Disability Incarcerated: Imprisonment and Disability in the United States and Canada. By Liat Ben-Moshe, Chris Chapman and Allison C. Carey with a foreword by Angela Y. Davis (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, 320pp. C$34.50 pb)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ben-Moshe, Chapman and Carey bring together diverse scholars to explore the experiences, structures and philosophies underpinning the parallels between the practice of incarceration and the concept of disability. Drawing attention to psychiatric illness in particular, an analogy with incarceration sets the fundamental tone of how historical trends alongside the redefining of and society’s perceptions of mental and/or physical disability have created a chaos of interpretation and understanding between what defines disability and what defines incarceration. Situating analyses in the United States and Canada, scholars adopt a critical perspective to highlight how discourses and the evolution of disability impact prisoners’ experiences of incarceration. Authors engage with abolitionist thinking, reissuing the rhetorical question of ‘what do we do with the dangerous few?’ in asking ‘what do we do with the persons who are most severely unable to survive on the outside—the profoundly disabled?’ They challenge the concept and practice of imprisonment by drawing attention to falsities in historical understandings and they reveal the systemic realities that underlie the history of confinement, including institutional discrimination. For example, the belief that the deinstitutionalization of persons in treatment centres increased prison populations is not supported by demographic information that evidences how the prison boom accompanying deinstitutionalization was male and non-white rather than paralleling the demographic composition of the deinstitutionalized population. They contend that closing institutions is not abolition and does not equate to equality or freedom. The question of ‘what’s next’ is then posed, accompanied by many arguments, including that an accessible society is not just about ramps and navigated space—it is not simply a discussion of alternatives—rather it is about changing relationships between one another and changing lives. As Angela Davis eloquent notes in the forward ‘if the radical core of prison abolition is not be scarified on the altar of fiscal responsibility, lessons from the deinstitutionalization movement should be heeded’ (p. vii). The authors advocate that disability and incarceration are interlocking issues, distinct but similar. As such incarceration needs to be viewed with a disability lens and how disability is rooted in the construction of prisoners and prisons, both historically and ideologically, recognized.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".