Perceptions of the potential transmission of the human immune-deficiency virus (HIV): legal decision-making in civil court

The present study analyzed legal decision-making in a human immune-deficiency virus (HIV) civil trial. Male and female community members read a trial summary in which a female plaintiff (either sober or intoxicated at the time of sexual intercourse) alleged that a male defendant failed to disclose his HIV status prior to having sex. Participants provided judgements about the case (e.g. case decision, plaintiff and defendant credibility). The primary results indicated that: (a) participants provided more plaintiff case decisions overall, (b) participants decided in favor of a plaintiff more when she was sober during sexual intercourse compared to when she was intoxicated, given that the former plaintiff had taken more responsibility for her behavior (LaFree, 1989. Rape and criminal justice. Wadsworth), (c) pro-defendant/pro-plaintiff ratings indirectly influenced the relationship between intoxication condition and case decision (e.g. a sober plaintiff led to higher pro-plaintiff ratings and more plaintiff decisions), and (d) participants’ reasons for their plaintiff decisions included a belief that the defendant had a responsibility to communicate his HIV status, and reasons for decisions in favor of the defendant focused on the belief that the plaintiff had a responsibility to protect herself from STD exposure.