Avoiding the deaf penalty: a review of the experiences of d/Deaf individuals in the criminal justice system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite real life examples of injustices in the criminal justice system involving d/Deaf individuals and calls from advocacy groups for more awareness and training related to this issue, there has been very little research into the area. The research that does exist is piecemeal and generally focuses on a specific area of the system, ignoring the more global view of the criminal justice system. Further, such research is largely American. Given the fragmented, siloed nature of the extant literature and the lack of available Canadian data, this review paper sought to provide an overview of the existing literature on the experiences of d/Deaf individuals at all levels of the criminal justice system. Findings indicate that d/Deaf individuals are underserved and understudied putting them at a distinct disadvantage relative to their hearing peers. Suggestions for improvements are provided for all levels of the criminal justice system. Points of interestThis article examines the literature regarding the experience of individuals who consider themselves medically deaf or culturally Deaf at all levels of the criminal justice system.In the literature, there were several common issues identified including a lack of training, resources, and qualified interpreters as well as inadequate policies at all levels of the criminal justice system.One of the biggest issues identified was a lack of d/Deaf awareness among professionals working in the criminal justice system. Enhanced d/Deaf awareness could improve the experiences of d/Deaf individuals who come into contact with the criminal justice system.This literature review indicated that more research into the experiences of d/Deaf offenders needs to be done and highlights the importance of including d/Deaf individuals in this process.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".