Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Motivations for Punishing Someone Who Violates HIV Nondisclosure Laws: Basic Research and Policy Implications

Motivations for Punishing Someone Who Violates HIV Nondisclosure Laws: Basic Research and Policy... Many U.S. states have HIV nondisclosure laws that require HIV‐positive persons to disclose their HIV status to new sexual partners. Mandating HIV disclosure before sexual activity occurs is intended to deter unsafe sexual behavior and to reduce the risk of HIV transmission. HIV nondisclosure laws are also intended to punish HIV‐positive persons who violate these laws. Vignettes were used to examine if participants are motivated to punish someone who violates these HIV nondisclosure laws. In three studies, we found that retribution but not general deterrence was used to recommend punishment, especially when HIV nondisclosure was associated with harm being done to sexual partners. We also found that preventing the law violator from reoffending played a role in recommending punishment, especially if the law violation was associated with considerable harm. On the other hand, the expression of an apology to sexual partners was associated with less severe punishment, based on the assessment that there was a relatively low risk of the HIV law violator repeating this crime and, therefore, lower importance for removing him from society. The findings suggest that persuading the general public and legislators to end the criminalization of HIV nondisclosure will be an uphill battle. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Analyses of Social Issues & Public Policy Wiley

Motivations for Punishing Someone Who Violates HIV Nondisclosure Laws: Basic Research and Policy Implications

Download PDF
33 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/motivations-for-punishing-someone-who-violates-hiv-nondisclosure-laws-TToKfhi60U
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2015 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
ISSN
1529-7489
eISSN
1530-2415
DOI
10.1111/asap.12065
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Many U.S. states have HIV nondisclosure laws that require HIV‐positive persons to disclose their HIV status to new sexual partners. Mandating HIV disclosure before sexual activity occurs is intended to deter unsafe sexual behavior and to reduce the risk of HIV transmission. HIV nondisclosure laws are also intended to punish HIV‐positive persons who violate these laws. Vignettes were used to examine if participants are motivated to punish someone who violates these HIV nondisclosure laws. In three studies, we found that retribution but not general deterrence was used to recommend punishment, especially when HIV nondisclosure was associated with harm being done to sexual partners. We also found that preventing the law violator from reoffending played a role in recommending punishment, especially if the law violation was associated with considerable harm. On the other hand, the expression of an apology to sexual partners was associated with less severe punishment, based on the assessment that there was a relatively low risk of the HIV law violator repeating this crime and, therefore, lower importance for removing him from society. The findings suggest that persuading the general public and legislators to end the criminalization of HIV nondisclosure will be an uphill battle.

Journal

Analyses of Social Issues & Public Policy – Wiley

Published: Dec 1, 2015

References

  • Requests and apologies: A cross‐cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP)
    Blum‐Kulka, Blum‐Kulka; Olshtain, Olshtain
  • Do criminal laws influence HIV risk behavior? An empirical trial
    Burris, Burris; Beletsky, Beletsky; Burleson, Burleson; Case, Case; Lazzarini, Lazzarini
  • The case against criminalization of HIV transmission
    Burris, Burris; Cameron, Cameron
  • AIDS‐related stigma and attitudes toward injecting drug users among Black and White Americans
    Capitanio, Capitanio; Herek, Herek
  • Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment
    Carlsmith, Carlsmith; Darley, Darley; Robinson, Robinson
  • Correlates of sex without serostatus disclosure among a national probability sample of HIV patients
    Duru, Duru; Collins, Collins; Ciccarone, Ciccarone; Morton, Morton; Stall, Stall; Beckman, Beckman; Kanouse, Kanouse
  • HIV seropositive status disclosure to prospective sex partners and criminal laws that require it: Perspectives of persons living with HIV
    Galletly, Galletly; Dickson‐Gomez, Dickson‐Gomez
  • New Jersey's HIV exposure law and the HIV‐related attitudes, beliefs, and sexual and seropositive status disclosure behaviors of persons living with HIV
    Galletly, Galletly; Glasman, Glasman; Pinkerton, Pinkerton; DiFranceisco, DiFranceisco
  • Toward rational criminal HIV exposure laws
    Galletly, Galletly; Pinkerton, Pinkerton
  • Conflicting messages: How criminal HIV disclosure laws undermine public health efforts to control the spread of HIV
    Galletly, Galletly; Pinkerton, Pinkerton
  • A quantitative study of Michigan's criminal HIV exposure law
    Galletly, Galletly; Pinkerton, Pinkerton; DiFranceisco, DiFranceisco
  • Thinking about AIDS and stigma: A psychologist's perspective
    Herek, Herek
  • AIDS stigma and sexual prejudice
    Herek, Herek; Capitanio, Capitanio
  • HIV‐related stigma and knowledge in the United States: Prevalence and trends, 1991–1999
    Herek, Herek; Capitanio, Capitanio; Widaman, Widaman
  • Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: The functions of social exclusion
    Kurzban, Kurzban; Leary, Leary
  • Evaluating the impact of criminal laws on HIV risk behavior
    Lazzarini, Lazzarini; Bray, Bray; Burris, Burris
  • Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods
    MacKinnon, MacKinnon; Lockwood, Lockwood; Williams, Williams
  • Estimating sexual transmission of HIV from persons aware and unaware that they are infected with the virus in the USA
    Marks, Marks; Crepaz, Crepaz; Janssen, Janssen
  • Meta‐analysis of high‐risk sexual behavior in persons aware and unaware they are infected with HIV in the United States: Implications for HIV prevention programs
    Marks, Marks; Crepaz, Crepaz; Senterfitt, Senterfitt; Janssen, Janssen
  • Heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in northern California: Results from a ten‐year study
    Padian, Padian; Shiboski, Shiboski; Glass, Glass; Vittinghoff, Vittinghoff
  • Should not disclosing your HIV status be a crime
    Pasulka, Pasulka
  • Apology in the criminal justice setting: Evidence for including apology as an additional component in the legal system
    Petrucci, Petrucci
  • Effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission
    Pinkerton, Pinkerton; Abramson, Abramson
  • SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models
    Preacher, Preacher; Hayes, Hayes
  • Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models
    Preacher, Preacher; Hayes, Hayes
  • Heinous crime or unfortunate accident? The effects of remorse on responses to mock criminal confessions
    Robinson, Robinson; Smith‐Lovin, Smith‐Lovin; Tsoudis, Tsoudis
  • How effective are the things people say to apologize? Effects of the realization of the apology speech act
    Scher, Scher; Darley, Darley