Criminalising ‘Conversion Therapy’
An increasing number of jurisdictions have introduced legal bans on so-called ‘conversion therapy’ practices. Yet significant uncertainty and disagreement persist among legal scholars, policymakers and advocates about whether criminal law is an appropriate tool in this area and, if so, how it should be used. This article addresses that pressing question by examining whether criminalisation is justified, what risks it poses to the rights of LGBT+ people and others, and how those risks can be mitigated. Drawing on analogies with existing criminal offences and a comparative analysis of legislative models from several jurisdictions, it argues that a carefully designed criminal ban can be a legitimate and proportionate response to the serious harms caused by ‘conversion therapy’. The article develops an original, evidence-based framework that clarifies how such bans should be formulated in law and integrated with complementary non-criminal measures, and what broader lessons this holds for t
An increasing number of jurisdictions have introduced legal bans on so-called ‘conversion therapy’ practices. Yet significant uncertainty and disagreement persist among legal scholars, policymakers and advocates about whether criminal law is an appropriate tool in this area and, if so, how it should be used. This article addresses that pressing question by examining whether criminalisation is justified, what risks it poses to the rights of LGBT+ people and others, and how those risks can be mitigated. Drawing on analogies with existing criminal offences and a comparative analysis of legislative models from several jurisdictions, it argues that a carefully designed criminal ban can be a legitimate and proportionate response to the serious harms caused by ‘conversion therapy’. The article develops an original, evidence-based framework that clarifies how such bans should be formulated in law and integrated with complementary non-criminal measures, and what broader lessons this holds for the place of criminal law in advancing human rights.
An increasing number of jurisdictions have introduced legal bans on so-called ‘conversion therapy’ practices. Yet significant uncertainty and disagreement persist among legal scholars, policymakers and advocates about whether criminal law is an appropriate tool in this area and, if so, how it should be used. This article addresses that pressing question by examining whether criminalisation is justified, what risks it poses to the rights of LGBT+ people and others, and how those risks can be mitigated. Drawing on analogies with existing criminal offences and a comparative analysis of legislative models from several jurisdictions, it argues that a carefully designed criminal ban can be a legitimate and proportionate response to the serious harms caused by ‘conversion therapy’. The article develops an original, evidence-based framework that clarifies how such bans should be formulated in law and integrated with complementary non-criminal measures, and what broader lessons this holds for the place of criminal law in advancing human rights.
Executive Summary
This article explores the appropriateness of using criminal law to ban 'conversion therapy' practices. The author examines the justifications for criminalisation, potential risks to the rights of LGBT+ individuals, and proposes an evidence-based framework for formulating and integrating criminal bans with non-criminal measures. Drawing on analogies with existing criminal offences and comparative analyses of legislative models, the author argues that carefully designed criminal bans can be a legitimate response to the serious harms caused by 'conversion therapy'. The article contributes to the ongoing debate about the role of criminal law in advancing human rights, highlighting the importance of balancing protection from harm with the preservation of individual rights and freedoms.
Key Points
- ▸ Criminalisation of 'conversion therapy' is a topic of ongoing debate among legal scholars, policymakers, and advocates.
- ▸ The author argues that carefully designed criminal bans can be a legitimate response to the serious harms caused by 'conversion therapy'.
- ▸ An evidence-based framework is proposed for formulating and integrating criminal bans with non-criminal measures.
Merits
Strength of Argument
The author provides a comprehensive analysis of the topic, drawing on relevant legal principles and comparative legislative models.
Original Contribution
The article proposes an original evidence-based framework for formulating and integrating criminal bans, which is a significant contribution to the ongoing debate.
Policy Relevance
The article's focus on the role of criminal law in advancing human rights makes it highly relevant to policymakers and advocates.
Demerits
Limited Scope
The article's focus on criminalisation may overlook the potential benefits of non-criminal measures, such as education and awareness campaigns.
Complexity of Implementation
The proposed framework for formulating and integrating criminal bans may be challenging to implement in practice, particularly in jurisdictions with limited resources.
Expert Commentary
The article makes a significant contribution to the ongoing debate about the role of criminal law in advancing human rights. The proposed framework for formulating and integrating criminal bans is original and evidence-based, and the author's analysis of the potential risks and complexities of implementation is thorough. However, the article's focus on criminalisation may overlook the potential benefits of non-criminal measures, and the proposed framework may be challenging to implement in practice.
Recommendations
- ✓ Future research should investigate the potential benefits and drawbacks of non-criminal measures, such as education and awareness campaigns, in addressing the harms caused by 'conversion therapy'.
- ✓ Policymakers should carefully consider the potential risks and complexities of implementing criminal bans on 'conversion therapy' and should prioritize the development of evidence-based frameworks for formulating and integrating these bans with non-criminal measures.
