Overview
Title
An Act To amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, to revise references in such title to individuals with intellectual disabilities.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to change old words to nicer ones when talking about people with intellectual disabilities in special law books for Washington, D.C., to make sure everyone is spoken about respectfully.
Summary AI
S. 3698 aims to update the language used in title 11 of the District of Columbia Official Code. The bill specifically changes outdated terms like "substantially retarded persons" to "persons with moderate intellectual disabilities" in different sections concerning the jurisdiction of the United States District Court, Superior Court, and Family Court in the District of Columbia. This change intends to use more respectful and modern terminology when referring to individuals with intellectual disabilities. The bill, titled the “Words Matter for the District of Columbia Courts Act,” has been passed by the Senate.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill, titled the “Words Matter for the District of Columbia Courts Act,” is a legislative piece proposed to amend title 11 of the District of Columbia Official Code. Its primary aim is to update certain outdated language referring to individuals with intellectual disabilities. Specifically, it seeks to replace terms like "substantially retarded persons" with "persons with moderate intellectual disabilities." These changes are to be implemented in sections relating to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court, Superior Court, and Family Court.
Summary of Significant Issues
Even though the bill primarily aims at reforming language to be more appropriate and respectful, several issues arise. Firstly, there is a concern about the term “persons with moderate intellectual disabilities.” While it is a step towards more considerate language, the term still might require further explanation to ensure it is broadly understood and consistently applied across different legal contexts. This need for clarification highlights a potential risk that the terminology might be differently interpreted by various stakeholders or within different scenarios.
Additionally, while the bill adjusts terminology, it is unclear whether these linguistic changes will result in any substantive changes in court procedures or jurisdictions. This ambiguity could cause uncertainty or speculation among individuals and entities involved with the judicial system. Finally, the document's lack of detailed provisions aside from the language change raises questions about the ultimate implications of the bill. As the short title section does not provide additional details, it remains a concern whether the objective of the act is clearly communicated to its audience.
Impact on the Public Broadly
The primary impact of the bill on the public could be seen as a positive cultural shift towards acknowledging and respecting individuals with intellectual disabilities. By updating the official language, it reflects societal moves towards inclusivity and respect. However, broad public impact remains limited without more explicit provisions or changes to judicial procedures. The absence of clear, tangible changes in law enforcement or judiciary practice offers little immediate effect for the general population.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For individuals with intellectual disabilities and advocacy groups, this bill could be viewed as a necessary acknowledgment and a move towards more respectful and considerate language. This legislative change can play a symbolic role in nurturing a more inclusive legal system and validating the continued advocacy for rights and recognition.
However, legal practitioners, including lawyers and judges, might face challenges owing to the lack of clarity around the practical interpretation of the new terminology. This could necessitate additional training or guidelines to ensure consistent application across legal cases and contexts. Moreover, while the bill's intent is commendable, stakeholders seeking significant procedural or structural changes in the judiciary's handling of cases involving individuals with intellectual disabilities might find the bill's impact limited.
In conclusion, while the bill marks progress in aligning legal language with contemporary values of respect and inclusivity, its overall impact is constrained by limited detail on practical execution and implementation across judicial processes. Stakeholders may benefit from further legislative clarity and potential expansion into substantive procedural amendments.
Issues
The term 'persons with moderate intellectual disabilities' in Section 2 might require further clarification to ensure that it is widely understood and appropriately applied across various legal contexts. There is a risk that without precise definitions, the terminology might be inconsistently interpreted or applied.
The amendments in Section 2 focus on updating language in the District of Columbia Official Code, but it's unclear if these changes lead to any substantive alterations in the jurisdictions or procedures of the courts. Lack of clear information on potential impacts may generate uncertainty among stakeholders and the general public.
The bill primarily involves language change, which does not inherently provide clarity on how the updates will affect individuals with intellectual disabilities in practical scenarios within the judicial system. This lack of transparency could lead to political or ethical scrutiny.
Section 1 only contains the short title of the Act, "Words Matter for the District of Columbia Courts Act", which offers no details on the specific provisions or impacts of the Act. The absence of additional information raises questions about the act's specific intent and outcomes.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill establishes its short title, which is the "Words Matter for the District of Columbia Courts Act".
2. References to individuals with intellectual disabilities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section makes changes to the language in the District of Columbia Official Code by replacing terms like "substantially retarded persons" with "persons with moderate intellectual disabilities" in parts related to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court, Superior Court, and Family Court.