Advertisement

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

, Volume 46, Issue 8, pp 2770–2773 | Cite as

Brief Report: Judicial Attitudes Regarding the Sentencing of Offenders with High Functioning Autism

  • Colleen M. Berryessa
Brief Report

Abstract

This brief report presents preliminary data on the attitudes of judges on the sentencing of offenders with High Functioning Autism (HFA). Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with twenty-one California Superior Court Judges. Interviews were qualitatively coded and constant comparative analysis was utilized. Findings revealed that judges consider HFA as both a mitigating and aggravating factor in sentencing, and knowledge of an offender’s disorder could potentially help judges understand why a criminal action might have been committed. Judges voiced concerns about the criminal justice system being able to effectively help or offer sentencing options for offenders with HFA. Finally, judges reported that they are focused on using their judicial powers and influence to provide treatment and other resources during sentencing.

Keywords

Judiciary High Functioning Autism (HFA) Sentencing Punishment Prison 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research on which this publication is based has been supported by funding from the National Institute of Health grant P50 HG003389-09 (Center for Integration of Research on Genetics and Ethics). The data reported here were collected as a part of a larger project on judicial attitudes on offenders with autism and genetic mental disorders; three other papers on this larger project have been published thus far.

Author contribution

C.B. designed the study, collected and analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Colleen M. Berryessa declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethics Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Attwood, A. (2006). The complete guide to asperger’s syndrome. Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Barry-Walsh, J. B., & Mullen, P. E. (2004). Forensic aspects of asperger’s syndrome. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 15(1), 96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berryessa, C. M. (2014a). Judicial perceptions of media portrayals of offenders with high functioning autistic spectrum disorders. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 3(1), 45–60.Google Scholar
  4. Berryessa, C. M. (2014b). Judiciary views on criminal behaviour and intention of offenders with high-functioning autism. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour, 5(2), 97–106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Berryessa, C. M. (in press). Judges’ views on evidence of genetic contributions to mental disorders in court. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology. doi: 10.1080/14789949.2016.1173718.
  6. Browning, A., & Caulfield, L. (2011). The prevalence and treatment of people with asperger’s syndrome in the criminal justice system. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 11(2), 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. California Courts. (2015). Superior courts. California courts. http://www.courts.ca.gov/superiorcourts.htm. Accessed 12, January 2016.
  8. Carpenter, L. A., Soorya, L., & Halpern, D. (2009). Asperger’s syndrome and high-functioning autism. Pediatric Annals, 38(1), 30–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Elsabbagh, M., Divan, G., Koh, Y. J., Kim, Y. S., Kauchali, S., Marcín, C., et al. (2012). Global prevalence of autism and other pervasive developmental disorders. Autism Research, 5(3), 160–179.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Freckelton, I. (2011). Autism spectrum disorders and the criminal law. In M. R. Mohammadi (Ed.), A comprehensive book on autism spectrum disorders (pp. 249–272). Croatia: Intech Press.Google Scholar
  11. Freckelton, I. (2013). Forensic issues in autism spectrum disorder: Learning from court decisions. In M. Fitzgerald (Ed.), Recent advances in autism spectrum disorders (Vol. 2, pp. 157–174). Zagreb: Intech Press.Google Scholar
  12. Freckelton, I., & List, D. (2009). Asperger’s disorder, criminal responsibility and criminal culpability. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 16(1), 16–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haskins, B. G., & Silva, J. A. (2006). Asperger’s disorder and criminal behavior: Forensic-psychiatric considerations. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 34(3), 374–384.Google Scholar
  14. Howlin, P. (2004). Autism and asperger syndrome: Preparing for adulthood. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Kristiansson, M., & Sorman, K. (2008). Autism spectrum disorders: Legal and forensic psychiatric aspects and reflections. Clinical Neuropsychiatry: Journal of Treatment Evaluation, 5(1), 55–61.Google Scholar
  16. Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and practical guide. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  17. Murrie, D. C., Warren, J. I., Kristiansson, M., & Dietz, P. E. (2002). Asperger’s syndrome in forensic settings. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 1(1), 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stanford Center for Biomedical EthicsStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of CriminologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations