{"title":"精神错乱、残疾和责任:重新思考自主性挑战结构性不平等。","authors":"Jane Richards","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqae020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) operates as a lens of analysis to show that the insanity doctrine and its dispositions discriminate against the category of people with mental disabilities to whom the defence applies. However, while identifying the discrimination perpetuated by the insanity doctrine, this article argues that the CRPD Committee has failed to uncover the ultimate source of disadvantage of which the doctrine is merely symptomatic. Instead, it is argued that the criminal justice system entrenches a notion of 'capacity-responsibility' which situates the mentally disabled defendant as the 'other'. In an attempt to challenge this embedded structural injustice, the article thus calls on the CRPD Committee for a more holistic application of the CRPD, to provide the tools to challenge that will move towards greater equality for people with mental disabilities.</p>","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"44 4","pages":"832-859"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11604275/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Insanity, Disability and Responsibility: Rethinking Autonomy to Challenge Structural Inequality.\",\"authors\":\"Jane Richards\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ojls/gqae020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) operates as a lens of analysis to show that the insanity doctrine and its dispositions discriminate against the category of people with mental disabilities to whom the defence applies. However, while identifying the discrimination perpetuated by the insanity doctrine, this article argues that the CRPD Committee has failed to uncover the ultimate source of disadvantage of which the doctrine is merely symptomatic. Instead, it is argued that the criminal justice system entrenches a notion of 'capacity-responsibility' which situates the mentally disabled defendant as the 'other'. In an attempt to challenge this embedded structural injustice, the article thus calls on the CRPD Committee for a more holistic application of the CRPD, to provide the tools to challenge that will move towards greater equality for people with mental disabilities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47225,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\"44 4\",\"pages\":\"832-859\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11604275/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqae020\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqae020","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Insanity, Disability and Responsibility: Rethinking Autonomy to Challenge Structural Inequality.
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) operates as a lens of analysis to show that the insanity doctrine and its dispositions discriminate against the category of people with mental disabilities to whom the defence applies. However, while identifying the discrimination perpetuated by the insanity doctrine, this article argues that the CRPD Committee has failed to uncover the ultimate source of disadvantage of which the doctrine is merely symptomatic. Instead, it is argued that the criminal justice system entrenches a notion of 'capacity-responsibility' which situates the mentally disabled defendant as the 'other'. In an attempt to challenge this embedded structural injustice, the article thus calls on the CRPD Committee for a more holistic application of the CRPD, to provide the tools to challenge that will move towards greater equality for people with mental disabilities.
期刊介绍:
The Oxford Journal of Legal Studies is published on behalf of the Faculty of Law in the University of Oxford. It is designed to encourage interest in all matters relating to law, with an emphasis on matters of theory and on broad issues arising from the relationship of law to other disciplines. No topic of legal interest is excluded from consideration. In addition to traditional questions of legal interest, the following are all within the purview of the journal: comparative and international law, the law of the European Community, legal history and philosophy, and interdisciplinary material in areas of relevance.