‘It takes two to tango’: HIV non-disclosure and the neutralization of victimhood*

Abstract

There is a rich and fulsome literature on victims and the processes by which certain groups or individuals come to be constructed as victims. Less attention has been paid to the rhetorical moves employed as counter strategies by groups who seek to challenge victim status and the use of the 'victim' label for particular groups. Using the debates around the criminalization of HIV nondisclosure as a case study, the aim of this paper is to contribute towards a better understanding of efforts to deny or neutralize victimhood. The paper identifies several strategies utilized by individuals and groups, the object of which is to raise questions about the appropriateness of a criminal response to HIV non-disclosure by constructing those who have had intimate encounters with HIV non-disclosers as equally responsible for their circumstances rather than as victims of non-disclosers.

Constructing victimhood in Canadian news coverage of HIV criminalisation: Claims‐making activities and HIV non‐disclosure

“…Such "techniques of vilification" support the view that non-disclosing HIV-positive partners bear the sole responsibility for HIV risk and thus should be criminally charged for any harm that may result from non-disclosure. More recently, Speakman (2019) turned her attention to the rhetorical arguments in social media, online magazines and news media used by HIV activists and other social actors that deny claims of victimhood that then questions the appropriateness of HIV criminalisation and the use of the law to intervene in HIV non-disclosure. Speakman's (2017Speakman's ( , 2019 analyses attest to the significance of mass media in reflecting and shaping debates about HIV criminalisation.…”

Beyond criminalization: reconsidering HIV criminalization in an era of reform

“…blame -and who gets to be a victim deserving of the public's sympathy -in cases of HIV exposure [15].…”

“…The second strain of inquiry reveals how HIV-related prosecutions reinforce stigmatizing labels of people living with HIV as deviant and blameworthy [14 ▪ ]. By situating people living with HIV as deviant and their partners as ‘good victims,’ prosecutors and the media shape the public's understanding of who is to blame – and who gets to be a victim deserving of the public's sympathy – in cases of HIV exposure [15].…”

Toward a Critical Criminology of HIV Criminalization

“…Assessing the behavior of criminal justice actors is crucial for two reasons: first, criminal justice actors possess far greater discretion than most other government officials; and second, criminal justice actors are often empowered to use serious, and sometimes deadly, force (Vorenberg 1976;Waegel 1984). Criminologists are well-placed to link HIV criminalization with other criminological trends, including the punitive turn and the harshness of criminal sentencing; victim's rights and the restorative justice movement; incarceration and its alternatives, including problem-solving courts; and the collateral consequences and sex offender registries (Hoppe 2016;Lancaster 2017;Speakman 2019;Velez 2013). A criminological critique of HIV criminalization may also benefit from similar concerns about "carceral feminism" and the use of law-and-order responses, including harsher sentences, for sexual and gender-based violence (Taylor 2018).…”

“…More recently, in February 2006, a special issue of Criminology and Public Policy focused on HIV in prisons-this time, not merely analyzing rates of HIV infection among incarcerated populations, but mapping and modeling how HIV spread in the incarcerated setting (Arriola 2006;Beckwith et al 2006;Krebs 2006). Newer research has contributed mainly to policing and carceral studies (Alarid and Marquart 2009;Hartley et al 2013;Speakman 2019).…”