Locating Disability Within a Health Justice Framework
In: 50 Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 663 (2022).
16 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: 50 Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 663 (2022).
SSRN
In: 69 (4) J. LEGAL EDUC. __ (2022 Forthcoming)
SSRN
SSRN
SSRN
In: Jasmine E. Harris, Commentary: Buck v. Bell in Feminist Judgments: Reproductive Justice Rewritten (Kimberly Mutcherson, ed., Cambridge University Press, March 2020).
SSRN
In: Forthcoming, Cornell Law Review Online, Vol. 106, 2021
SSRN
Working paper
In: The Frailty of Disability Rights, 169 U. Pa. L. Rev. Online 29 (2020).
SSRN
In: 57 Family Court Review 14 (2019).
SSRN
In: American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2014
SSRN
Our nation is engaged in deep debate over sexual consent. But to date the discussion has overlooked sexual consent's implications for a key demographic: people with mental disabilities, for whom the reported incidence of sexual violence is three times that of the nondisabled population. Even as popular debate overlooks the question of sexual consent for those with disabilities, contemporary legal scholars critique governmental overregulation of this area, arguing that it diminishes the agency and dignity of people with disabilities. Yet in defending their position, these scholars rely on empirical data from over twenty years ago, when disability and sexual assault laws and social norms looked quite different than those of today.Current scholarly discussions about sexual consent and mental disability suffer from an outdated empirical baseline that masks critical information about the profile and experience of sexual violence. This Article creates a new empirical baseline for modern scholarship on sexual assault and disability. Based on an original survey of all fifty states and jurisprudence from the past twenty years of state sexual assault and rape appeals where the victim has a mental disability, this Article updates and critiques four major claims about sexual consent and disability in the current literature. First, through a review of statutes across the country, it complicates the traditional notion that statutes are unduly vague in their definition of disability, and as a result, either over or underemphasize disability. The author advances a new organizing taxonomy for sexual assault statutes addressing consent for people with mental disabilities. Second, this dataset upends the prevailing claim by legal scholars that courts overemphasize standardized evidence such as intelligence quotient (IQ) or mental age when judging a person's functional capacity to consent to sex. Instead, this Article shows that courts frequently look at adaptive abilities to augment standardized evidence but, in doing so, overvalue certain kinds of adaptive evidence that have low probative value, to the detriment of persons with mental disabilities. Third, legislators and legal scholars focus on people in large institutional settings in their critiques of overregulation, but this new data shows that people in community-based settings are more often the complainants in rape and sexual assault cases. This raises important questions about the types of relationships the state regulates (formal versus informal care relationships), the location of these relationships (community versus institutional settings), and issues of class that intersect with disability and sexual regulation. By not addressing the right issues and contexts, current law leaves people with mental disabilities simultaneously more susceptible to sexual violence and less empowered to exercise sexual agency. Finally, the Article more deeply examines the traditional assumption that people with disabilities rarely have access to testify by considering a rarely-mentioned risk: whether testimony by people with disabilities skews capacity determinations because factfinders cannot see beyond the existence of the disability—a phenomenon which the author terms "the aesthetics of disability." This Article calls upon scholars, courts, and policymakers to consider difficult questions of regulating sexual consent in ways that areconsistent with the current profile and experience of sexual violence for people with mental disabilities reflected in this study.
BASE
In: Journal of economics, race, and policy, Band 4, Heft 2, S. 77-90
ISSN: 2520-842X
In: Women's studies quarterly: WSQ, Band 48, Heft 1-2, S. 84-102
ISSN: 1934-1520
In: Family court review: publ. in assoc. with: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Band 57, Heft 1, S. 14-20
ISSN: 1744-1617
In this introductory essay to the Special Issue, I argue that both family law and disability rights law scholars should examine a key point of intersection across areas: legal capacity or the law's recognition of the rights and responsibilities of an individual. For example, parental termination proceedings center on parental fitness and functional capabilities. I contextualize the articles in the Special Issue by Leslie Francis and Robyn Powell on the role of reasonable accommodations for parents with disabilities in parental termination proceedings. In addition, I call upon legal scholars, family law courts, and practitioners to reimagine governing legal standards in family law according to principles of universal design to shift the baseline capabilities associated with parenting and parental fitness.
In: University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Band 170, Heft 7
SSRN
In: 55 COLUM. HUM. RTS. L. REV. F. 1 (2023).
SSRN