Difference between revisions of "Intent standard"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Aziraphale (talk | contribs) (categorize) |
m (space) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''intent standard''' is the idea that, for a [[facially neutral statute]] which has [[disparate impacts]], tending towards discrimination, to be illegal, the allegedly neutral statute must have been drafted with discriminatory intent.<ref> For racial cases, see ''Washington v. Davis,'' cf. ''Feeney'' in gender cases.</ref> Commentators have noted that this is essentially a requirement of the criminal ''[[mens rea]]'' of intent, a very high standard to meet in a civil case. Some statutes, by virtue of the severity of their disparate impact, are ''per se'' discriminatory.<ref>See e.g. ''Yick Wo.''</ref> | The '''intent standard''' is the idea that, for a [[facially neutral statute]] which has [[disparate impacts]], tending towards discrimination, to be illegal, the allegedly neutral statute must have been drafted with discriminatory intent.<ref> For racial cases, see ''Washington v. Davis,'' cf. ''Feeney'' in gender cases.</ref> Commentators have noted that this is essentially a requirement of the criminal ''[[mens rea]]'' of intent, a very high standard to meet in a civil case. Some statutes, by virtue of the severity of their disparate impact, are ''per se'' discriminatory.<ref>See e.g. ''Yick Wo.''</ref> | ||
| − | == References == | + | ==References== |
<references/> | <references/> | ||
[[category:law]] | [[category:law]] | ||
Revision as of 18:24, June 3, 2008
The intent standard is the idea that, for a facially neutral statute which has disparate impacts, tending towards discrimination, to be illegal, the allegedly neutral statute must have been drafted with discriminatory intent.[1] Commentators have noted that this is essentially a requirement of the criminal mens rea of intent, a very high standard to meet in a civil case. Some statutes, by virtue of the severity of their disparate impact, are per se discriminatory.[2]