Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[4]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[4]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[4]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-01-27 03:49:32.363
	1	+2017-01-27 03:49:32.0

Caselist.CitesClass[4]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,39 @@
	1	+I value morality since the word ought in the resolution implies moral obligation.
	2	+
	3	+The standard is minimizing structural violence, which involves the systematic ways in which structural institutions harm, oppress, and create disadvantages for certain groups and individuals. There are multiple justifications:
	4	+Ethics must start with the viewpoint of the oppressed because otherwise our perspective will be skewed. Structural violence comes before moral theories because it predetermines the moral agency of oppressed actors as irrelevant – ensuring everyone a seat at the table is a prior question to starting the discussion.
	5	+Deborah DuNann Winter and Dana C. Leighton 99. Winter "Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st century." 1999
	6	+Finally, to recognize...building lasting peace.
	7	+
	8	+Structural violence causes dehumanization, which entails making certain groups or individuals feel less worthy, which normalizes oppression. Dehumanization is the biggest possible impact.
	9	+Berube 97 – Professor of Communication Studies and Associate Director of NanoScience and Technology Studies at University of South Carolina David M., “NANOTECHNOLOGICAL PROLONGEVITY: The Down Side,” http://www.cas.sc.edu/engl/faculty/berube/prolong.htm
	10	+This means-ends...most powerful weapon.
	11	+
	12	+Ableism is defined as discrimination in favor of able-bodied people. The fear of dangerous, deviant, impaired bodies justifies human rights abuses, murder, and devalued lives – discrimination against people of color, women, and immigrants has always been through their alignment with disability. This means that solving for ableism is a prerequisite to solving for other forms of oppression.
	13	+Siebers 10 Tobin Siebers, Department of English Language and Literature at the University of Michigan; “The Aesthetics of Human Disqualification”; University of Michigan Press; 10/28/2010; accessed 07/31/2015; http://www.google.com/url?sa=tandrct=jandq=andesrc=sandsource=webandcd=1andved=0CCoQFjAAandurl=http3A2F2Fdisabilities.temple.edu2Fmedia2Fds2Flecture20091028siebersAesthetics_FULL.docandei=LWz4T6jyN8bHqAHLkY2LCQandusg=AFQjCNGdkDuSJkRXMHgbXqvuyyeDpldVcQandsig2=UCGDC4tHbeh2j7-Yce9lsA.
	14	+Surprisingly little thought...or mentally inferior.
	15	+
	16	+Also, it is your role as a judge to refuse the replication of oppression, especially in the context of oppression of disabled people.
	17	+Ben-Moshe 5 (Liat, Ph.D. student in Sociology, Disability Studies and Women Studies at Syracuse University. ““Lame Idea”: Disabling Language in the Classroom,” in Building Pedagogical Curb Cuts: Incorporating Disability into the University Classroom and Curriculum, http://www.syr.edu/gradschool/pdf/resourcebooksvideos/Pedagogical20Curb20Cuts.pdf)
	18	+When we use...for our own use.
	19	+
	20	+Thus, I advocate that the United States limit qualified immunity for police officers through the method of applying the Americans with Disabilities Act standards in arrest situations.
	21	+
	22	+Contention 1 is Solving for Ableism
	23	+
	24	+The United States criminalizes mentally ill people.
	25	+Auner 1, Thomas; “For The Protection of Society’s Most Vulnerable, The ADA Should Apply To Arrests.” Los Angeles Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. 2016. Web. October 07, 2016. http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol49/iss1/10.
	26	+The United States largely criminalizes mentally ill people, resulting from policies implemented in the 1970s favoring deinstitutionalization.34 Advocates initially proposed deinstitutionalization with noble intentions to combat the inhumane conditions found in mental institutions.35 Advocates planned to provide the mentally ill with community-based treatment, but this never fully materialized.36 This failure has resulted in more mentally ill persons on the street and, thus, a higher probability of being arrested.37 One study showed that 42 to 50 percent of the mentally ill will be arrested in their lives, compared with 7 to 8 percent of the general population.38
	27	+The Americans with Disabilities Act is a civil rights law with the purpose to end discrimination of people with mental disabilities and allow for legal action for those who have been discriminated against.
	28	+Auner 2, Thomas; “For The Protection of Society’s Most Vulnerable, The ADA Should Apply To Arrests.” Los Angeles Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. 2016. Web. October 07, 2016. http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol49/iss1/10.
	29	+In 1990, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act.39 The ADA’s purpose is to remedy the following problems: (1) that individuals with disabilities continually encounter discrimination, including failure of public services to make modifications to existing facilities and practices; and (2) that people who have experienced discrimination on the basis of disability often have no legal recourse to address such discrimination.40 Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination by all public entities.41 This ensures that public entities provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities.42 A public entity must reasonably accommodate by modifying policies, practices, and procedures, unless the modifications would result in a fundamental alteration of the entity’s activity.43 The House Committee Report specifically suggests that in order to reasonably accommodate and comply with the ADA, public officials, including police officers, should receive training on how to handle people with disabilities.44 In order to bring a Title II claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) she has a disability; (2) she is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the benefit of a public entity’s services; (3) she is either excluded from participation or denied benefits of the public entity’s services, programs, or activities or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (4) such discrimination occurs by reason of her disability.45 Courts were initially hesitant to force law enforcement agencies to reasonably accommodate people with mental disabilities.46 However, in 1998, the Supreme Court’s decision in Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey47 rejected the notion that mentally disabled persons subject to law enforcement were not receiving a benefit from the government.48 Since Yeskey, courts have been more receptive to applying the ADA to law enforcement activities.49
	30	+Unequal applications of the standards of the ADA have left mentally ill people vulnerable.
	31	+Auner 3, Thomas; “For The Protection of Society’s Most Vulnerable, The ADA Should Apply To Arrests.” Los Angeles Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. 2016. Web. October 07, 2016. http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol49/iss1/10.
	32	+Violent confrontations between police and mentally ill suspects sparked a national discussion about officers’ treatment of the mentally ill.1 In Fullerton, California, officers severely beat and killed mentally ill suspect Kelly Thomas.2 In Los Angeles, California, officers shot and killed the unarmed and mentally ill suspect Ezell Ford.3 Indeed, studies show that nearly half of all people police kill are mentally ill.4 Fortunately, courts began taking this disproportionate figure into account by providing mentally ill people with additional legal protections.5 In Sheehan v. City and County of San Francisco, 6 the Ninth Circuit held that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to arrest situations involving mentally ill persons.7 The Ninth Circuit’s holding significantly furthers the other circuit courts’ momentum and fundamentally changes how police officers approach the mentally ill. However, not all circuits apply the ADA to arrest situations, leading to unequal federal protections for the mentally ill.
	33	+Making the ADA applicable in arrest situations incentivizes proper police training to help protect the mentally ill.
	34	+Auner 4, Thomas; “For The Protection of Society’s Most Vulnerable, The ADA Should Apply To Arrests.” Los Angeles Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. 2016. Web. October 07, 2016. http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol49/iss1/10.
	35	+Excessive force claims stemming from the Fourth Amendment and section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act provide insufficient protection for the mentally ill as applied. To reduce injuries the mentally ill disproportionately face when encountering the police, all circuits should render the ADA applicable to arrest situations. This will incentivize proper police training and provide uniform federal protections for the mentally ill. First, this Comment will explain why excessive force claims arising under the Fourth Amendment and section 1983 provide insufficient protection for mentally ill persons. Second, Part V.B discusses the split among federal circuits regarding the ADA’s application to arrest situations. Presently, the Fifth Circuit holds that the ADA does not apply to arrest situations, thus creating unequal federal protections for the mentally ill. Third, Part V.C illustrates how the Ninth Circuit’s holding directly impacts mentally ill persons in society. This decision provides police departments with additional incentive to implement programs to adequately train officers for encounters with the mentally ill. Part V.C highlights an example of a successful training program implemented by a police department and show how the violent confrontation with Sheehan could have been avoided. This Comment concludes with the grim reality that a mentally ill person living within a circuit that does not apply the ADA to arrest situations faces a greater risk of violent encounters with the police.
	36	+The application of ADA standards in arrest situations also allows for legal recourse in the courtroom.
	37	+Auner 5, Thomas; “For The Protection of Society’s Most Vulnerable, The ADA Should Apply To Arrests.” Los Angeles Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. 2016. Web. October 07, 2016. http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol49/iss1/10.
	38	+To succeed in a section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must prove that someone acting under the color of state law deprived her of a constitutional right.65 Several issues arise when mentally ill plaintiffs bring section 1983 civil rights claims alleging police misconduct: qualified immunity for officers, interlocutory appeals from the denial of qualified immunity, municipal immunity, and appellate courts’ review of factual situations.66 Furthermore, when bringing a section 1983 claim of excessive force, the plaintiff faces the burden of proving that the officer’s actions constituted a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment.67 Courts look to the totality of the circumstances and give much weight to the officer’s perceived emergency, while failing to require that the officer use the least intrusive means to resolve the situation.68 This has proven, “inadequate in deterring police conduct and in providing remedies for mentally and emotionally disturbed plaintiffs.” 69 Specifically, courts find a public official is subject to qualified immunity when they have operated in a reasonable fashion under developing laws.70 This places a high burden on the plaintiff, requirees the plaintiff to prove that the public official’s conduct was egregious or shocking.71 For example, in Sheehan, the court held that a jury could find that Sheehan’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the officers’ use of deadly force.72 Nevertheless, the court upheld summary judgment for the officers as individuals because they were protected by qualified immunity.73 For section 1983 claims under Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York, 74 to surpass the high hurdle of municipal immunity, the plaintiff must prove that the municipality’s policy or long-standing practice caused the constitutional injury.75 For Sheehan’s Monell claims, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s holding of summary judgment for the defendants.76 The court reasoned that merely showing that the officers may have disregarded their training during the incident, and that the city failed to discipline the officers after the incident, does not surpass the hurdle of municipal immunity.77 The officer-favored totality of the circumstances requirement under the Fourth Amendment does not apply to ADA claims.78 Furthermore, the plaintiff files ADA actions against state and local governments, rendering the barriers of qualified and municipal immunity inapplicable.79
	39	+Thus, I urge an affirmative ballot.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-01-27 03:49:33.856

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Idk

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Idk

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+4

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+American Heritage Plantation Gillespie Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+NOV-DEC Structural Violence AC

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Crestian