Insanity, Disability and Responsibility: Rethinking Autonomy to Challenge Structural Inequality

Jane Richards

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2024, vol. 44, issue 4, 832-859

Abstract: 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.

Keywords: CRPD; insanity; disability; autonomy; criminal responsibility (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ojls/gqae020 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:oxjlsj:v:44:y:2024:i:4:p:832-859.

Access Statistics for this article

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies is currently edited by Liz Fisher, Stefan Enchelmaier, Andreas Televantos, Liora Lazarus and Jennifer Payne

More articles in Oxford Journal of Legal Studies from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().