A Scoping Review of Autism Spectrum Disorder and the Criminal Justice System

Background: Given that the current prevalence rate of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is now estimated to be 1 in 59 (Baio et al., 2018), the likelihood that individuals with ASD may come into contact with the criminal justice system (CJS) is increasing, especially as these children grow into adulthood. Many behaviors displayed by individuals with ASD can be misinterpreted by law enforcement officers as challenging or disrespectful (Debbuadt & Rothman, 2001). Misinterpretations may contribute to the rising number of incidents involving individuals with ASD and the CJS (Rava et al., 2017). Despite the fact that the prevalence of ASD involvement in the CJS is currently unknown (King & Murphy, 2014), research suggests that individuals with ASD are involved in interactions with law enforcement officers (LEOs) as both victims (Mayes, 2003) and suspects (Woodbury-Smith & Dein, 2014). However, little is known about the research surrounding ASD and the CJS.

Objectives: In order to understand findings relevant to various aspects of interface between individuals with ASD and the CJS, a scoping review of the literature was conducted. The scoping review aimed to summarize empirical studies including individuals with ASD and the CJS.

Methods: Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA), we conducted a search of 13 professional databases using search terms related to both ASD (e.g., autism) and the CJS (e.g., police). Four members of the research team compared decisions for study inclusion at two points: initial screening and final inclusion.

Results: From 606 articles, a total of 55 articles were selected for inclusion; kappa for screening decisions = 0.98 and kappa for final inclusion = 0.94. Articles were organized into five categories: (a) prevalence of ASD in CJS settings (n = 15), (b) characteristics of individuals with ASD in CJS settings (n = 8), (c) ASD experiences and perceptions of the CJS (n = 10), (d) interviewing individuals with ASD in CJS settings (n = 10), and (e) knowledge, perceptions, awareness, and training by CJS professionals (n = 12). Within CJS settings, prevalence rates ranged from 0.3% to 27% for individuals with ASD who demonstrated a wide range of functional levels and criminal actions (e.g., arson, assault, theft). The most common calls to LEOs involved elopement, aggression, and medical emergency. Perceptions of the CJS by the ASD community were marked by reports of lack of LEO knowledge, stigmatizing attitudes, and calls for more training. LEOs’ knowledge of ASD is limited and LEOs frequently cite the desire and need for more training around characteristics of ASD and how to respond to calls involving individuals the ASD. The review yielded two experimental studies examining the impact of LEO training; results supported increases in LEO knowledge and attitudes.

Conclusions: Interactions between the CJS and individuals with ASD are not uncommon and may involve individuals with ASD as either victims or perpetrators of crimes. The scoping review identified critical training needs for LEOs, which were identified by the ASD community and LEOs themselves.