Charges for the same acts would have been far less severe if the defendants had been virus-free. Now a coalition of advocacy groups _ backed by an outspoken champion in Congress _ is pressing a campaign for review and possible repeal of criminal statutes specifically targeting HIV-positive people.
``These laws are archaic,'' said Rep. Barbara Lee. ``They're criminalizing a population of people who should not be criminalized.''
Lee introduced a bill in September that would provide states with incentives and support to reform criminal laws aimed at people with HIV. Lee assumes the bill has little chance of passage while Republicans control the House of Representatives, but hopes it will help raise awareness about the state laws.
``It's very important to start these debates, to get governors and legislators to look at it,'' she said in an interview.
Thirty-four states have criminal laws that punish people for exposing another person to HIV, according to the advocacy groups working with Lee. Prosecutions occur even in the absence of actual HIV transmission, and the laws generally do not consider use of a condom as a defense, the groups said.
Many of the laws were enacted early in the AIDS epidemic, when fear of the disease's deadliness was at its highest and before advances in understanding how HIV was transmitted. The laws have not been revised even though AIDS _ thanks to the development of medication regimens _ is no longer viewed as a death sentence.
Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association, suggested that most prosecutors would oppose Lee's bill and argue that the laws remain necessary to deter HIV-positive people from reckless or irresponsible behavior.
``Notwithstanding that we've made tremendous medical advances, I don't know anyone who'd want to be infected with HIV and go through the treatment regimen,'' he said.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, HIV is spread primarily by unprotected sex with an HIV-positive person, sharing of tainted needles or syringes, and births by an HIV-infected mother.
HIV is not spread by saliva, tears or sweat, and there are no documented cases of it being transmitted by spitting, according to the CDC. As for biting, the CDC says there is no transmission risk if the skin is not broken; in a ``very small number of cases,'' transmission did occur when a bite drew blood and caused severe tissue damage.
While prosecutors defend the HIV laws as appropriate for certain cases, some activists argue that criminalization of exposure to HIV can backfire and actually fuel the spread of the disease.
They note that under most of the state laws, people who don't know they have HIV are less culpable than those who do know. This fact could deter some people from learning their HIV status, and thus preclude some HIV-positive people from getting treatment.
A better approach, the advocates say, is to encourage responsibility and disclosure without the underlying threat of arrest and prosecution.
The Obama administration's National AIDS Strategy, released in July 2010, echoes those concerns, saying some of the state laws ``may make people less willing to disclose their status by making people feel at even greater risk of discrimination.''
``It may be appropriate for legislators to reconsider whether existing laws continue to further the public interest,'' the strategy says. ``In many instances, the continued existence and enforcement of these types of laws run counter to scientific evidence.''
Advocates for changes in the laws say many people have served long prison terms and been forced to register as sex offenders for conduct that posed no meaningful risk of HIV transmission. Catherine Hanssens of the Center for HIV Law and Policy, one of the key groups in the advocacy coalition, blames the longevity of the laws on ``a seemingly invincible ignorance'' about transmission.
Annual surveys by the Kaiser Family Foundation have documented this phenomenon. According to this year's survey, 1 in 3 Americans has a basic misunderstanding about HIV transmission _ believing, for example, that one can get HIV from sharing a drinking glass or swimming in a pool with someone with HIV.
As part of an initiative called the Positive Justice Project, Hanssens' center recently documented scores of cases since 2008 in which people were prosecuted on charges specifically related to being HIV-positive.
Among the cases:
_In March 2010, an HIV-positive man in Michigan faced bioterrorism charges of using HIV as a weapon after he allegedly bit a neighbor on the lip during an argument. Three months later, a judge threw out that charge; the defendant, Daniel Allen, was placed on 11 months of probation for assault.
_In Iowa, an HIV-positive man, Nick Rhoades, received a 25-year sentence in 2009 for failing to disclose his HIV status prior to a one-time consensual sexual encounter during which the virus was not transmitted. Rhoades' sentence was eventually suspended, but he was nonetheless required to register as a sex offender.
_In 2008, a homeless man with HIV, Willie Campbell, received a 35-year sentence for spitting at a Dallas police officer because under Texas law his saliva was considered a deadly weapon. Local health officials said the risk of HIV transmission from saliva was extremely low, but the prosecutor in the case said the tough sentence was warranted.
``No matter how minuscule, there is some risk,'' said Jenni Morse. ``That means there is the possibility of causing serious bodily injury or death.''
In Ohio, there have been several recent cases of people being charged with felonious assault under an 11-year-old state law making it a crime for anyone diagnosed with HIV or AIDS to have sex without disclosing that status to their partner. The law applies regardless of whether HIV is transmitted.
``If you participate in any sex act, no matter how major or minor, you must tell your partner you are HIV-positive before having sex _ even if you are practicing safer sex!'' warns a fact sheet distributed by Ohio health groups.
In an ongoing case in Cincinnati, former professional wrestler Andre Davis faces the possibility of decades in prison after being convicted in November of 14 counts of assault for having sex with women without telling them he'd tested positive for HIV. His sentencing is set for Jan. 6.
In accordance with the judge's instructions, it was never established at the trial whether any of the women actually became infected with HIV through contact with Davis, whose wrestling stage names included ``Gangsta of Love.''
Davis' attorney, Greg Cohen, said the law regarding HIV and felonious assault is ``fear-based'' and flawed because it doesn't require proof that there was any attempt to cause harm. He has said he may file an appeal.
``You can't just assume someone intended to harm someone else just by sleeping with them,'' Cohen said in a telephone interview.
However, prosecutor Amy Tranter, in closing arguments at last month's trial, said Davis should go to prison for a long time.
``He's shown no remorse, no responsibility for anything that he's done,'' she said.
William McColl, political director of the Washington-based advocacy group AIDS United, believes criminal prosecutions should be avoided in HIV-related cases except possibly for the rare instances when an HIV-positive person deliberately seeks to transmit the virus to someone else.
In the more common cases where an HIV-positive sexual partner had no malicious intent and there is a dispute about whether the HIV status was disclosed, prosecution is probably inappropriate, McColl said.
Advocacy groups recommend that people with HIV _ to guard themselves against prosecution _ should find ways to document that they disclosed their status to sexual partners. This could entail making a video of a disclosure conversation, having the partner sign a letter confirming the disclosure, or having the partner join in a discussion with a health professional.
``When you are in love, or in the heat of the moment, it may seem impossible to do any of these things,'' advises the Positive Justice Project. ``But remember that these are the tools that may help you fight an arrest or conviction.''
For advocacy groups working on behalf of HIV-positive people, the criminalization laws represent a negative side of a mixed picture. Overall, activists are heartened by progress in combatting HIV-related discrimination, whether by private employers or the federal government.
However, everyday discrimination does persist despite the Americans with Disabilities Act, which extends its anti-discrimination protections to people with HIV. In Pennsylvania, for example, a 13-year-old boy recently was denied admission to a private school because he is HIV-positive.
<한글기사>
에이즈 환자 침 뱉았다고 35년형 복역
미 의원 차별적 법조항 개정 위한 움직임
미국 텍사스 주의 한 HIV (인체면역결핍바이러스) 보균자가 2008년 순경에게 침을 뱉은 혐의로 35년형에 처해졌다. 윌리 캠벨이라는 이 노숙자는 HIV 보균자의 타액을 치명적 무기로 간주하는 주법에 위반한 것으로 간주되었다.
2010년 3월에는 미시간 주에서 다니엘 알렌이라는 한 HIV 양성반응자가 말싸움 도중에 이웃의 입을 깨물었다가 생물학 무기테러 혐의로 기소되어 11개월의 보호관찰에 처해졌다.
미 질병통제예방본부에 따르면 에이즈는 침이나 눈물, 땀으로 전염되지 않으며 침으로 에이즈 바이러스가 옮겨진 사례는 없다. 보균자가 물어도 피부가 찢어지거나 피가 나지 않으면 전염 위험이 없다.
이와 같은 HIV 보균자에 대한 심각한 법적 차별을 시정하려는 움직임이 일고 있다.
바바라 리 연방 하원의원은 지난 9월 차별적인 형사 법조항을 개선하는 주에 인센티브를 주는 법안을 제출했다.
공화당이 하원을 장악하고 있는 상황에서 법안의 통과 가능성은 낮지만 법안 제출로 에이즈 환자 차별에 대한 경각심을 불러일으킬 수 있을 것으로 보고 있다. 이에 동조하는 인권단체들도 최근 홍보 활동을 펼치고 있다.
현재 미국에서는 34개 주가 타인을 HIV에 노출시키는 행위를 형사 처벌하는 법 조항을 시행하고 있다. 바이러스 균이 실제로 옮겨지지 않은 노출 행위에도 기소는 이뤄지며 콘돔을 사용했다고 해도 범죄 예방으로 인정되지 않는다.
이런 낡은 법조항들은 전염 경로에 대한 이해가 부족하고 치사율이 최고조에 달했던 HIV 발생 초기에 제정되었다.
치료제 개발로 에이즈가 더 이상 죽음의 병이 아닌 지금도 법조항들은 그대로 남아 있다.
그러나 전국지방검사협회의 사무국장은 이 같은 법은 보균자들의 무모하고 무책임한 행동을 막는 효과가 있는 만큼 거의 대부분의 검사들은 법안에 계속 반대할 것이라고 밝혔다.
