Criminalizing Health-Related Behaviors Dangerous to Others? Disease Transmission, Transmission-Facilitation, and the Importance of Trust

Statutes criminalizing behavior that risks transmission of HIV/AIDS exemplify use of the criminal law against individuals who are victims of infectious disease. These statutes, despite their frequency, are misguided in terms of the goals of the criminal law and the public health aim of reducing overall burdens of disease, for at least three important reasons. First, they identify individual offenders for punishment, a paradigm that is misplaced in the most typical contexts of transmission of infectious disease and even for HIV/AIDS, despite claims of AIDS exceptionalism. Second, although there are examples of individuals who transmit infectious disease in a manner that fits the criminal law paradigm of identification of individual offenders for deterrence or retribution, these examples are limited and can be accommodated by existing criminal laws not devoted specifically to infectious disease. Third, and most importantly, the current criminal laws regarding HIV/AIDS, like many other criminal laws applied to infectious disease transmission, have been misguided in focusing on punishment of the diseased individual as a wrongful transmitter. Instead of individual offenders, activities that enhance the scale of disease transmission—behaviors that might be characterized as ‘transmission facilitation’—are a more appropriate target for the criminal law. Examples are trafficking in human beings (including sex trafficking, organ trafficking, and labor trafficking), suppression of information about the emergence of infection in circumstances in which there is a legally established obligation to disclose, and intentional or reckless activities to discourage disease treatment or prevention. Difficulties remain with justifications for criminalizing even these behaviors, however, most importantly the need for trust in reducing overall burdens of disease, problems in identifying individual responsible offenders, and potential misalignment between static criminal law and the changing nature of infectious disease.     

故意传播艾滋病行为的刑法适用

故意传播艾滋病的行为,不构成我国刑法中的传播性病罪,在当代的医疗水平下,可以认为该行为构成故意杀人罪。在审判时,被害人没有死亡的,只能追究行为人故意杀人未遂的刑事责任。经被害人承诺的故意传播艾滋病行为,也构成故意杀人罪。危及公共安全的故意传播艾滋病行为则会构成以危险方法危害公共安全罪。     

Criminal law and HIV/AIDS: strategic considerations

Richard Elliott's paper on criminal law and HIV/AIDS, an edited and updated version of his presentation at "Putting Third First," sets out five guiding principles for criminal law policy and HIV/AIDS; briefly outlines the rationales for criminalization; discusses three strategic legal questions regarding the criminalization of HIV transmission/exposure; and offers a number of recommendations for consideration of those needing to articulate a well-considered perspective on the ethical, legal, human rights, and public health dimensions of the criminalization of HIV transmission/exposure.     

HIV/AIDS and legal developments in Germany

Case law has helped to define the legal environment for people infected and affected by HIV/AIDS in Germany. This article describes court decisions in three areas that may be of interest to Canadian readers: criminal law, confidentiality, and the use of illegal drugs to control pain. It also describes the situation of refugees with HIV/AIDS.     

Rural HIV: Brief interventions for felony probationers

HIV/AIDS in Southern rural America has been described as an epidemic. Furthermore, the HIV prevalence rate among criminal justice populations is higher than the general population in both rural and urban areas. One segment of the criminal justice population, felony probationers, has not been targeted for HIV/AIDS interventions and little is known about rural HIV risk behaviors. Probation is an appropriate setting for examining HIV interventions because rural participants can be easily identified and contacted. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to describe an HIV intervention for Southern rural probationers and to profile participants (N=800) on their demographics and risk behaviors by degree of criminality. Results suggest that HIV interventions are needed to target rural probationers, especially those with extensive arrest histories since they engage in high-risk behaviors, including illicit substance use and unprotected sex. This project is supported by grant #R01DA11580 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The opinions expressed are those of the authors.     

Criminal law and HIV transmission/exposure: two new cases

In a regular column, we review new developments in the area of criminal prosecutions for HIV transmissions or exposure. Since the last issue of the Review, two new Canadian cases have come to our attention. A Swedish case is reported in HIV/AIDS in the Courts - International.     

Courts,Criminal Process,and AIDS: The Institutionalization of Culture in Legal Decision Making*

This study views legal process as part of an interactive web of social and cultural relationships. While law may create public policy, its own creation is part of a complex system of institutional deference and subjective behaviors which reflect a larger cultural context. The fears engendered by AIDS help to highlight the underlying cultural biases and patterns of disease scare management ingrained in legal policymaking. These patterns are again enhanced when placed in a criminal context where the resident focus is one of controlling those who precipitate anxiety. Using a method of qualitative comparative analysis, this study concludes that the historical patterns of bias and institutional deference in disease scare management continues in modern criminal court process.     

The UNGASS Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS: a review of legislation in six Southern African countries

This article reviews legislation of six Southern African countries to determine what progress has been made after the UNGASS Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS, particularly with regard to paragraph 58 on human rights and paragraph 69 on rights in the workplace. The article notes the complexities introduced by the coexistence of customary laws and practices and codified law. It describes certain features of specific codified and customized laws. It concludes that, with the possible exception of South Africa, the countries under review have not responded to the challenges the HIV/AIDS epidemic have confronted their legal systems with. They have resorted in the first instance to criminal law, and have allowed discriminatory customary laws and practices, which propel the epidemic, to continue to operate.     

刑法的刑事政策化论纲

刑法的刑事政策化,是在刑法自身需求和刑事政策引导两方面因素共同作用下的产物;其中,刑法自身的需求是内因,而刑事政策的引导则是外因。犯罪原因的多样化、刑罚根据的科学化和刑罚的人道化是刑法刑事政策化的理论基础。刑法刑事政策化的核心在于刑法要自觉地接受刑事政策的指导,无论是刑法的制定还是刑法的运行,都要纳入刑事政策的框架,在刑事政策的大视野中予以把握。但是,刑事司法在接受刑事政策指导的时候,应该将刑事政策的贯彻和落实严格控制在现行刑法规定的范围内,绝不能超越刑法的规定去执行刑事政策。     

刑法的调整对象

刑法有没有自己独立的调整对象,一直是国内外刑法学界争议的焦点。我国刑法学界和法学界通说都认为刑法没有自己独立的调整对象。但是,如果刑法真的没有自己独立的调整对象的话,区别刑法和其他部门法的依据主要在于调整手段的不同的话,那么,为什么调整同样的社会关系要用不同的调整手段呢?是否完全只能靠立法者来决定什么是刑法的调整范畴?那么,这样又怎么能够防止立法者可能产生的误差呢?因此,刑法应该有自己独立的调整对象。研究刑法的调整对象只能从刑法和其他部门法之间的区别中来界定,而刑法和其他部门法的区别就在于刑法调整的是破坏法律制度的行为,即刑法的调整对象是破坏法律制度的行为。     

刑事政策与刑事立法关系的动态分析

正确认识刑事政策与刑事立法的关系对刑事法制建设具有重要意义。正确认识政策与法的关系是其前提。对二者关系的分析需要从静态和动态两个角度进行。静态考察是为了认识政策与法的区别。动态考察是为了认识二者的联系。刑事政策对刑事立法的动态影响表现在对刑事立法需要的影响 ,对刑事立法内容的影响 ,对刑事立法解释的影响。刑事立法对刑事政策的动态影响表现为 :刑事立法本身的局限性 ,决定了刑事政策存在的价值 ;刑事立法具有规范性和稳定性 ,促使某些刑事政策向立法转化 ;刑事立法具有的国家意志性 ,可以抵制不符合立法基本原则的不适当的刑事政策。     

论刑法解释的基本原则

对刑法解释基本原则的研究,在方法论和存在论上必然遭遇到语言解释学上不可避免的部分和整体之间的循环问题。确立刑法解释的基本原则受几个关系的影响:哲学解释学、一般法律解释和刑法解释学的关系;刑法的基本原则和刑法解释的基本原则之间的关系;刑法的基本思想和刑法解释的基本原则之间的关系。“以政策为指导原则”、“整体性原则”、“明确具体原则”不是刑法解释的基本原则。我国刑法解释的基本原则有三个:合法性原则,它是刑法解释的形式规制;合理性原则,它是刑法解释的实质规制;合目的性原则,它是刑法解释原则的冲突之整合规则。     

从罪刑均衡到罪责刑相适应——兼论刑法中“人”的消隐与凸显

刑法理论发展史上,经由刑事古典学派与刑事实证学派的对立纷争,罪刑关系经历了从罪刑均衡到"人"刑对应的演绎脉络。我国当代刑法理论确定罪责刑相适应原则,藉由刑事责任论的建构和充实,较为完美地实现了罪刑关系范畴中行为考察和行为人评价的统一。梳理从罪刑均衡到罪责刑相适应的发展历程,可以看出,伴随刑法理论的发展,犯罪人逐渐实现从消隐到凸显的地位变迁。当代刑法学的发展方向,应是日益重视行为人主体地位的确立和人格特征的评价。以此为视角,我国刑法学应从理论上更加重视主观因素和行为人因素的植入,在实践中更加关注行为人人身危险性的评价和犯罪恶性的改造。     

论刑事诉讼与行政诉讼的冲突及其解决

为解决刑事诉讼中出现的行政问题及行政诉讼中出现的刑事问题,避免行政诉讼与刑事诉讼审理结果的冲突,应将两类诉讼中的相关问题分为本诉附属问题与审判前提问题,允许法院刑事审判庭在特定情况下审理行政问题;在对同一行为究竟应承担刑事责任还是行政责任难以确定时,以“刑事责任优先”为处理原则。     

刑事政策与刑法关系的应然追求

刑事政策与刑法的关系一直是个争议问题.在刑事法治观念日益深厚而刑事政策地位日隆的今天,讨论二者的关系意义尤其重大.刑事政策与刑法关系的核心,是在区别二者前提下的互动、制约、促进关系.刑法对刑事政策的制约主要涉及刑事政策的制定和实施,这是法治的要求,是权利保障的要求;刑事政策对刑法的指导主要体现在法律的制定、实施和法律变革上,这是时代发展的要求,也是社会防卫的要求.而倡行法治、保障人权是刑事政策和刑法都应该奉行的基本原则,是已为现代法治国家的刑事司法实践所证实的理性选择.     

论中国古代礼刑互动关系

礼与刑是中国古代社会的两种主要社会规范。本文从礼刑互动交融关系的角度探讨了中国古代的礼刑结合过程及其原因 ,并在此基础上分析了礼刑结合对中国传统法律文化的深远影响。这一发展过程在中国古代历史上经历了四个发展时期。礼刑结合的实质是反映封建等级特权政治关系和封建宗法血缘家族关系的等级性社会秩序的法律化和制度化     

刑事一体化践行

刑事一体化理论的精髓在于融通学科联系,解决现实问题。作为观念的刑事一体化与刑事政策的关系极为密切,刑法的刑事政策化是当代刑法的潮流,刑事政策有助于顺畅刑法的运作,强化刑法的适时、有效性。犯罪学概念的"主观恶性"在量刑方面起着重要的作用,形成一体化的性状。     

统一公法学与刑法及刑法学的关系

刑法与刑法学,刑法学与公法学、统一公法学之间不是一种简单的线性关系。从数学中的集合概念来看,狭义的刑法学是统一公法学的组成部分,它们之间是被包含与包含的关系,即狭义刑法学被统一公法学所包含,狭义刑法学是统一公法学的子集。但若以广义刑法学立论,则广义刑法学与统一公法学之间是一种交叉关系,重合的部分即是狭义刑法学,此乃统一公法学与广义刑法学两个集合的交集。     

许霆案应为“民事侵权损害赔偿案”的理析及启示

许霆案判决之误的原因,该案的民/刑违法属性差异,采取证伪与证成并举的方法,论证该案作为"刑事犯罪案"的不成立和作为"民事侵权案"的成立。许霆案引致的"刑事犯罪与民事侵权的关系"、"刑事理论与刑事实践的关系"、"刑事实践与刑事政策的关系"等问题,为我们提供了如何会通法治的若干启示。     

社会危害性与刑事违法性的矛盾及其解决

社会危害性与刑事违法性是刑法理论上的一对基本范畴。作为行为评价标准 ,社会危害性具有易变性、模糊性 ,刑事违法性则具有稳定性、明确性。二者之间的矛盾 ,源于刑法秩序价值与自由价值的对立。为了协调二者的矛盾 ,应注意以对立统一的视角看待二者的关系 ,并在刑法理论、刑事立法和刑事司法上作相应的调整。