Guiding Theme: Equal Rights, Unequal Access

People with disabilities — whether physical, cognitive, sensory, or psychological — are often excluded from full participation in the justice system.

Not by explicit discrimination, but by design flaws, neglect, or invisibility.

Examples include:

• Courthouses without ramps or elevators

• Legal documents in inaccessible formats

• Lawyers who fail to explain rights in understandable terms

• Judges or juries who misread behavior caused by disability

The law may claim neutrality — but it often excludes in practice.

Historical Context

For centuries, people with disabilities were legally denied basic rights:

• They could be barred from testifying, signing contracts, or even marrying

• Institutionalization and forced medical treatment were common, often with no due process

• The disability rights movement — especially from the 1970s onward — fought for legal recognition, dignity, and inclusion

In the U.S., the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990) was a milestone. But implementation still falls short in many courts and legal systems today.

What Philosophers Say

Martha Nussbaum

Justice must include real dignity for all. Treating everyone “the same” is not enough — systems must be adapted so everyone can live a full human life.

Eva Kittay

Most justice theories assume independence and rational reasoning. But many people — especially with cognitive disabilities — live interdependent lives. Justice must be built on care, not exclusion.

Amartya Sen

Rights are hollow without access. Justice requires not just legal equality, but real capabilities — the tools to act, decide, and live with agency.

Formal Equality vs. Inclusive Justice

Formal Equality says: Everyone is subject to the same rules.

Inclusive Justice says: Real fairness sometimes requires adapting the rules.

Justice is not “one-size-fits-all” — especially in a system built for the able-bodied, by the able-bodied.

Common Justice Barriers

• Communication: Legal jargon and complex procedures are hard to understand — especially for those with cognitive or language-processing disabilities.

• Mobility: Courts, police stations, or jails often lack basic accessibility.

• Credibility Bias: People with disabilities — especially mental or developmental — are often seen as unreliable, even when telling the truth.

• Invisibility: Many disabilities are not visible, and therefore ignored. No ramps for anxiety. No translation for sensory overload.

These gaps can lead to severe injustice:

• Denial of rights during arrest or trial

• Inability to participate in one’s own legal defense

• Overrepresentation in jail due to misunderstood behavior

A Thought Experiment

Two people are charged with the same minor offense.

• One understands the legal system and can afford a lawyer

• The other has a cognitive disability and no support

On paper, both are “equal under the law.”

But if one cannot understand their rights, can they really exercise them?

If justice is unreachable, is it still justice?

Reflect and Discuss

• Have you seen or experienced how legal systems exclude people with disabilities?

• Should justice treat everyone the same — or differently, to ensure fairness?

• What would a legal system look like that protects both equality and dignity?

Suggested Readings

• Martha Nussbaum – Frontiers of Justice

• Eva Kittay – Love’s Labor: Essays on Women, Equality and Dependency

• Amita Dhanda – Legal Capacity in Disability Law

• United Nations – Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

Next Lesson Preview

Lesson 5: Youth and the Law

Can children be fully responsible under the law? What happens when justice meets immaturity?

“Justice that excludes the vulnerable is not justice — it is privilege in disguise.”