Abstract
Based on cases involving deaf people as complainants, victims, the indicted or as affected parties, we endeavour in this study to explore how the judiciary facilitates accessibility and participation during the court process and how it takes into account language differences when reviewing cases and as mitigating circumstances when deciding the outcome of the case. The study is based on data from observations of court cases – both civil and criminal – on court documents and decisions, and on interviews with complainants, defendants and others involved in the judicial process. We focus in particular on one deaf man, Lars, who brought to court his compulsory admission (sectioning) to a psychiatric ward. The cases can be understood as ‘critical events’ by addressing injustice in terms of communicative barriers that have led to debate within and outside of the deaf community. The cases illuminate issues about accessibility, accountability and discrimination as well as the limits to and opportunities for indiv...
Highlights
Based on cases involving deaf people as complainants, victims, the indicted or as affected parties, we endeavour in this study to explore how the judiciary facilitates accessibility and participation during the court process and how it takes into account language differences when reviewing cases and as mitigating circumstances when deciding the outcome of the case
The three cases above can be understood as critical events by addressing injustice in terms of communicative barriers
The court may be an arena for critical events because it is linked to authority, enjoys a high symbolic status as an institutional place open to the general public, that are traversed by ideas, rituals and artifacts of justice
Summary
Based on cases involving deaf people as complainants, victims, the indicted or as affected parties, we endeavour in this study to explore how the judiciary facilitates accessibility and participation during the court process and how it takes into account language differences when reviewing cases and as mitigating circumstances when deciding the outcome of the case. We will use concepts of rights and justice to address the limits to and opportunities for individual and collective redress and legal activism at court. At different levels, all the cases can be defined as ‘critical events’ because they have actualized questions of a number of judicial dilemmas and the legal protection of deaf people and other minorities. A critical event will typically create a distinction between the before and the after
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
