Impact of Psychiatric Information on Potential Jurors in Evaluating High-Functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder (hfASD)

Identification and support of autistic individuals within the UK Criminal Justice System: a practical approach based upon professional consensus with input from lived experience

BACKGROUND

Autism spectrum disorder (hereafter referred to as autism) is characterised by difficulties with (i) social communication, social interaction, and (ii) restricted and repetitive interests and behaviours. Estimates of autism prevalence within the criminal justice system (CJS) vary considerably, but there is evidence to suggest that the condition can be missed or misidentified within this population. Autism has implications for an individual's journey through the CJS, from police questioning and engagement in court proceedings through to risk assessment, formulation, therapeutic approaches, engagement with support services, and long-term social and legal outcomes.

METHODS

This consensus based on professional opinion with input from lived experience aims to provide general principles for consideration by United Kingdom (UK) CJS personnel when working with autistic individuals, focusing on autistic offenders and those suspected of offences. Principles may be transferable to countries beyond the UK. Multidisciplinary professionals and two service users were approached for their input to address the effective identification and support strategies for autistic individuals within the CJS.

RESULTS

The authors provide a consensus statement including recommendations on the general principles of effective identification, and support strategies for autistic individuals across different levels of the CJS.

CONCLUSION

Greater attention needs to be given to this population as they navigate the CJS.

Forensic interviews conducted with autistic adults in Japan: a review of the literature and directions for future research

The interviewing of victims, witnesses and suspects is important in helping resolve criminal investigations. In Japan, developments have recently occurred in the training of the police and their public prosecutors in these key tasks. Whilst literature exists on autism in Japan, studies examining police/public prosecutor interviews with autistic adults conducted in that country (and indeed, any other) remain scant. As elsewhere in the world, identification of those who manifest characteristics prevalent on the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) scale, has been found to be problematical to criminal justice professionals. To help address this deficit in understanding, we provide an overview of the literature concerning contemporary understanding of the challenges facing autistic adults as they attempt to reveal their verbal accounts, as well as suggested techniques when interviewing adults on the ASD scale during criminal investigations, offering lessons learned from research conducted around the world that provide potentially promising solutions for Japan.

The impact of developmental language disorder in a defendant's description on mock jurors' perceptions and judgements

BACKGROUND

While it has been posited that young people with language needs may be viewed more negatively (e.g., as more rude, less cooperative) than those without language needs, the impact of knowing about a person's language needs on others' perceptions has yet to experimentally tested.

AIMS

To examine whether the presence of a developmental language disorder (DLD) diagnosis in a defendant's information would affect mock juror ratings of guilt, sentence length, credibility and blameworthiness.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

A total of 143 jury eligible participants read a vignette of a non-violent crime. Half of the participants (N = 73) were told the defendant has a diagnosis of DLD, while half (N = 70) were not told.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

Preregistered analyses found that DLD information affected ratings of credibility and blameworthiness, though not judgements of guilt or sentence length. Unregistered content analyses were applied to the justifications participants gave for their ratings: these suggested that participants who did not have the DLD information judged the defendant more on his personality and attitude, and drew more links to his (perceived) background, while participants who received the DLD information condition made more reference to him having cognitive problems.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

Unlike in previous studies of the impact of autism information, information about a defendant's DLD did not affect mock jurors' likelihood of finding them guilty, or lead participants to give longer sentences. However, our findings suggest knowing a person has DLD does affect others' perceptions of credibility and blameworthiness.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject There is already evidence that some conditions that affect communication, specifically autism, also affect juror perceptions. Research also shows that knowing whether or not a defendant has autism influences how jurors rate defendants. However, autism is not the only condition that is relevant to juror perceptions, as we also know that a high rate of young offenders have language needs, and many have language profiles like DLD. What this paper adds to existing knowledge There is little research on how behaviours associated with DLD impact others' perceptions. This study reports the impact of knowing about a defendant's DLD on juror perceptions, investigating whether knowing about DLD improves judgements on guilt, sentencing lengths, credibility and culpability. Beyond the content of youth offending, this study suggests behaviours associated with DLD lead people to form more negative judgements about youth with DLD. This is important because there is still a lack of awareness of DLD both in- and outside the criminal justice system. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This study shows that knowing about a person's DLD has largely positive effects on others' perceptions of them. This implies that recognizing undetected language needs in young offenders, and supporting colleagues and members of the public to know what DLD is and how it affects people, is critical for youth with DLD to be judged fairly. This study will support the case for raising awareness of vulnerability within the youth justice population, and will assist in clinicians evidencing the need for our roles in justice settings.

Policy gaps and opportunities: A systematic review of autism spectrum disorder and criminal justice intersections

Autism spectrum disorder prevalence is rising, and as this population enters adulthood, preliminary research has identified high rates of contact with the criminal justice system. Policy and programmatic reform are crucial given reported negative and violent outcomes for autistic individuals when encountering the criminal justice system. Given the size and scope of the entire criminal justice system, identifying priorities and opportunities for change is critical, and must be rooted in evidence-based findings to maximize impact and scalability. This article provides a systematic review of the literature on autism spectrum disorder and criminal justice system intersections, analyzed through a convergent qualitative synthesis. As the extant literature is diverse and employs a variety of study methods, this review allows for an analysis across study types. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis structure was utilized and captured 89 total articles from six databases. Studies are grouped by the Sequential Intercept Model, which offers a framework for analyzing criminal justice system dimensions, and informs where research at the intersection of autism spectrum disorder and the criminal justice system is most prevalent. Themes were identified at each intercept and described through key study findings to articulate implications and guidance for policy, practice, and future research to promote equitable justice for autistic individuals.

Lay abstract

The number of people with autism spectrum disorder has increased, and as this population ages, research is showing high rates of contact with the criminal justice system among this group. Social and communication differences that autistic individuals experience can act as a risk factor during these interactions, as shown by public reports of negative and violent encounters between autistic individuals and the law enforcement. There is a clear need for evidence-based strategies to reduce high rates of contact and to improve outcomes when an interaction occurs. This article provides a systematic review of research on autism spectrum disorder and criminal justice system to compile this evidence base. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis structure was used to identify 89 articles after searching six databases. The Sequential Intercept Model describes the criminal justice system as different stages, or intercepts, that are connected, and the Sequential Intercept Model serves as an overall framework to organize the included articles. Articles were analyzed to identify research themes at each intercept, which offer guidance for policy and program changes that support equitable justice for autistic individuals.

Juror decision-making regarding a defendant diagnosed with borderline personality disorder

Stigma is an established consequence of the Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) diagnosis. This diagnosis is subject to revision in the International Classification of Diseases-11th Revision (ICD-11). Using the legal issue of diminished responsibility, this study applied an experimental mock-jury methodology to explore the impact of diagnostic stigma of BPD on jury decision-making. Participants were allocated to one of two versions of a simplified fictitious homicide trial. The group whose defendant was described as having a 'severe personality disorder, borderline pattern' rated the defendant as more dangerous, and more in need of segregation and coercive treatment, than controls where the defendant was described as having a 'complex mental health problem'. Between-group differences in other measures, including the decision to agree a verdict of diminished responsibility, were not found. The ICD-11 'severe personality disorder, borderline pattern' diagnosis may adversely impact the attitudes of jurors considering the question of diminished responsibility.

Brief Report: Sentencing Outcomes for Offenders on the Autism Spectrum

Although people diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are not more likely to commit crimes, they are overrepresented in the criminal justice system as reported by Howlin (Autism and Asperger syndrome: Preparing for adulthood, Routledge, 2004). This may, in part, be due to unfavourable interactions with the criminal judiciary. Evidence suggests the autistic population are perceived unfavourably in adjudicative proceedings resulting in harsher penalties. The present study explores whether ASD offenders (ASD-O) receive longer sentences compared to national sentencing data. Sentencing data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) were used to compare ASD-O with similar offences. ASD-O attracted longer sentences across all offence classifications. Inferential analyses indicated sexual assault sentences were significantly higher in the ASD-O sample. No significant differences were found for murder, manslaughter, and assault.

Juror decision-making in cases of rape involving high functioning Autistic persons

Despite a plethora of research examining juror decision-making within cases of rape, very few studies have attempted to examine how the presence of a developmental disorder within a case can impact jurors' decisions. Research shows that individuals diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) are sometimes perceived more negatively (i.e. unempathetic) due to stigmatising beliefs associated with ASD. Thus, the present study sought to examine whether individuals with ASD would be treated differently by jurors in court. Using mock-juror paradigms (N = 204) the present study aimed to explore whether the presence of high-functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) amongst either the defendant or claimant influenced juror decisions (guilt verdict, confidence in verdict, and believability towards the defendant and claimant) in cases of rape. The presence of ASD amongst either party failed to have an impact on juror decision-making and final guilt verdicts. However, female participants were more likely to believe the complainant than their male counterparts. Implications of the study and directions for future research are discussed.

Mock Juror Perceptions of Credibility and Culpability in an Autistic Defendant

One-hundred-and-sixty jury-eligible participants read a vignette describing a male who was brought to the attention of police for suspicious and aggressive behaviours and displayed atypical behaviours in court. Half of participants were informed that he had autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and were given background information about ASD; the other half received no diagnostic label or information. The provision of a label and information led to higher ratings of the defendant's honesty and likeability, reduced blameworthiness, and resulted in fewer guilty verdicts, and more lenient sentencing. Thematic analysis revealed that participants in the label condition were more empathetic and attributed his behaviours to his ASD and mitigating factors, while participants in the No label condition perceived the defendant as deceitful, unremorseful, rude and aggressive.

Educator of the Court: The Role of the Expert Witness in Cases Involving Autism Spectrum Disorder

The role of the expert witness in legal contexts is to educate fact finders of the court who may have no background in the expert's area. This role can be especially difficult for those who assist in cases involving individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). As expert assistance on ASD is crucial to ensuring just outcomes for individuals diagnosed with ASD, knowledge on how expert witnesses perceive and approach their roles, and what factors may influence these perceptions, is essential. This qualitative research utilizes semi-structured interviews with a sample of expert witnesses in cases involving ASD, analyzed using a grounded-theory constant comparative analytic approach. Data reveal that experts appear to view their roles in court as reconstructionists, educators, myth-dispellers, and most of all, communicators, actively using their testimony to fill these roles in cases. These results also allow for the development of a model that illustrates two areas that coalesce to affect how experts view their roles in court: (1) personal experiences of experts in cases in which they have been involved; and (2) influences outside experts' personal experiences, such as their general opinions or observations regarding ASD and its relationship to the criminal justice system.