Krinostic Injustice

Abstract This paper articulates a kind of epistemic injustice in respect of judgement. I dub it ‘krinostic injustice’ (in Ancient Greek, the verb ϰϱίνω means ‘to decide’). It illuminates a phenomenon in which a hearer believes a speaker’s testimonies insofar as they constitute what I call ‘basic’ reports, such as recollections of a series of events, but disbelieves the speaker’s testimony concerning the characterisation of their experience. To motivate the distinction between basic reports and characterisations, I examine a lawyer’s cross-examination of a complainant in a sexual assault case. I then explain when a hearer’s disbelief of a speaker’s interpretative report can constitute krinostic injustice. Finally, I consider objections to my view.