Vulnerable to the State? The Indefinite Imprisonment of People with Intellectual Disability Under Forensic Mental Health Law as Structural Violence

IF 0.8 Q2 LAW
Pan Karanikolas, Tessa-May Zirnsak
{"title":"Vulnerable to the State? The Indefinite Imprisonment of People with Intellectual Disability Under Forensic Mental Health Law as Structural Violence","authors":"Pan Karanikolas, Tessa-May Zirnsak","doi":"10.1080/13200968.2022.2138183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Violence against people with intellectual disability is commonly understood to occur as a result of an individual’s heightened ‘vulnerability’, based on their disability status. Critical disability studies scholars have problematised ‘vulnerability’, critiquing this term as being socially produced and based in a negative ontology of disability. In this article, we critically reflect on the ways in which people with intellectual disability labels are subjected to structural violence via criminalisation and indefinite detention in prison through the operation of interlocking and multi-layered systems, such as police systems, prison systems, guardianship systems, and the operation of forensic mental health systems. We argue that vulnerability framings used by these systems serve to obscure the structural violence that they ultimately perpetuate. To conduct this analysis, we engage with a testimony: Sue’s story. Sue is an intellectually disabled woman, whose entry into the criminal legal system in Victoria begins with police contact and summary offence charges and ends in indefinite detention after an assessment of unfitness is made under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic) (CMIA). Through an examination of Sue’s case and treatment under the CMIA, we argue that one of the key limitations of vulnerability theories is that notions of ‘vulnerability’ imply a need for protection that can both obscure and animate the use of carceral responses which reproduce harm and embed the ongoing debilitation of criminalised disabled people in society.","PeriodicalId":43532,"journal":{"name":"Australian Feminist Law Journal","volume":"48 1","pages":"11 - 30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Feminist Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13200968.2022.2138183","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Violence against people with intellectual disability is commonly understood to occur as a result of an individual’s heightened ‘vulnerability’, based on their disability status. Critical disability studies scholars have problematised ‘vulnerability’, critiquing this term as being socially produced and based in a negative ontology of disability. In this article, we critically reflect on the ways in which people with intellectual disability labels are subjected to structural violence via criminalisation and indefinite detention in prison through the operation of interlocking and multi-layered systems, such as police systems, prison systems, guardianship systems, and the operation of forensic mental health systems. We argue that vulnerability framings used by these systems serve to obscure the structural violence that they ultimately perpetuate. To conduct this analysis, we engage with a testimony: Sue’s story. Sue is an intellectually disabled woman, whose entry into the criminal legal system in Victoria begins with police contact and summary offence charges and ends in indefinite detention after an assessment of unfitness is made under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic) (CMIA). Through an examination of Sue’s case and treatment under the CMIA, we argue that one of the key limitations of vulnerability theories is that notions of ‘vulnerability’ imply a need for protection that can both obscure and animate the use of carceral responses which reproduce harm and embed the ongoing debilitation of criminalised disabled people in society.
易受国家影响?根据《法医精神卫生法》对智力残疾者的无限期监禁作为结构性暴力
摘要针对智障人士的暴力行为通常被理解为由于个人的残疾状况而导致的“脆弱性”增强。批判性残疾研究学者对“脆弱性”提出了问题,批评这个术语是社会产生的,基于残疾的负面本体论。在这篇文章中,我们批判性地反思了有智力残疾标签的人如何通过刑事定罪和无限期监禁,通过警察系统、监狱系统、监护系统和法医心理健康系统等相互关联的多层次系统的运作,遭受结构性暴力。我们认为,这些系统使用的脆弱性框架掩盖了它们最终延续的结构性暴力。为了进行这一分析,我们提供了一份证词:苏的故事。苏是一名智障女性,她进入维多利亚州的刑事法律体系始于警方接触和即决犯罪指控,并在根据1997年《犯罪(精神障碍和不适合审判)法》(维多利亚州)(CMIA)对其不适合性进行评估后以无限期拘留结束。通过对苏的案件和CMIA下的待遇的研究,我们认为,脆弱性理论的一个关键局限性是,“脆弱性”的概念意味着需要保护,这种保护既可以掩盖又可以激活尸体反应的使用,这种反应会造成伤害,并将被定罪的残疾人的持续衰弱嵌入社会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
40.00%
发文量
1
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信