Now, the question here is who to believe’

Criminalising HIV nondisclosure, emotions and determinations of credibility in R. v. T.S

Dados Bibliográficos

ID13132016
AutoresKatarina Bogosavljevic (0000-0002-2628-3083, University of Ottawa, autor correspondente), Jennifer M Kilty (0000-0002-2914-7968, University of Ottawa)
Ano2020
Volume3
Fascículo2
Páginas209-225
Data de publicação2020-10-23
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessNão
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoEmotions and Society (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 2631-6900 • E-ISSN: 2631-6897
EditoraBristol University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1332/263169020x16014084980811
OpenAlexW3094345297
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas1
Referências citadas17

This article examines how the judge, defence counsel and Crown prosecution in R. v. T.S . mobilised feeling and framing rules to assess the credibility of the complainants and accused. T.S. is a former Canadian Football League linebacker who was convicted of aggravated sexual assault for failing to disclose to two women that he is HIV positive. Our analysis of the trial transcripts reveals how T.S.’s failure to disclose his HIV-positive status and his lack of an overtly emotional courtroom display led to his construction as callous towards the health of his sexual partners and subsequently to his characterisation as noncredible. Alternatively, the complainants had to authentically re-perform their original emotional reactions to learning that T.S. was HIV positive while testifying in court in order to be deemed credible. This signals the retroactive aspect of emotions in the context of a trial. Using Ahmed’s notion of the ‘stickiness of emotion’, our second finding reveals that while the type and intensity of emotional courtroom displays structure interpretations of credibility in criminal trials, moral emotions such as indignation, fear and disgust stick to HIV. This implies a connection between perceptions of morality and credibility where people living with HIV/AIDS who fail to disclose are assessed as always-already unremorseful and noncredible thereby showcasing the continuity of HIV stigma. We show how determinations of credibility in HIV nondisclosure cases can problematically devalue the emotions that structure disclosure decision making in favour of prioritising the feelings of anger, shock, fear, frustration and disgust felt by complainants

Anger · Context (archaeology · Credibility · Criminology · Disgust · Feeling · Indignation · Morality · Political science · Law · Law in Society and Culture · Psychology · Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending · Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies · Social Psychology