Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorToetenel, Jody
dc.date.accessioned2010-10-26T14:57:11Z
dc.date.available2010-10-26T14:57:11Z
dc.date.issued2010-10-26
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10464/3042
dc.description.abstractThe 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.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherBrock Universityen_US
dc.subjectCompetency to stand trialen_US
dc.subjectInsanity (Law)en_US
dc.titleFitness to stand trial : how discourses of rationality, reasonableness and culpability inform the law and psychiatry to create standards of normalen_US
dc.typeElectronic Thesis or Dissertationen_US
dc.degree.nameM.A. Social Justice and Equity Studiesen_US
dc.degree.levelMastersen_US
dc.contributor.departmentSocial Justice and Equity Studies Programen_US
dc.degree.disciplineFaculty of Social Sciencesen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record