The Prevalence and Correlates of Involvement in the Criminal Justice System Among Youth on the Autism Spectrum

Abstract

This study examined the prevalence and correlates of involvement in the criminal justice system among a nationally representative sample of youth with autism. We examined whether youth had been stopped and questioned by police or arrested at 14-15 years old and 21-22 years old. By age 21, approximately 20% of youth with autism had been stopped and questioned by police and nearly 5% had been arrested. Female youth were less likely to be involved in the criminal justice system, whereas youth displaying externalizing behaviors were more likely to be involved in the criminal justice system. Further research is needed to investigate factors associated with involvement in the criminal justice system among youth with autism and to implement prevention strategies.

The Witness-Aimed First Account (WAFA): A new technique for interviewing autistic witnesses and victims

“…However, currently there exists no alternative theoretically driven, legally appropriate interview framework to elicit more complete and accurate information about what they have experienced. This is concerning because autistic individuals are disproportionately more likely to be questioned by police than TD individuals ( Brown-Lavoie et al, 2014 ; Chaplin & Mukhopadhyay, 2018 ; Heeramun et al, 2017 ; Lindblad & Lainpelto, 2011 ; Rava et al, 2017 ; Tint et al, 2017 , 2019 ; Weiss & Fardella, 2018 ). The aim of this research was to test a novel interview technique that offered autistic individuals support in a way that guided them more concretely through their recall attempts.…”

“…Core characteristics of ASD, such as difficulty in gauging social interactions and understanding the thoughts and intentions of others, have been linked to an increased risk of coming into contact with police as a victim/witness 1 or suspect (e.g. Brown-Lavoie et al, 2014 ; Chaplin & Mukhopadhyay, 2018 ; Heeramun et al, 2017 ; Lindblad & Lainpelto, 2011 ; Rava et al, 2017 ; Tint et al, 2017 , 2019 ; Weiss & Fardella, 2018 ). However, knowledge is currently limited regarding how best to interview autistic individuals in order to elicit the most complete and accurate information about what they have experienced.…”

Mock Juror Perceptions of Credibility and Culpability in an Autistic Defendant

“…Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by impairments in social communication and interaction, and restricted and repetitive behaviours and interests (American Psychiatric Association 2013). For a small minority of individuals, characteristics linked to clinical features of the disorder may be associated with engagement with the police and criminal justice system (CJS) as an offender (e.g., Cheely et al 2012; Heeramun et al 2017; Helverschou et al 2015; King and Murphy 2014; Lunsky et al 2018; Mouridsen 2012; Rava et al 2017; Tint et al 2017; Turcotte et al 2017; Vohra et al 2016; Woodbury-Smith and Dein 2014). 1 For example, obsessional or circumscribed interests and behaviours (e.g., Barry-Walsh and Mullen 2004; Chen et al 2003; Hare et al 1999; Haskins and Silva 2006; Helverschou et al 2015; Woodbury-Smith et al 2010), misinterpretation of rules (Allen et al 2008), failing to recognise the consequences of one’s actions (Howlin 2004), interpersonal naivety and poor social awareness (Haskins and Silva 2006; Murrie et al 2002), idiosyncratic interpretation of people and events (Helverschou et al 2015; Katz and Zemishlany 2006; Woodbury-Smith et al 2005), challenging behaviours (Tint et al 2017), sensory sensitivities (Katz and Zemishlany 2006; Mawson et al 1985) and difficulties relating to empathy (Bjørkly 2009; Murrie et al 2002), emotion recognition (Woodbury-Smith et al 2005), impulse control and emotional dysregulation (Lerner et al 2012) have all been implicated in various cases of autistic offending.…”

“…Observers often base their judgments of an individual’s credibility on verbal and non-verbal cues (DePaulo et al 2003) such as eye-contact (Hartwig and Bond 2011), body movements and fidgeting (Strömwall and Granhag 2003), surface features of speech (Ozuru and Hirst 2006) and displays of emotion (Tallon et al 2015). ASD manifestations including atypical eye contact (Neumann et al 2006; Senju and Johnson 2009), unusual gestures and stereotyped body movements (de Marchena and Eigsti 2010; Gritti et al 2003), atypical speech characteristics and prosody (Peppe ´ et al 2007), and unusual expression of emotion (Loveland et al 1994) may all, therefore, have potentially serious and negative consequences (Cea 2014; Tsoudis 2000). Indeed, recent research shows that atypical behaviours often result in negative impressions and judgements about autistic individuals in everyday contexts (Faso et al 2015; Grossman 2015; Grossman et al 2018; Harnum et al 2007; Sasson et al 2017; Sasson and Morrison 2017).…”

Measuring Police Officer Self-efficacy for Working with Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…According to the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics (2017), the rate of violent victimization against persons with disabilities was 2.5 times higher than the rate for individuals without disabilities (Harrell, 2017). Individuals with disabilities in general are seven times more likely to interact with law enforcement officials than are their neurotypical peers (Debbaudt & Rothman, 2001;Henshaw & Thomas, 2012;Organization for Autism Research, 2014), and a recent study found that one in five youth with ASD was stopped and questioned by the police before the age of 21 (Rava, Shattuck, Rast, & Roux, 2017). Furthermore, results from several studies reveal that police officers are often unknowledgeable about ASD and report concerns about how to handle situations appropriately involving persons with ASD, which may lead to problematic interactions between officers and persons with ASD (Chown, 2009;Crane, Maras, Hawken, Mulcahy, & Memon, 2016).…”