(界限(不)模糊?性别、残疾和心智能力法的动态界限

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q1 LAW International Journal of Law and Psychiatry Pub Date : 2024-02-13 DOI:10.1016/j.ijlp.2024.101960
Ruby Reed-Berendt , Beverley Clough
{"title":"(界限(不)模糊?性别、残疾和心智能力法的动态界限","authors":"Ruby Reed-Berendt ,&nbsp;Beverley Clough","doi":"10.1016/j.ijlp.2024.101960","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In this article, we consider the approach to decisions regarding capacity and sexual relations in the Court of Protection in England and Wales, and the boundaries drawn through its application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We discuss recent developments in the law following the UK Supreme Court case <em>A Local Authority v JB</em> [2021] UKSC 52, which recast how capacity in relation to sexual relations ought to be assessed. Noting that this case has been warmly received by some feminist theorists for the centrality it affords to mutual consent, we draw on critical approaches from feminist, Black feminist, and disability scholarship, to call attention to the legal techniques and judicial reasoning in this case and the ways in which this embeds problematic norms and reinforces the marginalisation of disabled people. We call attention to the impoverished notions of equality advanced in the case and the assumptions that this appears to rely upon which obscure the realities and histories of legal intervention in disabled people's lives. We further argue that the approach in sexual relations cases appears to use capacity determinations as a vehicle to supplement gaps left by the criminal law, blurring their distinct rationalities and enabling further opportunities for control. We suggest that important insights can be gained from bringing these critical perspectives into conversation, including unsettling assumptions contained in the judgment and in mental capacity scholarship more broadly, manoeuvring us out of the perceived intractability of legal reasoning in this context, and offering productive ways forward.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47930,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law and Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252724000098/pdfft?md5=db6ab04b11be2fb2a043cfd1bf571595&pid=1-s2.0-S0160252724000098-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"(Un)blurred lines? Sex, disability, and the dynamic boundaries of mental capacity law\",\"authors\":\"Ruby Reed-Berendt ,&nbsp;Beverley Clough\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijlp.2024.101960\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In this article, we consider the approach to decisions regarding capacity and sexual relations in the Court of Protection in England and Wales, and the boundaries drawn through its application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We discuss recent developments in the law following the UK Supreme Court case <em>A Local Authority v JB</em> [2021] UKSC 52, which recast how capacity in relation to sexual relations ought to be assessed. Noting that this case has been warmly received by some feminist theorists for the centrality it affords to mutual consent, we draw on critical approaches from feminist, Black feminist, and disability scholarship, to call attention to the legal techniques and judicial reasoning in this case and the ways in which this embeds problematic norms and reinforces the marginalisation of disabled people. We call attention to the impoverished notions of equality advanced in the case and the assumptions that this appears to rely upon which obscure the realities and histories of legal intervention in disabled people's lives. We further argue that the approach in sexual relations cases appears to use capacity determinations as a vehicle to supplement gaps left by the criminal law, blurring their distinct rationalities and enabling further opportunities for control. We suggest that important insights can be gained from bringing these critical perspectives into conversation, including unsettling assumptions contained in the judgment and in mental capacity scholarship more broadly, manoeuvring us out of the perceived intractability of legal reasoning in this context, and offering productive ways forward.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47930,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Law and Psychiatry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252724000098/pdfft?md5=db6ab04b11be2fb2a043cfd1bf571595&pid=1-s2.0-S0160252724000098-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Law and Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252724000098\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law and Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252724000098","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本文中,我们将探讨英格兰和威尔士保护法院对行为能力和性关系做出裁决的方法,以及通过适用 2005 年《心智能力法》(MCA)所划定的界限。我们讨论了英国最高法院 A 地方当局诉 JB [2021] UKSC 52 一案之后法律的最新发展,该案重塑了与性关系有关的行为能力的评估方式。我们注意到此案因其赋予相互同意的中心地位而受到一些女性主义理论家的热烈欢迎,我们借鉴了女性主义、黑人女性主义和残疾学术的批判性方法,呼吁关注此案中的法律技巧和司法推理,以及其中嵌入问题规范和强化残疾人边缘化的方式。我们呼吁关注本案中提出的贫乏的平等概念,以及这种概念似乎所依赖的假设,这些假设掩盖了法律干预残疾人生活的现实和历史。我们还认为,性关系案件中的方法似乎是将能力鉴定作为补充刑法空白的工具,模糊了两者不同的合理性,为控制提供了更多机会。我们认为,将这些批判性视角引入对话中可以获得重要的启示,包括打破判决书和更广泛的精神行为能力学术研究中的假设,使我们摆脱法律推理在这种情况下的棘手性,并提供富有成效的前进方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
(Un)blurred lines? Sex, disability, and the dynamic boundaries of mental capacity law

In this article, we consider the approach to decisions regarding capacity and sexual relations in the Court of Protection in England and Wales, and the boundaries drawn through its application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We discuss recent developments in the law following the UK Supreme Court case A Local Authority v JB [2021] UKSC 52, which recast how capacity in relation to sexual relations ought to be assessed. Noting that this case has been warmly received by some feminist theorists for the centrality it affords to mutual consent, we draw on critical approaches from feminist, Black feminist, and disability scholarship, to call attention to the legal techniques and judicial reasoning in this case and the ways in which this embeds problematic norms and reinforces the marginalisation of disabled people. We call attention to the impoverished notions of equality advanced in the case and the assumptions that this appears to rely upon which obscure the realities and histories of legal intervention in disabled people's lives. We further argue that the approach in sexual relations cases appears to use capacity determinations as a vehicle to supplement gaps left by the criminal law, blurring their distinct rationalities and enabling further opportunities for control. We suggest that important insights can be gained from bringing these critical perspectives into conversation, including unsettling assumptions contained in the judgment and in mental capacity scholarship more broadly, manoeuvring us out of the perceived intractability of legal reasoning in this context, and offering productive ways forward.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.70%
发文量
54
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Law and Psychiatry is intended to provide a multi-disciplinary forum for the exchange of ideas and information among professionals concerned with the interface of law and psychiatry. There is a growing awareness of the need for exploring the fundamental goals of both the legal and psychiatric systems and the social implications of their interaction. The journal seeks to enhance understanding and cooperation in the field through the varied approaches represented, not only by law and psychiatry, but also by the social sciences and related disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Global prevalence of borderline personality disorder and self-reported symptoms of adults in prison: A systematic review and meta-analysis Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) and the criminal justice system: A guide for legal professionals Advance healthcare directives and advance choice documents in psychiatry: New resources, new legislation, new opportunities Policing psychiatric illness: An organisational paradox for Health & Law Antisocial personality disorder and determinants among prisoners in South Gondar zone correctional institutions, Northwest Ethiopia: An institution-based cross-sectional study
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1