Contesting the Carceral State with Disability Frames: Challenges and Possibilities

Abstract

Since the passage of the ADA, disability frames are fairly common in prison reform litigation. As I discuss below, though the disability frame serves some productive purposes, not all uses of the disability frame are beneficial given the long-standing goals of disability rights and disability justice movements. Indeed, both in prison reform litigation and beyond, stigmatizing tropes of disability may be present, even amidst legal victories. That is to say, the reliance on stigmatizing tropes of disability may harm broader movement goals even if, in the individual case, the plaintiff prevails. The legal strategy of characterizing disability as an injury deserving of damages produces real tensions for advocates who aim to further the rights of prisoners and detainees without stigmatizing those within that group who are people with disabilities. For prison reform advocates, what is the appropriate use of the disability frame, if any? Which disability frames are stigmatizing? What are some of the challenges of deploying disability frames in conditions of confinement litigation and what are some of the possibilities? More specifically, what disability frames are productive in terms of promoting the separate goals of prison reform, decarceration, or abolition?