Citation

Lunny AM. Soc. Leg. Stud. 2013; 22(2): 231-245.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2013, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0964663912465638

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This article utilizes Kendall Thomas' psychoanalysis of judicial discourse to analyze the meaning and effect of two distinct judicial understandings of the homicide of Aaron Webster, a man who had been beaten to death by several young males in a Vancouver queer cruising area. In the reason for sentence in R. v. J.S., the judge gave a creative application to the law of enhanced sentencing when he acknowledged that the intended victims of the assault - 'fucking voyeurs' - could fall within the purview of 'sexual orientation'. Striking a dissonant tone, the judge in the subsequent case, R. v. Cran, claimed that she found no evidence of hate motivation against gay men in the attack and that Webster's reason for being in the park that night dressed only in his boots was literally unremarkable: '[Webster] was simply standing near a parking lot, smoking, naked'. By analyzing the trope of the scopic along with the instances of judicial dissonance, rhetorical excess and defensive posturing, claims of judicial rationality, neutrality and objectivity come under scrutiny.

Language: en