Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sexual Assault and the Meaning of Power and Authority for Women with Mental Disabilities

  • Published:
Feminist Legal Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The sexual assault of persons with mental disabilities (also described as cognitive, intellectual and developmental disabilities) occurs at alarmingly high rates worldwide. These assaults are a form of gender-based violence intersecting with discrimination based on disability. Our research on the treatment of such cases in the Canadian criminal justice system demonstrates the systemic barriers these victims face at the level of both substantive legal doctrine and trial procedure. Relying on feminist legal theory and disability theory, we argue in this paper that abuses of trust and power underlie most sexual assaults of women with mental disabilities. We argue that existing Criminal Code provisions in Canada are inadequate to address this type of exploitation because courts have consistently failed to recognize that such abuses of power and trust are fundamentally inconsistent with any notion of voluntary consent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It has been estimated that between sixteen and thirty per cent of men with mental disabilities will have been sexually assaulted before they reach the age of eighteen. See Roeher Institute (1992) at 25.

  2. Other factors that construct the lived experience of mental disability in the context of sexual violence include a history of inadequate education on sexuality and sexual self-determination (sometimes referred to as the “forever child syndrome”).

  3. See e.g.: R v DAI, 2012 SCC 5, [2012] 1 SCR 149; R v Parrott, 2001 SCC 3, [2001] 1 SCR 178.

  4. See e.g.: Buck v Bell, 274 US 200, 47 S Ct 584; Muir v Alberta (1996), 132 DLR (4th) 695, [1996] AJ no 37 (QL), (ABQB). In some Canadian provinces, sterilization of those with mental disabilities persisted until the 1970s. The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the practice of non-therapeutic sterilization in E (Mrs) v Eve, [1986] 2 SCR 388, [1986] SCJ no 60 (QL).

  5. Criminal Code, ss. 276–277.

  6. Criminal Code, ss. 278.1–278.91.

  7. See e.g.: R v Farley (1995), 23 OR (3d) 445, 99 CCC (3d) 76 (CA). Given that male complainants are generally assaulted by men, this difference may reflect in part underlying homophobia.

  8. [1999] 1 SCR 330 at paras 26-28 and 46-47.

  9. See e.g.: R v WL (1994), 123 Nfld & PEIR 357, 382 APR 357 (Nfld Prov Ct (Youth Ct)) where the court assumed that the complainant, a 59-year-old woman in the advanced stages of Alzheimer’s disease, was incapable of consenting.

  10. R v C [2009] UKHL 42, [2009] 1 WLR 1786; People v Thompson, 142 Cal App 4th 1426, 48 Cal Rptr 3d 803 (2006).

  11. See e.g.: R v KET, [1990] OJ no 2674 (QL) (Dist Ct).

  12. R v BM, [1994] OJ no 2242 (Prov Div) (QL).

  13. See e.g.: R v Hundle, 2002 ABQB 1084, 10 CR (6th) 37, and 2003 ABQB 618 and R v Kiared, 2008 ABQB 767, [2008] AJ no 1459 (QL) [Kiared], both involved accuseds who worked for transportation services for dependent and disabled adults; R v Ashley-Pryce, 2004 BCCA 531, [2004] BCJ no 2093 (QL) and R v Brown, 2013 ONCJ 203, [2013] OJ no 1791 (QL) both involved sexual assaults on elderly women in care homes where the offenders worked.

  14. 2010 ONCA 207, [2010] OJ no 1094 (QL) at para 12 [Lutoslawski].

  15. R v Wood, [2012] OJ no 3370 (QL) (SC); R v Howell, 2012 ONSC 846; R v Bergen, 2011 ONCA 210; R v FL, 2009 ONCA 813, [2009] OJ no 4839 (QL); R v Lawrence, [2008] OJ no 1341 (QL) (SC); R v Borkowsky, 2006 MBQB 109, aff’d 2008 MBCA 2; R v Roberds, 2006 BCCA 415; R v Makayak, 2004 NUCJ 5, [2004] NuJ no 3 (QL) [Makayak]; R v LRL, 2000 NSCA 94; R v Mianskum, [2000] OJ no 5802 (QL) (SC),aff’d [2002] OJ no 3955 (QL) (CA); R v DM, 136 CCC (3d) 412 (Ont CA); R v Fast (1996), 113 Man R (2d) 52 (CA); R v Audet, [1996] 2 SCR 171; R v TR, [1996] OJ no 4945 (QL) (Ct J (Gen Div)).

  16. See e.g Lutoslawski, supra n 12; R v RM, [2004] OJ no 5869 (QL) aff'd 2007 ONCA 872, [2007] OJ no 4856 (QL) (conviction under s. 153); R v LVR, 2011 BCSC 1152, [2011] BCJ no 1620 (QL); R v JC, [2000] OJ no 5805 (QL) (SC) (conviction under s. 151); R v Morasse, 2012 QCCQ 363, [2012] QJ no 366 (QL) (convictions under ss. 151 and 152).

  17. 2011 ONCJ 213, [2011] OJ no 1874 (QL) [DT, trial judgment], appeal allowed 2012 ONSC 2166, [2012] OJ no 1720 (QL) [DT, appeal judgment].

  18. DT, trial judgment, ibid at para 48.

  19. DT, appeal judgment, supra n 15 at para 25.

  20. Lutoslawski, supra n 12 at para 12.

  21. (27 July 2011), Vancouver 213734-2-C (QL) at para 52 (PC) [Alsadi, trial judgment].

  22. 2012 BCCA 183, [2012] BCJ no 826 (QL) [Alsadi, appeal judgment]. A bench warrant has been issued for the accused but, as of the time of writing, he has not been apprehended.

  23. The complainant had been hospitalized 20 times in the past and it is likely she had witnessed security guards restraining patients.

  24. Alsadi, trial judgment, supra n 19 at para 54.

  25. 2012 SKQB 519, [2012] SJ no 797 (QL).

  26. Ibid at paras 53, 63.

  27. DT, appeal judgment, supra n 15 at para 22.

  28. Alsadi, appeal judgment, supra n 20 at para 29, citing R v PS (1993), WCB (2d) 256, [1993] OJ no 70419 (QL) (Ct J (Gen Div)), aff'd [1994] OJ no 3775 (QL) (CA) and R v L(DB) (1995), 25 OR (3d) 649, 101 CCC (3d) 406 (CA).

  29. Makayak, supra n 13 at para 70.

  30. R v Matheson (1999), 44 OR (3d) 557, 134 CCC (3d) 289 (CA).

  31. Makayak, supra n 13.

  32. Bill S-5, An Act to Amend the Canada Evidence Act, The Criminal Code, and the Canadian Human Rights Act, 1st Sess, 36th Parl, 1998 (as passed by the House of Commons 30 April 1998).

  33. Kiared, supra n 11.

  34. The wording of the section is slightly different than s. 273.1(2)(c) in that s. 153.1(3)(c) requires the Crown to prove the complainant was counseled or incited to engage in the sexual activity, not “induced.” None of the cases considering both sections addressed this difference.

  35. Ireland Law Reform Commission (2011) Sexual offences and capacity to consent. Dublin: Law Reform Commission. [Sexual offences and capacity to consent]. The focus of this report is on persons with intellectual disabilities but much of its analysis would have broader application; see also Edwards et al. (2012).

  36. Sexual Offences and Capacity to Consent, supra n 33 at para 6.26.

References

  • Benedet, Janine, and Isabel Grant. 2007a. Hearing the sexual assault complaints of women with mental disabilities: Consent, capacity, and mistaken belief. McGill Law Journal 52: 243–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benedet, Janine, and Isabel Grant. 2007b. Hearing the sexual assault complaints of women with mental disabilities: Evidentiary and procedural issues. McGill Law Journal 52: 515–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benedet, Janine, and Isabel Grant. 2010. Sexual assault of women with mental disabilities: A Canadian perspective. In Rethinking rape law: International and comparative perspectives, ed. Clare McGlynn, and Vanessa E. Munro, 322–334. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benedet, Janine, and Isabel Grant. 2012. Taking the stand: Access to justice for witnesses with mental disabilities in sexual assault cases. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 50: 1–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benedet, Janine, and Isabel Grant. 2013a. A situational approach to incapacity and mental disability in sexual assault law. Ottawa Law Review 43(1): 447–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benedet, Janine, and Isabel Grant. 2013b. More Than an empty gesture: Enabling women with mental disabilities to testify on a promise to tell the truth. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 25(1): 31–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brownridge, Douglas. 2006. Partner violence against women with disabilities: Prevalence, risk, and explanations. Violence Against Women 12(9): 805–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chenoweth, Lesley. 1995. The mask of benevolence: Cultures of violence and people with disabilities. In Cultures of crime and violence: The Australian experience, ed. Judith Bessant, Kerry Carrington, and Sandy Cook, 36–44. Bundoora: La Trobe University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chenoweth, Lesley. 1996. Violence and women with disabilities: Silence and paradox. Violence Against Women 2(4): 391–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Lorenne M.G., and Debra J. Lewis. 1977. Rape: The price of coercive sexuality. Toronto: Women’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, Elaine. 2009. Ten years after Ewanchuk the art of seduction is alive and well: An examination of the mistaken belief in consent defence. Canadian Criminal Law Review 13(3): 247–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossmaker, Maureen. 1991. Behind locked doors: Institutional sexual abuse. Sexuality and Disability 9(3): 201–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demas, Doreen. 2009. Triple jeopardy: Aboriginal women with disabilities. In First voices: An aboriginal women’s reader, ed. Patricia A. Monture, and Patricia D. McGuire, 94–99. Toronto: Inanna Publications and Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devlin, Richard, and Dianne Pothier. 2006. Introduction: Towards a critical theory of dis-citizenship. In Critical disability theory: Essays in philosophy, politics, policy and law, ed. Richard Devlin, and Dianne Pothier, 1–22. Vancouver: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, Suzanne. 2010. The notion of consent to sexual activity for persons with mental disabilities. Liverpool Law Review 31: 111–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, Andrea. 1981. Pornography: Men possessing women. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, Claire, et al. 2012. Access to justice for people with disabilities as victims of crime in Ireland. Cork: Faculty of Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, Martha Albertson. 2008. The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition. Yale Journal of Law & Feminism 20(1): 2–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finlay, W.M.L., and E. Lyons. 2002. Acquiescence in interviews with people who have mental retardation. Mental Retardation 40(1): 14–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gotell, Lise. 2002. The ideal victim, the hysterical complainant, and the disclosure of confidential records: The implications of the charter for sexual assault law. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 40(3–4): 251–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, Isabel. 2012. ‘The Normal Ones Take Time’: Civil commitment and sexual assault in R. v. Alsadi. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 24: 439–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grekul, Jana, et al. 2004. Sterilizing the ‘Feeble-minded’: Eugenics in Alberta, Canada, 1929–1972. Journal of Historical Sociology 17(4): 358–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, Anita. 2008. The individualist model of autonomy and the challenge of disability. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5(2–3): 193–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Institute, Roeher. 1992. No More victims: A manual to guide counselors and social workers in addressing the sexual abuse of people with a mental handicap. North York: Roeher Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ireland Law Reform Commission. 2011. Sexual offences and capacity to consent. Dublin: Law Reform Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, Liz. 2010. The (In)credible Words of Women: False Allegations in European Rape Research. Violence Against Women 16(12): 1345–1355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kempton, Winifred, and Emily Kahn. 1991. Sexuality and people with disabilities: A historical perspective. Sexuality and Disability 9(2): 93–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lentz, Susan A., and Robert H. Chaires. 2011. Sexual assault statutes targeting authority and power imbalances: A Step Forward in Rape Law Reform? Freedom Center Journal 3: 1–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, Catharine A. 2003. A sex equality approach to sexual assault. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 989: 265–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Sandra L., et al. 2006. Physical and sexual assault of women with disabilities. Violence Against Women 12(9): 823–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, Michelle. 1999. Sexuality and women with learning disabilities. London: Jessica Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, Michelle, and David Thompson. 1997. A prevalence study of sexual abuse of adults with intellectual disabilities referred for sex education. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 10(2): 105–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, Suellen, and Melanie Heenan. 2012. Reported rapes in victoria: Police responses to victims with a psychiatric disability or mental health issue. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 23.3: 353–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neath, Jeanne. 1997. Social causes of impairment, disability and abuse: A feminist perspective. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 8(1–2): 195–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, Lisa S. 2005. Feminist frameworks: Building theory on violence against women. Winnipeg: Fernwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall, Melanie. 2010. Sexual assault law, credibility, and “ideal victims”: Consent, resistance, victim blaming. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 22(2): 397–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Razack, Sherene. 1994. From consent to responsibility, from pity to respect: Subtexts in cases of sexual violence involving girls and women with developmental disabilities. Law & Social Inquiry 19(4): 891–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, Diane. 1996. ‘Misguided, dangerous and wrong’: On the maligning of radical feminism. In Radically speaking: Feminism reclaimed, ed. Diane Bell, and Renate Klein, 143–154. Melbourne: Spinifex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumney, Philip N.S. 2006. False allegations of rape. Cambridge Law Journal 65(1): 128–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruparelia, Rakhi. 2006. Does no “No” mean reasonable doubt? Assessing the impact of Ewanchuk on determinations of consent. Canadian Woman Studies 25(1–2): 167–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stote, Karen. 2012. The coercive sterilization of aboriginal women in Canada. American Indian Culture & Research Journal 36(3): 117–150.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank law students Heather Burley, Tamera Burnett, Rebecca Coad, Tamlin Cooper, Laura DeVries, Robin McMurachy and Kayla Strong for their diligent research assistance and editing assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of British Columbia Faculty of Law, Vancouver, Canada

    Janine Benedet & Isabel Grant

Authors
  1. Janine Benedet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Isabel Grant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janine Benedet.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Benedet, J., Grant, I. Sexual Assault and the Meaning of Power and Authority for Women with Mental Disabilities. Fem Leg Stud 22, 131–154 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-014-9263-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-014-9263-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation