Study Recommends Training to Address Shortcomings

A new study identifies significant gaps in judges’ knowledge about autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which can lead to inequities in how people with this disorder are treated in legal settings. The study recommends remedies to address these shortcomings.

Conducted by Carolina R. Caliman, a PhD candidate at the Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice, and Colleen M. Berryessa, associate professor at the Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice, the study examined how California state court judges perceive and use types of evidence surrounding ASD and expert testimony, when they evaluate a criminal case involving a defendant with ASD.

Sixty-one California Superior Court judges completed a survey based on a vignette about a 28-year-old male with ASD who was convicted of assaulting his roommate with a deadly weapon.

Published in the Research in Autism, the study found that most judges believe that an ASD diagnosis, as well as its known genetic etiology, would influence their sentencing decisions. Almost all judges considered it a mitigating factor in sentencing, but said that it did not substantially affect the defendant’s legal responsibility.

“Addressing the educational gaps we discovered can help the criminal justice system better accommodate the complex issues associated with ASD, which may help promote more equitable treatment for defendants with the disorder,” said Berryessa.

Added Caliman: “Such training could take the form of improved access to education and resources that describe ASD.”