The Effect of Crime Type and Knowledge about Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) on the Judgement of Defendants with ASD

Research indicates autistic defendants are treated more leniently than non-autistic defendants. However, it is unclear whether this is caused by positive perceptions of autistic people, or because autism is a relevant mitigating factor. Across two studies we tested how mock jurors evaluated autistic defendants in autism relevant and irrelevant criminal cases to better understand when and why autistic defendants receive leniency. Further, we provided some of the participants with educational information about ASD allowing these participants to recognise autism as a relevant mitigation for criminal cases for which autistic traits can be a risk factor (assault and stalking cases, but not burglary cases). Defendants with ASD only received lower sentences when autism was a relevant mitigation (assault and stalking), but not when autism was irrelevant (burglary). Thus, participants did not simply give preferential treatment to autistic defendants, but considered how ASD was related to the offense. However, providing information about autism weakened these effects, indicating educating people about autism may not always benefit autistic defendants. Our study highlights the importance of nuanced messaging about autism. While explaining how autistic characteristics can explain criminal behaviour may reduce perceptions of criminal responsibility, it may also imply greater dangerousness or risk of reoffending.