Abstract:
The objective of this thesis is to demonstrate the importance of the concepts of
rationality, reasonableness, culpability and autonomy that inform and support our
conception of both the person and the punishable subject. A critical discourse analysis
tracing these concepts through both the law and psychological tools used to evaluate the
fitness of a person reveals that these concepts and their implied values are inconsistently
applied to the mentally disordered who come into conflict with the law. I argue that the
result of this inconsistency compromises a person's autonomy which is a contradiction to
this concept as a foundational principle of the law. Ultimately, this thesis does not
provide a solution to be employed in policy making, but its analysis leaves open
possibilities for further exploration into the ways legal and social justice can be reconciled.
