When the System Assumes Ability
A person with an intellectual disability signs a confession they do not fully understand. Someone in a mental health crisis is met with police instead of healthcare workers. A deaf defendant struggles to follow proceedings even with an interpreter present. A person with autism is held in solitary confinement, a punishment that for them constitutes severe psychological harm. The justice system was largely designed for people who can hear instructions, process complex information quickly, communicate in expected ways, and function in stressful institutional environments. For those with cognitive, mental health, physical, or sensory disabilities, every stage from arrest to reintegration presents barriers that others never encounter.
The Case for Accommodation and Diversion
Advocates argue that the justice system's failure to accommodate disability creates profound injustice. People with intellectual disabilities are more likely to confess falsely, agree to plea deals they do not understand, and waive rights they cannot comprehend. Those with mental illness are criminalized for symptoms rather than connected to treatment. Physical accessibility in courthouses and correctional facilities remains inadequate decades after legal requirements were established. From this view, justice requires more than formal equality. It requires recognizing that disability affects every interaction with the system and demands accommodation, diversion programs, and alternatives to incarceration. When someone's disability contributed to their offense or affects their ability to participate in their defense, the system must respond differently or risk punishing people for circumstances beyond their control.
The Case for Accountability and Public Safety
Others worry that emphasizing disability risks excusing harmful behavior or creating inconsistent standards of accountability. While reasonable accommodations are necessary, the justice system's primary function is protecting public safety and holding people responsible for their actions. Not every person with a disability who commits a crime did so because of that disability. From this perspective, the goal should be ensuring fair process, providing necessary supports like qualified interpreters or accessible facilities, and considering disability as one factor among many in sentencing. But creating separate standards or presuming reduced culpability based on disability categories may undermine both the legitimacy of the justice system and the dignity of people with disabilities who are fully capable of understanding right from wrong.
The Fitness Question
Determining whether someone is fit to stand trial poses particularly difficult questions. Someone may be dangerous but lack the capacity to understand proceedings. They cannot be tried, but they cannot simply be released. Some remain in forensic psychiatric facilities indefinitely, punished without conviction. Others cycle through assessments and treatment, caught between systems that neither serve their needs nor protect the public effectively. Whether this represents a failure of imagination, a necessary compromise, or an unsolvable tension remains unclear.
The Question
If the justice system cannot function fairly for people with certain disabilities, does that mean those individuals should not face criminal accountability, or does it mean the system needs fundamental redesign? When disability affects someone's actions, their understanding, or their ability to participate in their own defense, how do we balance compassion with public safety? And if we agree accommodations are necessary, who bears the cost when those accommodations are expensive or logistically complex?