aspergers and criminal behavior

Post Reply New Topic

journal of the american academy of psychiatry and the law online

professionals talking about how we're more likely to be criminals because of our lack of awareness/perception of other's feelings, and also our strongly held opionions and beliefs

Studies have shown people with aspergers are less likely to commit violent crimes too.

In a sense it could go either way, depends if and how the individual is taught social manners. If not, then I suppose they COULD have a chance to be criminals. But I specifically noticed that I can't even tell a lie or even verbally abuse some one. How can I commit a crime? I don't think we're more likely to commit criminal acts. But if one of us does, good luck. I don't think we'de be very good criminals. Infact, if intent is involved, we're more good than harm. I think an aspie has a better chance doing something amazing with one's life than to a criminal. We're passionate about what we do, our strongly held opinions can make us very willful, and having a gap or seperation between us and the feelings of others can cause us to think for our selves and see the world differently; unbound by what the majority believes. Alot of selfcentered, spineless people are just trying to pass us off for crazy or mentally ret*d people because they think their "normality" makes them superior. If anything, aspergers seperates from the flock and makes us think in very unique ways, seeing and doing things others wouldn't. Some of the smartest, wisest people in the world were no different than us. If anyone's playing the superiority card, it might aswell be us. But over all, we're no more a criminal than everyone else, maybe even less.

i read the whole article. it makes no conclusions. it says further study is needed to see if lack of ToM and special interests contribute to a higher degree of criminality among those who have aspergers. it also suggests that aspie criminals may not get a fair shake from the legal system due to an apparent lack of remorse and that our brain hard-wiring may make us not as culpable.

i would like to become criminal and become most wanted but only in my dreams...

A Pennsylvania legislative report in 2004 states about adult AS people "despite needing significant support to maintain employment, live independently and avoid entry into the criminal justice system" do not qualify for state aid. We will probably get better treatment as offenders than we do now.

That's stupid! I think it's partly because I have Asperger's that I have a much stronger sense of right and wrong. As a teen I wasn't even tempted to do something illegal such as shopping, smoking or even underage drinking even if "everyone was doing it". I really hate it when I do something wrong or bad, even by mistake. It makes me feel...human.
On the other hand, before I was diagnosed my outbursts and meltdowns had gotten so bad that the staff in the home thought I was a danger to myself and others and kicked me out. And one time before that I did something stupid and dangerous that cost me a lot of money to repair damages to someone's car window, all because of my fear and hatred of cars and traffic. But what's really scary is that I didn't really feel sorry I put people in danger, I was only sorry I had to pay for the damage.

lostonearth35 -- you make a good point about our having a better perspective on right and wrong. But let tell you when I had a meltdown in a bank when it would not honor one of its checks (U.C.C. Section 3), the bank proceeded to serve me with a Defiant Trespass Notice which prohibits me from entering any of the banks branches. Note, during this my paycheck was written on one of this bank's accounts. My point I'm punished, but the bank is the one violating the law.

I think there is an important distinction that needs to be made. Not all crime has a victim. I look at rules and laws in the context of my personal situation. I would never hurt another person except in defence of myself or my family. But there are laws that I have broken and will continue to break because the logic behind the laws are faulty and breaking the law actually benefits me without harming anyone else (either physically or financially). Chalk it up to some of my more libertarian leanings.

Not all crime has a victim, but violent crime does. :I

That said, this article doesn't prove [I don't like the word in this case but it's close enough] anything. They've confused 'social reciprocity' with real emotions. If you confuse a lack of the former with a lack of the latter, you've just confused Asperger's with Sociopathy. Great job guys.

I'm a teenager right now, and I just scheduled a job interview [Six Flags called me fifteen minutes after I submitted my application. I'm going to have a job. Which means I have money to buy art supplies and junk!]. The guy on the phone who scheduled the interview with me told me I'd have to submit to a drug test [very nervously I think, because he started talking really slowly] and I interrupted him to say I've never done drugs so I really don't care.

I also think you mean shoplifting and not shopping. Shopping is legal. Or is it? OH CRAP.

I didn't bother to read the article but even my own mother says that aspies should be able to follow the laws and not ever commit crimes because they are so literal. She also doesn't buy the fact that Asperger's would make them commit crimes.

That is kind of how I feel about it...though I don't know how libertarian I actually am.

Anders Breivik killed nearly 100 people because of ideology and 'black and white' thinking, please excuse the sorry pun

Important points I think.

The article also does not define what the authors mean by crime, although in discussion of crimes they mention non-sexual violent crime, sexual violent crime and arson - again reaching no clear conclusions about these crimes and ASD.

I think part of the confusion I'm having in "digesting" this article is the way the authors seem to move from a "psychological/psychiatric" vocabulary to a "legal" one, just about every other sentence or so. And since I've got what I think is a fair layperson's grasp of both, I suspect I know enough to think myself into confusion....and not out again.

As far as the vocabulary goes, I am embarrassed to admit that I did not know it is typically a "forensic psychiatrist" that would determine competency to stand trial until I tried to make some sense of this article. But the authors also seem to be using the term "forensic" or "forensics" as something akin to a "psychological autopsy," reviewing or meta-reviewing previous work, trying to reach some sort of conclusion, and essentially throwing their hands up in the air and saying more work needs to be done. I guess that's how I've mentally summarized the article, but there were a few poinst that rather stuck in my craw:

1) This is a quote from the article re: Broadmoor Hospital in the UK, which I'm presuming is the sort of facility that would be used to house the "criminally insane" (not sure what the UK analogue is) in the US

Yet, when the authors provide the three case-studies, 2 of the 3 are related to sexual misconduct? Umm, why? If the Broadmoor data is valid in any sense, shouldn't the case studies have reflected this?

2) Since Broadmoor is a psychiatric hospital, I'm presuming the population reviewed was not found competent to go to trial, based upon some condition or other. And only a minority of the population the researchers determined to have ASD had been previously diagnosed as such. Meaning, a very high rate of co-morbidit[y/ies], noted by the authors, but not at all expounded upon. Nor was their even an attempt to justify this tested population as having any bearing at all on the general population on the ASD.

3) Shouldn't they have given a nod somehow or somewhere to the prevalence or lack thereof in the "general" (non-psychiatric) prison population, of, say, a medium security prison? But there's not a syllable on anything close to that. This is especially puzzling since if ASD rates are above average, perhaps these inmates could be helped, or even transferred to a more appropriate setting. And if they're below average? I'm honestly not sure what they'd say then. Maybe return some grant money?

4) Back to co-morbidity...They do mention it numerous times, but never quantify what is most common, and what is rare (except for co-morbidity w/psychotic disorders). The reason I mention this is that the incarceration rate AND recidivism rate for people with ADHD is absolutely horrendous. See: 21% To 45% 0f Prisoners Have ADHD 15 Peer Reviewed Studies Show. Crime & Jail Are Costly, Treatment Is Cheap (link) for a tolerably written article on the topic. Even better, if you can get your hands on a copy, is the book ADHD in Adults: What the Science Says (google e-bk excerpts). Anyway, if there's a high co-mordity between ASD and ADHD, which we don't know from the article, clearly that would have to be accounted for somehow. And I suspect the same for Borderline Personality Disorder and doubtless others.

Finally, I guess I'm frustrated that they spent so much time building "castles in the air" with Theory of Mind arguments, variant brain functions, and so on, before they really made a case that there's a problem out there for ASD folks in this area. Heaven knows we have enough in other parts of our life.