7-29-17 Colorado:
For years, inmates have complained that the Colorado of Department of Corrections has denied most of them access to wonder drugs that can cure hepatitis C, a potentially deadly virus that attacks the liver and has infected 17 percent of the American prison population. Last week, the ACLU of Colorado filed suit seeking a dramatic change in the DOC's policy, calling its approach to rationing treatment a violation of constitutional guarantees against cruel and unusual punishment.
"Colorado has an immense public-health crisis in its prisons," ACLU of Colorado legal director Mark Silverstein declared in announcing the class-action lawsuit. “Highly-effective treatment is available that could prevent deaths and fight the spread of the virus, but DOC’s cruel and arbitrary standards deny that treatment to all but a select few prisoners." ..Continued..
Showing posts with label ( ..News-Hepatitis C. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ( ..News-Hepatitis C. Show all posts
July 29, 2017
ACLU Sues Over Denial of Hep C Treatment for Thousands of Prisoners
June 4, 2014
New HIV law to remove stigma of registered sex offender
Changes to Iowa's HIV criminal transmission law won't change Nick Rhoades' felony conviction but it does mean he will no longer bear the stigma of registering as a sex offender.
Rhoades has fought his conviction in court and pushed for reform of the state's HIV criminal transmission law. He still is waiting on a decision about his case by the Iowa Supreme Court.
"This is never, ever going to be completely removed from my life," Rhoades said. "But it's OK, because it was for something."
Rhoades believes that under the updated legislation, signed into law last week by Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, he likely wouldn't have been charged with the crime. The new law replaces one that activists argued unfairly stigmatized people with the HIV virus.
Rhoades, who has the HIV virus, had sex with a man while using a condom, but they also had unprotected oral sex. Rhoades did not tell the man about his HIV status and was charged with criminal transmission of HIV. He entered a guilty plea.
Until July 1, when the law goes into effect, Rhoades remains a registered sex offender. The 39-year-old still has a felony conviction for criminal transmission of HIV and must wear a GPS tracking bracelet.
Rhoades has a curfew he must abide by and has restrictions on where he can travel, he said.
"As I'm driving right now, I had to have specific travel permission," he said during a phone interview this week.
The ongoing legal battle to get Rhoades' conviction thrown out is now in the hands of the Iowa Supreme Court.
Attorneys on Rhoades' case have argued that the man with whom Rhoades had sex did not contract the virus and that because Rhoades used a condom during sex and had a low amount of the HIV virus in his blood that transmission was virtually impossible.
The court heard oral arguments in the case in March and Rhoades and his attorneys expect a ruling soon. Rhoades, who lives on his family's farm near Plainfield, hopes that the court throws out his conviction so he can move to Dallas and resume life without a felony on his record.
If the court vacates his conviction, the prison sentence and years of legal maneuvering that came after Rhoades pleaded guilty will have left their mark on him, he said. But Rhoades has learned to live with that. His story, featured nationally on outlets like CNN, became a very public and moving one as Iowa activists worked with lawmakers to change the law.
Even with his own future still in the balance, Rhoades is celebrating the passage of the bill and was on hand when Branstad gave it his signature Friday.
"I stood as a felon … a tier-three sex offender on probation with a GPS ankle bracelet in the governor's office and it was so surreal," he said. "I don't feel I'm out of the woods, because I'm not. However, I do see the light at the end of the tunnel coming into focus."
Iowa's infectious disease transmission law will have a tiered system for charging that takes into account whether an HIV-infected person is complying with treatment options or uses a condom during intercourse.
Still, the court will have to rule in Rhoades' case based on the law in effect when he pleaded guilty, said Christopher Clark, a senior staff attorney with Lambda Legal who argued the case. The law now in place bars "intentional exposure" of the virus through "intimate contact."
Before the case went to the Iowa Supreme Court, the Iowa Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, ruling that Rhoades had exposed his partner to the HIV virus during oral sex. In its ruling, the appeals court wrote that "although the risk appears low, transmission of HIV via unprotected oral sex … is still possible."
While the change in Iowa's law won't affect Rhoades' case directly, Clark hopes it sends a signal to the justices, he said.
"I think it provides some helpful information to support the argument that our understanding of HIV transmission has evolved and that the law should reflect that evolution," he said.
The court could rule in a variety of ways other than tossing out Rhoades' conviction, Clark said. One of the appeal's biggest claims has been a procedural one: that Rhoades received ineffective assistance from the attorney who advised him to plead guilty.
If the court ruled on only that claim, Rhoades would be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and the case would go back to Black Hawk County District Court.
Black Hawk County Attorney Tom Ferguson declined to speculate whether his office would move forward prosecuting Rhoades if that happened.
The court could also simply uphold Rhoades' conviction, Ferguson said. "Once the court makes its ruling, we'll obviously examine it and go from there," he said.
But while Rhoades still waits for a ruling, he's happy that the law was changed five years after his conviction, a relatively short amount of time in Rhoades' view, he said.
Activists with groups like One Iowa and the Community HIV/Hepatitis Advocates of Iowa Network highlighted the case as part of their efforts. Initially after pleading guilty, Rhoades was sentenced to 25 years in prison and to be put on the sex offender registry for the rest of his life.
The gravity of the sentence helped propel his case into the media and galvanize activists, he said. "I was so harshly penalized and the circumstances were pretty much the least amount of risk (of transmission)," he said. "That got people's attention."
He began serving the sentence before he was freed by a judge and put on probation for five years. Rhoades' probation is scheduled to end in November and under the new law, he'll no longer be a sex offender.
In a sense, Rhoades has learned to be grateful for what he's been through and how he's brought the issue to the forefront, he said. ..Source.. by Grant Rodgers
March 30, 2014
Sex Offenders No More? Iowa Reconsiders Tough Law on HIV Exposure
In 2006, a few years after Leslie Flaggs learned she had contracted HIV, she made a new friend at her church in Sioux City, Iowa. As her relationship with the man turned from Bible study to intimacy, Flaggs said, she revealed to him that she had the disease.
But the man went to police in May 2007 and said she hadn’t disclosed her HIV status until after they’d slept together. Flaggs says that because she feared the man – who was convicted of domestic abuse-assault for hitting her two weeks before he filed his complaint, according to court documents – she didn’t challenge his story to police.
Flaggs agreed to a plea bargain rather than face the alternative: up to a quarter century in prison as mandated by a state law targeting criminal exposure to HIV. She received a 25-year suspended sentence, four years of probation and a decade on the sex offender registry. Prosecutors at the time said her accuser did not acquire HIV; the law applies whether or not victims are infected. NBC News could not reach him recently for comment.
For Flaggs, 53, living with the disease and being on the sex offender registry has been so hard that she has contemplated suicide. “This has taken my life," she said. "I feel like I’m in prison.”
But things may soon change for people living with HIV in Iowa: Lawmakers are debating whether to repeal the state law on criminal exposure and replace it with one that would impose more moderate sentences and would better reflect current medical understanding of how the disease is transmitted. If the legislation is approved, Iowa would be one of the first states to revise its decades-old statute that imposes criminal sentences for HIV exposure. HIV/AIDS advocates have long been fighting for such changes to the more than 30 state laws nationwide, but they’ve often met resistance.
“We’ve got to get this done this year,” said Tami Haught, of an Iowa nonprofit, Community HIV/Hepatitis Advocates of Iowa Network. She last month watched another Iowan receive a sentence similar to Flaggs’, and yet another state resident recently challenged his conviction for not disclosing his status to a partner even though he used a condom. “We can’t open up any other Iowan to this kind of prosecution when it is so unjust.”
Iowa’s current law imposes a maximum 25-year prison term regardless of whether the victim contracts the disease or whether there was intent to transmit it. The new legislation would create a tiered-sentencing system: the 25-year sentence still applies for those who aim to infect and whose victims acquire HIV, but those who did not intend to transmit the disease yet still exposed someone to it can get up to five or ten years in prison depending on whether or not their doctor told them that risk of transmission was high or low. And for the first time, those accused can seek acquittal if their doctor testifies that there was little to no chance of them passing the disease to others.
Like many other states, Iowa passed its HIV criminal transmission law after Congress approved the federal Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act in 1990. A provision of that law, which funds essential medical and support services to people with HIV, required every state to certify that its criminal laws were sufficient to prosecute any HIV-infected individual who knowingly exposed another person to the disease – even if they didn’t transmit it -- at the height of the epidemic.
But with more understanding of HIV and improved drugs and care management options, the disease is no longer the death sentence it once was. And often, there is less risk of exposure. An HIV-positive person with undetectable levels of the virus in their blood -- common these days thanks to treatment that was in its early stages of use and was unproven when Iowa’s law was passed -- isn’t likely to transmit it to anyone else. Criminal exposure statutes should be changed to take the modern realities of living with HIV into account, advocates say.
“These laws reflect a severe misunderstanding about the roots, the risks and the consequences of HIV infection that are stuck in the 1980s despite the fact that treatment of HIV has changed dramatically,” said Catherine Hanssens, executive director of The Center for HIV Law and Policy, an advocacy group.
It’s not just advocates who say the laws are outdated: The U.S. government’s Office of National AIDS Policy said studies show that intentional transmission is “atypical and uncommon” and has called on states to re-consider their statutes. These laws often “run counter to scientific evidence” about how the disease is transmitted and may “undermine” public health efforts to promote HIV screening and treatment, the group said in 2010.
The Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, has weighed in, too, issuing a resolution in 2013 calling for an end to the HIV-specific statutes, noting that among the concerns it shared with the national AIDS office was that such laws can lead to the unjust imprisonment of women and young people who don’t disclose their HIV status because of fear of violence.
Most of the state laws were passed before studies showed that antiretroviral therapy reduces the risk of HIV transmission, according to a recent article by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Justice Department. The laws also don't consider effective prevention measures, such as condoms.
"Many of these laws criminalize behaviors that pose low or negligible risk for HIV transmission," the authors said as they called for the state laws to be re-examined. The statutes could have "wide-ranging social implications," including "the perpetuation of misinformation" regarding how the disease is acquired, said the article published in the AIDS and Behavior journal.
It’s not clear how many people have been charged under any of the state HIV criminal statutes or similar laws in two U.S. territories. Hanssens’ center has tallied 180 prosecutions from 2008 to 2013, but she cautioned that the numbers weren’t complete since there is no uniform way of counting such cases nationwide. HIV-specific criminal laws are classified as felonies in 28 states and misdemeanors in two others -- Maryland and North Carolina. If convicted, prison terms vary by state: from a few years to decades.
And most of the laws don’t require transmission of HIV – just exposure, which doesn’t have to involve sex. In many of the states, district attorneys can pursue charges for spitting, biting or blood exposure, for sharing needles, or for blood, tissue and organ donations. But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says transmissions via most of these routes – except for needle sharing -- are less common than sexual transmissions or are very rare (it’s also impossible to get the disease from saliva).
Even some states without such HIV-specific statutes have used their general crime laws to prosecute people with the disease: A man was sentenced to a decade in prison after biting a police officer in upstate New York (his conviction was overturned in 2012 after a court ruled his saliva couldn’t be considered a “dangerous instrument.”)
Officials have warned about the public health fallout of such HIV criminal laws. Randy Mayer, chief of the bureau of HIV, STD, and Hepatitis at Iowa’s public health department, who supports updating the existing law, said a key concern is that the statute could be preventing people with HIV from seeking care out of fear “that somebody might use it against them.”
“It’s very clear that in Iowa, stigma is really a problem,” said Mayer, who has observed this issue in his 14 years working with people who have HIV or AIDS. A lot of it, he added, stems from prosecuting HIV sufferers “in a way that we don’t do for any other disease.”
Advocates have been working for years to get the HIV laws off the books. So far, Texas repealed its law in 1994 (though it used a general criminal statute to send a HIV-positive man away for spitting in 2008) and Illinois made some changes in 2012 to its statute that require prosecutors prove intent to transmit the disease and prohibit charges based upon biting, spitting, kissing and oral sex. At the federal level, lawmakers passed legislation in December requiring the Defense Department to study whether its current HIV and Hepatitis B policies represent medically-accurate understandings of these conditions.
But mostly, advocates say, they’ve encountered steep opposition to change at the state level. It took activists in Iowa six years to get a bill through a single chamber in the legislature – and what is currently being debated is not exactly what they’ve hoped for since the House amended what the Senate approved weeks ago. The House version only allows for felony-level charges, rather than misdemeanors, and would keep those convicted under it on the sex offender registry – unlike the Senate bill (which the state’s attorney general helped to draft). If the House version doesn’t change before passage, the two chambers will have to work out the differences.
Haught, the Iowa activist, said the hurdles are “dealing with the stigma, the stereotype, the fear and the discrimination that just automatically comes with HIV and AIDS.”
“Thirty years into the epidemic, we had hoped that we would be past that,” said Haught, who has HIV. “If you have cancer, people care. If you have AIDS, people judge.”
Iowa Rep. Chip Baltimore, who chairs the judiciary committee that approved sending the bill to the House floor, said the legislation needed to put more emphasis on the impact to victims. But he said lawmakers were trying to balance that with the culpability of the infected person and the public health concerns regarding testing and treatment.
“We acknowledge that the science and the medical advancements are rapidly making things much, much better,” he said, adding that the existing law was “draconian” and needed to be revised. Before the House votes on a final version, amendments can be made “and I suspect that we probably will make some,” he added.
Some prosecutors said they support criminal penalties, such as Assistant Woodbury County Attorney James Loomis, who handled Flaggs’ case. “I think it’s pretty serious when you’re engaging in that kind of behavior and you don’t advise the other person involved that you’re HIV positive,” said Loomis. “I think that a 25-year sentence is appropriate.”
The National District Attorneys Association encourages states that are re-visiting these HIV-specific laws to make them consistent with the latest medical advances, said Scott Burns, executive director. But regardless of whether or not the disease is transmitted, “it should be a crime in all 50 states for a person infected with HIV to have sex with another person and not disclose that,” he added.
Iowa’s House of Representatives has until April 22 to vote on a final bill. The governor said he will closely review the legislation if it gets to his desk.
For those convicted under the old law, the new legislation as it is written now likely won’t help them. Flaggs would still have four more years on the sex offender registry, which has made it hard for her to find work since she must stay a certain distance away from places where kids gather, like schools. She recently moved to Mississippi, where her five adult children live, because of those restrictions – but is having trouble getting her HIV medication since the state public health department deems her too healthy to receive the drugs.
“Sometimes I am just so miserable. I am just so tired of it,” she said of being on the registry. “I am a sex offender because I am HIV positive.” ..Source.. by Miranda Leitsinger
March 9, 2010
Senate passes penalty for throwing bodily fluids
It is quite clear that this bill is driven by the costs of civil commitment rather than any HIV type concerns (recognizing they do exist). After all, why take what the state considers -the most dangerous people- and place them back into prison where they will have more freedoms, and if HIV is a reality, could spread it more easily.3-9-2010 Missouri:
Sex offenders who remain in state custody after finishing prison terms could face more prison time if they throw the wrong stuff and the wrong people. Sex offenders considered a sexually violent predators can be left in the custody of the mental health department indefinitely after they finish their prison time. A special Sexual Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Unit houses them in Farmington.
The Senate has approved a proposal putting those people back in prison if they throw bodily fluids or feces at Mental Health Department workers. Sponsor Jim Lembke of St. Louis wants those actions declared felonies. He calls his bill an “opportunity” to get sex offenders back to prison if they misbehave. He draws support from Farmington Senator Kevin Engler, who says predators don’t want to go back to prison because pedophiles don’t do well there. But he says the bill is necessary to protect people in his town who work at the special unit.
In other words, he doesn't care about the folks who work in the prisons. Right?
Lembke’s bill upgrades the charge to a more serious felony if the bodily fluids are from a person with HIV, Hepatitis B or C, and exposes the victim to those diseases.
Corrections department workers, visitors, and other convicts are protected from similar assaults in a law passed earlier.
This bill (SB774) is awaiting action in the House. ..Source.. Bob Priddy
August 9, 2009
The Jailhouse Lawyer's Handbook
Here is the "Woman's Appendix"
- Table of Contents
- Chapter One: Introduction, How to Use the Handbook, What is Section 1983 and Who Can Use It, The Uses and Limits of Legal Action
- Chapter Two: Planning Your Suit, Who You Can Sue, The Prison Litigation Reform Act, What Are Your Rights?, Access to Reading Materials, Freedom of Speech / Political Beliefs, Freedom from Racial and Sexual Discrimination, Prison Searches, Prison Conditions, Right to Medical Care, Injunctions, Money Damages, Class Actions, Settlements
- Chapter Three: How to Start Your Lawsuit, What Legal Papers You Need, The Summons and Complaint Forms, In Forma Pauperis, Three Strikes Rule
- Chapter Four: What Happens After Your File Your Suit, Dismissals, Summary Judgements, Issue of Mootness, Discovery Process
- Chapter Five: Know Your Rights Information, Your Rights to File Suit, What to do Against Retaliation
- Chapter Six: The Legal System and Legal Research, How to Read Legal Citations, Introduction to Legal Writing
- Appendices: Glossary, Legal Forms and Information, Constitutional Amendments, Sources of Support and Publicity, Information for Non-Citizens, List of District Courts
Chapter 1 - Introduction: How to Use the JLM
Chapter 2 - Introduction to Legal Research
Chapter 3 - Your Right to Learn the Law and Go to Court
Chapter 4 - How to Find A Lawyer
Chapter 5 - Choosing a Court & a Lawsuit: An Overview of the Options
Chapter 6 - An Introduction to Legal Documents
Chapter 7 - Freedom of Information
Chapter 8 - Obtaining Information to Prepare Your Case: The Process of Discovery
Chapter 9 - Appealing Your Conviction or Sentence
Chapter 10 - Applying for Re-Sentencing for Drug Offenses
Chapter 11 - Using Post-Conviction DNA Testing to Attack Your Conviction or Sentence
Chapter 12 - Appealing Your Conviction Based on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Chapter 13 - Federal Habeas Corpus
Chapter 14 - The Prison Litigation Reform Act
Chapter 15 - Inmate Grievance Procedures
Chapter 16 - Using 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 28 U.S.C. 1331 to Obtain Relief From Violations of Federal Law
Chapter 17 - The State's Duty to Protect You and Your Property: Tort Actions
Chapter 18 - Your Rights at Prison Disciplinary Hearings
Chapter 19 - Your Right to Communicate With the Outside World
Chapter 20 - Using Article 440 of the New York Criminal Procedural Law to Attack Your Unfair Conviction or Illegal Sentence
Chapter 21 - State Habeas Corpus: Florida, New York, and Texas
Chapter 22 - How to Challenge Administrative Decisions Using Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules
Chapter 23 - Your Right to Adequate Medical Care
Chapter 24 - Your Right to be Free from Assault by Prison Guards and Other Prisoners
Chapter 25 - Your Right to Be Free From Illegal Body Searches
Chapter 26 - Infectious Diseases (AIDS, Hepatitis, and Tuberculosis) in Prison
Chapter 27 - Religious Freedom in Prison
Chapter 28 - Rights of Prisoners with Disabilities
Chapter 29 - Special Issues for Prisoners with Mental Illness
Chapter 30 - Special Information for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Prisoners
Chapter 31 - Security Classification & Gang Validation
Chapter 32 - Special Considerations for Sex Offenders (Related)
Chapter 33 - Rights of Incarcerated Parents
Chapter 34 - Temporary Release Programs
Chapter 35 - Getting Out Early: Conditional & Early Release
Chapter 35 - Parole
Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix III
Appendix IV
Appendix V
Immigration and Consular Access Supplement
Thanks to SexOffenderIssues for the tip on this great find!
April 22, 2008
Number of HIV-Positive State and Federal Inmates Continues to Decline
About 44 percent of state inmates and 39 percent of federal inmates have medical problems
4-22-2008 National:
WASHINGTON, April 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Between 2005 and 2006 the number of state and federal prisoners who were HIV-positive decreased 3.1 percent -- from 22,676 to 21,980 inmates, according to a report by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Another BJS report estimated that 44 percent of state inmates and 39 percent of federal inmates reported a current medical problem other than a cold or a virus.
Sixteen states and the federal system reported a decrease in the number of HIV-infected prisoners and 25 states reported an increase from 2005 through 2006. Texas, with 293 more HIV-positive inmates, reported the largest increase. New York with 440 fewer HIV-positive prisoners reported the largest drop.
On December 31, 2006, an estimated 5,977 inmates had confirmed AIDS, up from 5,620 in 2005. Confirmed AIDS cases accounted for more than a quarter of inmates known to be HIV positive.
At yearend 2006 the rate of confirmed AIDS in state and federal prisoners was more than 2 1/2 times higher than in the U.S. population. About 46 in 10,000 prison inmates were estimated to have confirmed AIDS, compared to 17 per 10,000 persons in the general population.
During 2006, the number of AIDS-related deaths in state and federal prisons totaled 167, down from 203 in 2005. In 2006, nearly 5 percent of state inmate deaths were attributable to AIDS, down from 34 percent in 1995.
At yearend 2006, 0.9 percent of federal inmates (1,530) were known to be HIV positive, down from 1,592 in 2005. Of the federal prisoners known to be HIV positive at yearend 2006, 656 had confirmed AIDS, up from 594 in 2005.
During 2006, 12 federal inmates died from AIDS-related causes, down from 27 in 2005. During 2006, the rate of death due to AIDS-related causes among federal prisoners was 6 per 100,000 inmates.
Current medical problems among prisoners include arthritis, asthma, cancer, diabetes, heart problems, hypertension, kidney problems, liver problems, paralysis, problems due to a stroke, hepatitis, HIV, STDs, or tuberculosis. More than half of female inmates and over a third of male inmates reported a current medical problem in a national inmate survey.
Among inmates admitted to state and federal prisons, about an eighth reported having surgery, and half reported having a dental problem. A third of state inmates and 28 percent of federal inmates reported either an accidental injury or a fight-related injury since admission to prison.
More than a third (36 percent) of state inmates and nearly a quarter (24 percent) of federal inmates reported having an impairment, including a learning, speech, hearing, vision, mobility, or mental impairment.
More than half of state (51 percent) and federal inmates (56 percent) who were homeless in the year prior to arrest reported a current medical problem compared to 43 percent of state and 38 percent of federal inmates who were not homeless. Sixty percent of state inmates and 58 percent of federal inmates who used a needle to inject drugs reported a current medical problem compared to 40 percent state and 36 percent of federal who did not.
Among inmates who reported a medical problem, 70 percent of state inmates and 76 percent of federal inmates reported seeing a medical professional because of the problem. More than 8 in 10 inmates in state and federal prisons reported receiving a medical exam or a blood test since admission.
Among females in state prisons, 4 percent said they were pregnant at the time of admission; 3 percent of federal inmates were pregnant. Of those in state prisons who said they were pregnant at admission, 94 percent received an obstetric exam. More than half (54 percent) received some type of pregnancy care.
The reports, HIV in Prisons, 2006 (NCJ-222179), and Medical Problems of Prisoners (NCJ-221740) were written by BJS Statistician Laura M. Maruschak. Following publication, the reports can be found at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/hivp/2006/hivp06.htm and http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/mpp/mpp.htm.
For additional information about the Bureau of Justice Statistics' statistical reports and programs, please visit the BJS Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.
The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) provides federal leadership in developing the nation's capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice and assist victims. OJP has five component bureaus: the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the National Institute of Justice; the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and the Office for Victims of Crime.
Additionally, OJP has two program offices: the Community Capacity Development Office, which incorporates the Weed and Seed strategy, and the Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking (SMART) Office. More information can be found at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov. ..more.. by PR Newswire
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
