Edwin J. Bernard
Published: 18 July 2010


  • RT @BarbCardell: CBP Chief Hastings acknowledges that they separate families at the border based on HIV status. Here is our communities re… 26 Jul 2019
  • RT @gnpplus: STATEMENT: GNP+ @HIVJusticeNet condemn dismissal of appeal in Singapore HIV criminalisation case.“HIV prevention is a shared r… 03 Jul 2019
  • Breaking news! @gnpplus and @HIVJusticeNet condemn dismissal of appeal in Singapore #HIVcriminalisation case… 03 Jul 2019
  • Please help us document the process of supporting HIV criminalisation survivors. We are seeking input from legal o… 27 Jun 2019
  • We wholeheartedly agree. A strong @UNAIDS means a strong human rights-based approach to @HIV #HIVisnotacrime… 26 Jun 2019
  • RT @alexmcclelland: The Global Commission on HIV & the Law is concerned about the increased misuse of individuals’ personal health informat… 21 Jun 2019
  • BREAKING: Justice Committee report recommends wide-ranging reforms to HIV criminalisation in Canada. Congratuations… 18 Jun 2019
  • RT @AIDSLAW: We've spent decades advocating for this critical change. We're very happy that it's a key part of the Justice Committee's repo… 17 Jun 2019
  • Published today - 'Using Research in the Fight Against #HIVCriminalisation - A Guide for #Activists' to help advoca… 13 Jun 2019
  • RT @HIVLawCom: A new @HIVJusticeNet report analyses the growing global movement against #HIV criminalisation. Six countries saw precedent… 06 Jun 2019
  • #HIVIsNotaCrime! Now in Spanish, French & Russian -- #MakingMediaWork for #HIVJustice: An introduction to media eng… 06 Jun 2019
  • RT @WOLA_org: New report by @WOLA_org, @IDPCnet, and @Dejusticia shed light on the disproportionate impact of pretrial detention for drug o… 05 Jun 2019
  • Thanks to #RobertCarrFund for recognising a global network focused on ending #HIVcriminalisation was work that need… 29 May 2019
  • BREAKING - JUST RELEASED: New report analyses the successes and challenges of the growing global movement against… 29 May 2019
  • Previewing our new report, Advancing #HIVJustice 3, published on May 29th, at the #ChallengeCrim intersectional dia… 23 May 2019
  • HJN is delighted to be part of this important cross-movement project to #ChallengeCrim globally. 23 May 2019
  • RT @Account4All: "You have to work with grassroots civil society to make access to justice a reality and to ensure justice reaches every pe… 23 May 2019
  • Coming May 29th....Advancing HIV Justice 3: Growing the global movement against HIV criminalisation… 17 May 2019
  • RT @alisapower: If you have NGO managerial skills and a commitment to human rights in the context of HIV - this is an enormously important,… 15 May 2019
  • Could you be one of our new HIV Justice Network Supervisory Board Members? Applications close 31st May 2019. Full… 15 May 2019

Lawyers have been debating the role criminal law should play in regulating the sexual behavior of people with HIV for twenty years, and for twenty years the debate has revolved around the same sort of story: two people meet, have sex and then one finds out the other has HIV. The sex was more or less safe. A condom may or may not have been used. There may have been an outright lie about infection, or just silence. Sometimes the person exposed is one of many. Sometimes he or she is not just exposed and scared but infected with the virus. On a few occasions, the person with HIV is the epicenter of a mini-epidemic.

The same story, and yet different. For some commentators, the moral is quite simple. Exposing others to a significant risk of infection with a lethal disease is indefensible conduct for one who knows of his or her infection, negligent at best and homicidal at worst. Prosecuting sexual wrong-doers under existing or HIV-specific criminal statutes appropriately punishes bad behavior and will deter others from endangering others in the future.

Other observers see a world of ambiguity: sex is a complex behavior, psychologically and morally; disclosure and safe sex are negotiated nonverbally and contextually; risks vary according to the behavior, and are often not as significant as they are portrayed in lurid news reports; a person who practices safe sex or disclosure most or even some of the time represents a public health success, not a worrisome failure. Commentators adopting this view have usually posited that criminal law will not deter people with HIV from having unsafe sex, and may do more harm than good by creating a false sense of security among the uninfected or interfering in public health efforts to reach out to people with and at high risk of infection. Indeed, given the potential harm criminalization could do, some commentators have argued that passing HIV-specific criminal exposure laws is unethical and a violation of human rights.

Scott Burris, Leo Beletsky, Joseph Burleson, Patricia Case and Zita Lazzarini.1

As Burris and colleagues explain in the introduction to the first published study to examine empirically whether or not the criminal law influences HIV-related risk behaviour, the debate regarding the wisdom and effectiveness of such an approach is primarily a moral and ethical one, with few data to back up either side. And yet, in order to make sound policy decisions about the use of the criminal law to address potential or actual HIV exposure or transmission, understanding the impact of such an approach is crucial.

This chapter attempts to address this issue by undertaking a thorough assessment of what is currently known about the impact of the use of the criminal law to address potential or actual HIV exposure or transmission – on individuals, communities and countries, as well as on the course of the global HIV epidemic.

A note about the evidence

Obtaining accurate and reliable data about the public health and/or human rights impact of the use of the criminal law to address potential or actual HIV exposure or transmission is challenging. Only a few studies, undertaken primarily in low-prevalence, high-income settings, have examined such an impact on public health issues. There are even fewer studies assessing the human rights impact.i Consequently, some of the evidence provided is necessarily anecdotal. It should also be noted that it is particularly difficult to discern how issues relating to the use of the criminal law on potential or actual HIV exposure or transmission are having an impact on the African continent where so many HIV-specific laws have recently been enacted, as well as other countries where information is not freely available.

Chapter contents include:

  • the positive impact on public health

  • the negative impact on public health

  • the human rights impact.

i. WHO Europe has undertaken a pilot human rights audit in five jurisdictions  – England and Wales, Hungary, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland – with a view to expanding the audit throughout all members of the Council of Europe. The results of the pilot audit should be made available late in 2010.


  1. Burris S et al. Do criminal laws influence HIV risk behaviour? An empirical trial. Arizona State Law Journal 39: 467-517, 2007
This content was checked for accuracy at the time it was written. It may have been superseded by more recent developments. NAM recommends checking whether this is the most current information when making decisions that may affect your health.
Community Consensus Statement on Access to HIV Treatment and its Use for Prevention

Together, we can make it happen

We can end HIV soon if people have equal access to HIV drugs as treatment and as PrEP, and have free choice over whether to take them.

Launched today, the Community Consensus Statement is a basic set of principles aimed at making sure that happens.

The Community Consensus Statement is a joint initiative of AVAC, EATG, MSMGF, GNP+, HIV i-Base, the International HIV/AIDS Alliance, ITPC and NAM/aidsmap

This content was checked for accuracy at the time it was written. It may have been superseded by more recent developments. NAM recommends checking whether this is the most current information when making decisions that may affect your health.

NAM’s information is intended to support, rather than replace, consultation with a healthcare professional. Talk to your doctor or another member of your healthcare team for advice tailored to your situation.