary medical exemptions. Thirteen states required mandatory parental vaccine education prior to obtaining an exemption. For states that mandated parental vaccine education prior to exemption, the education was most commonly regulated by statute, verses administrative rule or school policy. Conclusions: Vaccine education requirements and the process for providing this education to parents seeking immunization exemptions vary greatly between the states. More research is needed to fully understand the impact of the education requirement on exemption rates. Familiarity with and effectiveness of various state vaccine education requirements may aid policymakers who are considering enacting mandatory vaccine education in their state.

Legislative prescriptions for controlling nonmedical vaccine exemptions.

This Viewpoint discusses types of exemptions from required vaccines and recent legislation to control numbers of nonmedical vaccine exemptions.

Power and persuasion in the vaccine debates: an analysis of political efforts and outcomes in the United States, 1998-2012.

This article examines trends in state-level childhood vaccine policies in the United States from 1998 to 2012 and explains the trajectories for both vaccine-critical and proimmunization legislative efforts. Successful mobilization by vaccine critics during the height of the autism and thimerosal scares (roughly 1998 to 2003) yielded a few state-level expansions for the most permissive type of exemption from vaccine mandates for public school attendance, those based on personal beliefs. Vaccine-critical positions, however, have largely become discredited. How has vaccine critics' ability to advance preferred policies and prevent the passage of unfavorable legislation changed over time? We created a unique data set of childhood vaccine bills (n = 636), introduced from 1998 to 2012 across the 50 state legislatures, and coded them by type of effort (exemption, mandate, mercury ban, and information policies) and outcome. We then mapped out the trends in vaccine policies over time. In order to contextualize the trends we identified, we also reviewed numerous primary sources and conducted interviews with stakeholders. In general, we found that vaccine critics' legislative success has begun to wane. In only 20 bills in our data set were vaccine critics able to change policy in their preferred direction via the legislative process. Only 5 of those wins were significant (such as obtaining a new philosophical exemption to vaccine mandates), and the last of these was in 2007. Critics were more successful at preventing passage of proimmunization legislation, such as mandates for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. Recent legislation in California, Oregon, and Washington that tightened philosophical exemptions by means of informational requirements suggests that vaccine politics may be entering another phase, one in which immunization supporters may be able to counter increasing opt-out rates, particularly in states with recent outbreaks and politicians favoring science-based policies.

United States Private Schools Have Higher Rates of Exemptions to School Immunization Requirements than Public Schools

To compare medical, religious, and personal belief immunization exemption rates between private and public schools in US. Exemption rates were calculated using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention School Immunization Assessment Surveys for the 2009-2010 school year excluding states with incomplete survey data. Standardized exemption rates weighted on enrollments in public and private schools were calculated. Differences in exemption rates between public and private schools were tested using Wilcoxon signed rank test. The overall state exemption rate was higher in US private than public schools, 4.25% (SD 4.27) vs 1.91% (1.67), P = .0001 and private schools had higher exemption rates for all types of exemptions; medical 0.58% (0.71) vs 0.34% (0.34) respectively (P = .0004), religious 2.09% (3.14) vs 0.83% (1.05) respectively (P = .0001), and personal belief 6.10% (4.12) vs 2.79% (1.57), respectively (P = .006). Overall exemption rates were significantly higher in states that allowed personal belief exemptions. Exemption rates were significantly higher in US private than in public schools. Children attending private schools may be at higher risk of vaccine-preventable diseases than public school children.

Legislative Challenges to School Immunization Mandates, 2009-2012

School immunization mandates, implemented through state-level legislation, have played an important role in maintaining high immunization coverage in the United States. Immunization mandates permit exemptions that vary from state to state in terms of type of exemption (eg, religious, personal belief, medical), and administrative ease of obtaining these exemptions. Certain types of exemptions (especially personal belief exemptions) and the ease of obtaining them are predictive of high rates of vaccine exemptions and increased disease risk among exemptors themselves and in the communities in which they reside.1,2 Legislation has been proposed in recent years to modify exemptions to school immunization requirements. We analyzed such legislation at the state level.

The Breeding Exemption in Patent Law: Analysis of Compliance with Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement

The breeding exemption limits the right of patent holders by allowing plant breeders to use freely patented biological material for creating new plant variety types. Three European countries, France, Germany, and Switzerland, have already adopted this type of exemption into their patent laws, and the Netherlands is expected to amend its patent law by 2013. The debate in the Netherlands included the introduction of a “comprehensive breeding exemption” as well, that is an exemption that allows the commercialization of plant varieties containing patented elements. The proposal for amendments to patent law did not go unnoticed. The industry itself raised concerns with respect to the compliance of patent exceptions with the European directive on the legal protection of biological inventions (98/44/EC) and the TRIPS Agreement. Being all European Union (EU) countries signatories of the TRIPS Agreement, the EU directive provisions reflect the ratio and voluntas legis of TRIPS. Thus this paper focuses on article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, the only provision that explicitly provides for exceptions to patent rights at international level. In this context, the analysis aims at proffering a solution to the high legal uncertainty characterizing the debate on patent exceptions for the plant-breeding sector.

Vaccine Policy and Arkansas Childhood Immunization Exemptions: A Multi-Year Review

An increase in total vaccine exemptions (medical, philosophic, and religious) occurred in Arkansas after a 2003 legislation added a philosophic category and used a new process for vaccine exemptions. By legislative requirement, the Arkansas Department of Health monitored exemptions through the 2009-2010 school year. The goal of the study was to determine the prevalence of vaccine exemption in 2003-2010 compared to the number of requests prior to the legislation enacted in 2003. Exemptions were calculated by school-age category using raw numbers of exemptions, total estimates of the population by age level, enrollment numbers for students in public and private schools, and in enrolled college students born after 1957. Exemptions also were analyzed by school district, grade level, type of exemption, and particular vaccine exemption requested. Overall exemptions continued to rise each year, with an average increase of 23.1% annually. Medical exemptions declined from an average of 21.3% of all exemptions before to an average of 4.8% thereafter. The greatest increase in number of exemptions was observed among college students. The highest total rate of exemptions per precollegiate student population was <1.3%. When exemption requests were categorized, most (79%) were for exemptions from "all vaccines." The most common single exempted vaccine was MMR (measles, mumps, rubella). Since philosophic exemptions were codified in 2003 in Arkansas, the number and rate of vaccine exemptions continue to progressively increase. However, vaccine-preventable disease clusters have not yet been linked to or identified in any population with a high rate of vaccine exemptions.