Equality Demands Responsibility · Jan 24, 10:00 AM

by Ari Ne’eman

Ari Ne’eman is a high school student living in East Brunswick, New Jersey. He is an Asperger’s autistic and a frequent speaker on special education reform for the New Jersey Department of Education.

Television has been abuzz this past week with news of Asperger’s Syndrome. With both Boston Legal and Dr. Phil featuring Asperger’s, our neurology has certainly received a jump in media attention. However, it would serve us well to remember that not all attention is positive.

The focus of Boston Legal’s foray into Asperger’s is the brilliant but eccentric lawyer Jerry Espenson. Espenson, played by Christian Clemenson, is unrivaled in his intellectual and legal abilities, but -– like many of us -– is somewhat lacking in social skills. As a result, he is passed over for a partnership in favor of a lesser qualified social climber. In response, Jerry lashes out and pulls a knife on a colleague. Dr. Phil showcases a similar portrayal of the ‘dangerous and violent autistic,’ calling his show Extreme Disorders and commiserating with stricken parents that “wanted him to be normal!” Relying on behavioral examples that are more characteristic of bipolar or obsessive compulsive disorder, Dr. Phil portrays those of our neurology as unstable, aggressive and out of control. As a community, we can probably agree that this alarmist ratings ploy is not the face we want to present to the public.

While Boston Legal generally portrays Clemenson’s character in a positive light –- his legal skills are never in doubt and the show’s protagonist defends him valiantly—it arguably paints almost as insulting a picture as Dr. Phil. When Jerry’s threatened colleague agrees to drop the charges against him—after learning about his unfortunate “disorder” and ensuring that he leaves the firm for “treatment”—the message sent is a simple one: his actions were simply outside of his control. This makes for good television, but does it really benefit our community as a whole if autistic identity is portrayed as a defense against assault? The resulting implication is not a positive one.

If we truly seek the level of tolerance and acceptance procured by past civil rights movements organized on the basis of race, religion or creed, we cannot say that we are inherently prone to violence or crime. Such a chain of thought, even if used with the best of possible motives, has chilling consequences. Yes, we are autistics living in a neurotypical society. Undoubtedly, that brings about certain pressures and problems. But if we are to demand equal legitimacy, if we are to assert that a “cure” is not only unnecessary and undesirable but also morally reprehensible, then we must accept for ourselves equal responsibilities. Accommodation within the law can be sought when reasonable, exemption from the law cannot be.

Jerry Espenson’s actions were against the law. They should have been prosecuted. Returning to the real world, the last few years have seen an unfortunate tendency whereby Asperger’s has been claimed as a legal defense for everything from parole violations to vandalism and assault. Making that argument is not only legally and medically iffy, but also highly damaging to the advocacy of neurological diversity in general. To be recognized as equal to the neurotypical population we must shoulder the same responsibilities. If Asperger’s is a justifiable excuse for criminal action, what right do we have to demand an equal place in a society of law-abiding human beings? When a college student caught engaging in arson suddenly claims Asperger’s so as to avoid being held accountable for his actions, what does it say about all other law abiding autistics? If Asperger’s means an inability to help breaking the law, all of us are incapable of avoiding lawbreaking. As someone who hopes to work in law eventually, I am not too keen on the message this sends to my future prospective employers. “Asperger’s autistics,” says this argument, “are a risk to your workplace environment. They could go off at any moment- it’s just who they are.”

In the age of zero tolerance, such a perception of autistics would lead to new and overt forms of discrimination, brought about by fear and patronization. If autistics are a security risk, then hiring them becomes an unacceptable burden. Exemption from the law doesn’t mean equality under it; it only means freedom from its rigors and responsibilities. An equality of that sort means nothing because it prevents real contribution to society. Without the ability to contribute, no claim to equal membership in society can be sustained. To settle for that sort of “equality lite” means settling for relying on the charity of the majority, with our safety and legitimacy protected only as long as the pyrrhic neurotypical quest for a “cure” remains unrealized.

Comments


  1. I agree wholeheartedly.

    Three cheers for judges who reject the “Asperger defense? as an irrelevant appeal to the prejudices of the jury. In the case of the arsonist and eco-terrorist who was setting SUVs on fire, the judge refused to allow a psychological expert to testify. — Bonnie Ventura    Jan 24, 11:55 AM    #

  2. I also agree. It does us no good at all if Asperger Syndrome is used as a carte blanche defense in criminal proceeedings. Sometimes it may be an extenuating circumstance but there is nothing that makes autistics more predisposed to crime than the rest of us. In fact if you are autistic you are more likely to be a victim than a perpetrator. — Mike Stanton    Jan 24, 02:02 PM    #

  3. I also agree, but with reservations. Young Ari sets out a very good case for responsibility, and I wouldn’t oppose him on that. Yet, I would like to see consideration of extenuating circumstances. I recall the case of the young aspie man and the SUV fires. I believe he was trying to overcome his social ineptness by being involved in a “cause?, being part of a group, wanting to impress a girl, and also being left “holding the bag?. Such things do happen to aspies, and while he IS responsible for what he did, I also think that a judge should be able to consider that the young man was being gullible, his motivations were not the same as his partners, and was a bit less culpable in what happened. I think some leniency would be in order.

    In 1980, I took a new-found black friend to what he said was the apartment where he was just moving out of. When we got there, he said, “Oh damn, they changed the lock already,? and let himself in with a credit card. I went in with him while he picked up a few things, standing idly by. I don’t want to say how many YEARS it took me to figure out that I had participated in a “breaking and entering? robbery. If we had been caught, I really didn’t know what he was doing there, should I have been sent to prison with him?

    I’ve been a big fan of “Boston Legal?, and recognized the aspie character of Jerry Espenson even before they let the cat out the bag. (It was a very well-played characterization.) Here we had a tightly-wound, slightly OCD aspie character who had worked at the firm for 15 years, had been led to believe that he could become a partner, even though a note was made in his first evaluation that he was not “partner material?. He had worked hard (and been lied to) for 15 years, practically anyone could have a meltdown incident in that circumstance. I regret that they chose a violent attack with (what appeared to be a plastic) cake knife. It was over the top, I thought, not something I would do, but lots of people do things I wouldn’t do.

    There should be room for consideration of extenuating circumstances, for evaluating the motivations of people, while still preserving justice. I would not ask for any “exemption? from the law, but the same sort of understanding of motives and circumstances which are given when
    Anyone breaks the law, (perhaps unintentionally). Light sentences can and are given in such cases. Prisons can be especially terrible for an autistic person. — Clay    Jan 24, 05:40 PM    #

  4. Thanks, Clay.

    I think you said just about what I would say. I think that an ASD can set someone up for being made the patsy. I learned of this with my ex-husband and what he experienced in his teen years, AS kids are socially inept, one group that has very loose standards for inclusion is the outsider/criminal/substance abuser group.

    My ex-husband got in with this outsider/deliquent group and got sent to a juvenile detention center because they broke into a house to steal something. I think he knew better, but I’m not entirely sure if the other kids had told him it was OK.

    The outsiders will accept the ASD kid just because they don’t want to be mean, or they might accept him or her specifically so that they can use him for the “fall guy?, the “scapegoat?, whatever. At any rate, after a lifetime of total rejection by peers, acceptance by peers can be pretty intoxicating.

    If that was the case with the guy who particpated in blowing up the SUVs, then that ought to be taken into account. And maybe it was taken into account.

    People with autism spectrum diagnoses are not much more alike than “all black people? or “all Korean people?. Some of them might be just evil, but it would seem that they are less likely to be evil than others and as far as I know, as adults, they aren’t more violent or impulsive than NT people.

    Autistics, like Mike said, make very good victims, they, almost by definition, don’t make very good (successful) criminals. — Camille    Jan 24, 09:28 PM    #

  5. While I definitely agree with the basic sentiment, there are times when the Asperger’s genuinely is an excusing reason. Easy manipulation, etc. But Clay makes the bulk of that point far, far, far better than I can.

    Excluding in the case of criminal negligence, motivation really should be the important aspect in determining weather someone was in the wrong or the right. Attacking someone with a knife will always be unacceptably criminal. However, there are other crimes (accessory to robbery, (or pretty much anything) obstructing the course of justice) which can come out genuinely due to accident. Clay gives an example of accessory to robbery, obstructing the course of justice could come about due to misinterpriting an officer’s question (or them misinterpriting the answer. Why do people insist on asking important questions in the negative, that can really muck up their interpritation of the answers)...

    There are times when I could imagine someone managing to vandalise something accidently (thinking that something which was already vandalised wasn’t actually vandalised but where it said write x if you agree was actually an invitation by the owner, is possable). Threatening behaviour (but not actual assault, though a tap might accidently become a punch, or a bap on the nose might… uhh… miss and become a poke in the eye… He was fine, and I appologised enough for him to realise it was a genuine accident) can easially be misinterprited either way within an NT/Autistic interaction. I’ve rested my hands on someones shoulders which they interprited as aggressive before, and I’ve misinterprited things that were intended as harmless jokes as attacks on my person (granted, people (including him) were more impressed that I’d tossed him over my sholder without much apparant effort than shocked or scared. But then, that’s high-school students for you). The list goes on, but establishing motive will always be the important part in determining crime, I think.

    I don’t view autism as an excuse for genuine illegal activity, however since the majority of crimes (again criminal negligence is an exception) can be defined as intentionally causing suffering of some form, if the intention wasn’t there, then it shouldn’t be considered a crime (though that probably excludes failure to properly weigh up the consequences, eg ‘I didn’t know he’d be upset by my graffeetying that wall’, though in the vast majority of those cases, community service related to the act is typically appropriate enough a punishment, or paying back for damages). And if the only person harmed by an action is the person doing the action, then the action shouldn’t be illegal. But that last bit has absolutely no bearing on autism. — Gizensha    Jan 24, 09:49 PM    #

  6. Ari’s point will have to be made – ad infinitum ad nauseum. It’s ridiculous that playing the ‘AS Card’ is even allowed. Any extenuating circumstances on offer are really no different to what would be offered to any other person. The sensationalism a la Dr Phil or standard careerism a la Aston/Linehan/Marshack is bad enough. — Alyric    Jan 24, 10:02 PM    #

  7. A valid point Clay, and I would at least partially agree with the principle behind it. Yet, like you, I must do so with reservations. I agree that things like motivation and circumstances should be taken into account. However, they already are. I don’t claim that the already existing legal channels for defense should not be available for autistics or that mitigating factors (the long record of professional misconduct in the firm’s treatment of Jerry, his aggravated mental state, etc.) should not be taken into account in considering leniency. These concepts are already a part of the existing legal system.

    For instance, in reference to the example you brought up from 1980, intent is very much an important part of the judicial process. Proving that you – for any reason – lacked the intent necessary to have committed a crime, would and should be taken into account in your defense and would probably exonerate you.

    The problem doesn’t arise when Asperger’s is used to demonstrate already recognized and legitimate legal defenses. It arises when it is used in the same category as mental illness or to establish some new form of defense. The young Caltech student who set fire to those SUVs…Well, I highly doubt he’d be the first person – autistic or neurotypical – to have committed a crime to impress a girl, out of misplaced fervor for a cause or because he fell in with the wrong crowd. God knows ELF (Earth Liberation Front) has used enough naive idealists in the past. Yes, he did not act out of malice or any particularly unsympathetic motivation. Regardless of that, he still knew what he was doing was against the law. He still had every ability to avoid it. There are many factors that can be considered in advocating leniency in sentencing Billy Cottrell (the name of the student in question) for his crime, Asperger’s is not one of them. — Ari Ne'eman    Jan 25, 01:10 AM    #

  8. As an afterthought, in defense of Jerry Espenson, he wasn’t really planning to slit her throat, but had a well-thought out plan for getting around the “agreement under duress? stipulation of the law. He had ordered a couple of office workers to “get on it? to implement his plan to make him a partner. I don’t know about the validity of the signed agreement’s enforceability, but his intention was merely to force the firm into making him a partner. So there was no “attempted murder? involved there. Coercion, blackmail, maybe, but no intention to kill or harm anyone.

    If I were to get in trouble with the law, I would not attempt any “diminished capacity? or “mental defect or incompetence? based on Asperger’s to get off. But then, I’m pushing 60, and I’ve been aware of my Dx for almost 7 years now – nowhere near as naive and gullible as I used to be. Young aspies, however, are easily led astray, lied to, manipulated for fun and profit. I’m not sure, but I don’t think young Billy Cottrell got any special consideration because of his Dx, and this is wrong for two reasons. 1. In general, aspies mature far later than their cohorts, so that an 18 yr old is likely to have the maturity of a 12 – 15 yr old. 2. A young aspie in prison is far more of a target than an NT of the same age. I don’t want to think about what’s happening to that young man.

    I wish you good luck, Ari, and I hope you achieve your goals. And I hope you will realize that many aspie/auties are not as fortunate as you, and have a much harder time making it in this world. — Clay    Jan 25, 12:33 PM    #

  9. I tried to find out Billy Cottrell’s sentence, but haven’t found it yet. Found this interesting, though.
    http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/2004/12/william_cottrel.html — Clay    Jan 25, 12:58 PM    #

  10. Seven years in Federal prison. It may be enough time to figure out string theory.
    http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16908 — Clay    Jan 25, 01:25 PM    #

  11. Without a doubt Billy Cottrell’s intention was not to hurt anyone.
    Espenson and Cottrell should have recieved leniency in sentencing, but for reasons entirely seperate from Asperger’s (intent, first time offense, circumstances, having been manipulated etc). It’s also worth noting that Cottrell did probably recieve leniency, given that he testified as to who his co-conspirators were and his offense could have netted him far more jail time. He should not have his actions excused or ignored. The law just does not work that way. People aren’t exonerated simply because they were duped or recruited or anything like that. These things have nothing to do with autistic or neurotypical traits, they have everything to do with rule of law.

    Clay, I sympathize with whatever struggles you had to go through in your childhood and no doubt beyond. You may be surprised to hear this, but what preliminary success I have achieved has not come with great ease either, though I certainly recognize that many have had it far worse. Yet there is a fundamental difference in my perspective and yours – one that is understandable given the different goals that frequently divide the younger and older generations in any movement. Your focus is on Billy Cottrell and the regrettable pain he will have to go through. My focus is on what making an exception in the law for Cottrell means for all of us. The fact is that if Cottrell – and all of us – is the equal of a neurotypical in his situation, he should be judged along the same standards. Yes, he was manipulated. Yes, he was the fall guy. Yes, his position is tragic, unfortunate and originated in the machinations of others. But that has been the case with countless neurotypicals previously. If a different standard is set for him – whatever his age.

    Cottrell’s case is unfortunate, but its these conversations that are really going to determine what neurodiversity really means. Are we going to truly advocate for equality and all it entails? Are we going to make the argument that we are the equal of the neurotypical populace? Or are our efforts just another self-interested humanitarian gesture to a people unfortunate enough to have been born “disabled?? When it gets down to it, we have to decide if we’re a civil rights or a disability rights movement and reaching a broad based movement based on principles and abiding by them- whatever it takes – will make that determination. — Ari Ne'eman    Jan 25, 08:48 PM    #

  12. About that SUV arson crime—I know someone who knows both of the young men involved. The Aspie young man supposedly is actually Asperger’s (as are likely many of the students at Cal Tech). From what I heard, the “ring leader? was really sociopathic and exerted a lot of control over the Aspie student.

    This is not to excuse, merely to explain and point out something that always worries me – which is those on the spectrum being taken advantage of by those who excel in the art of the con. — need2Banon    Jan 25, 09:34 PM    #

  13. need2Banon, I agree. That is a concern. One hopes that cowards like the sociopath you mentioned are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Like any criminal act, the people who instigate it must also be held responsible. I hope your friend relayed news of the ring leader’s arrest as well. It would be a shame if someone like that got off scot-free. — Ari Ne'eman    Jan 25, 11:25 PM    #

  14. The thing about introducing the concept of “Asperger’s? into the defense, as opposed to, generically saying this guy was naive, this guy never had friends before, this guy has very sensitive hearing (lets say that impacted the motivation for a crime), this guy has a hard time jumping off a topic once he’s latched onto it…

    Yeah, you can say all of those things separately, but if you know that a person has AS, then you can be aware of all that implies. Like, he’s standing there swaying in the back of the courtroom, not out of nervousness or because he’s “shifty? or drunk or whatever, but because lots of AS people sway back and forth when they need to “stand still.? Not making eye contact makes people look totally guilty, the judge and jury need to know that this guy’s lack of eye contact is not derived from guilt or sorrow.

    I think it’s important for the judge and jury to get the whole picture, and that includes the ASD dx of the accused.

    If I were going to trial, I would want everyone to know why I might act nervous, for crying out loud, it doesn’t take much to get me to act nervous!

    Think of that woman in Australia accused of killing her baby. From what I heard (in the media) she was believed to have killed her baby because she was unemotional in court. How many of us could pull off a “normal emotional performance? for a judge?

    The dingoes killed her baby, but she was sentenced to prison, wasn’t she? Yes, partly on bad lab evidence that found blood when there was not blood… don’t get me started on lab tests…. — Camille    Jan 26, 02:59 AM    #

  15. Clay: I understand your point about naive young adults, and I believe we need better social education to help young people identify dangerous situations, but I strongly disagree with the idea that Aspies, or any group of people, should be legally categorized as less mature than others. That puts the civil rights of the entire group in jeopardy. There has already been a case where curebie parents got an order of guardianship over an adult Aspie son to force him to take medication, even though he was intelligent and capable and was attending college, on the theory that he was not mentally competent to make adult decisions.

    Camille: There is a huge difference between explaining a person’s demeanor in terms of typical autistic behavior and letting a defendant use AS to excuse his criminal conduct. Ari wasn’t suggesting that all mention of AS ought to be banned from the courtroom, only that it shouldn’t be used as a “diminished responsibility? defense.

    Ari: Disability rights are civil rights. I don’t think of myself as a “disabled person? either, but anyone can have a disabling condition if the social structure and the available technology can’t accommodate their particular needs. For example, nearsightedness is a very common and “normal? condition nowadays, but it was severely disabling before eyeglasses were invented. We need a major overhaul of the disability and special education bureaucracies so that appropriate and respectful services can be provided to everyone based on their individual needs and requests, instead of lumping groups of people together into stereotyped categories of “the disabled.? This is part of our struggle too. — Bonnie Ventura    Jan 26, 12:22 PM    #

  16. Bonnie,

    I hope you didn’t interpret my remarks as speaking ill of the disability rights movement. I view it as a valuable ally and partner of our own independent movement for equality and one that I wish all the best towards. The full realization of our inalienable rights is the objective of all of us. I had the opportunity to observe the United Nations Negotiations on a Disability Rights Convention last summer, and there are many common themes between the two movements.

    I’d appreciate it if you could send me information about that example you provided. It sounds exceptionally concerning as I know that there is very often a divide between parent and teen about these things. Parents are so reluctant to let go in any set of circumstances. As you said, avoiding situations like that can not be done without a recognition that the law must apply to us equally in all instances. You also clarified my position fairly well to Camille, who also makes some good points. Hopefully neurodiversity leads to an awareness and a tolerance of different physical and emotional responses.

    As someone who spent a great deal of time under the thumb of the special educaton bureacracy, I could not agree more that it needs to be substantially overhauled. In fact, I think that issue and this one are interconnected. Part of what the structure of education provides is an understanding of the social and professional skills necessary to advance in life. Yet as we live in a majority neurotypical society, that education is geared towards neurotypicals and is most effective in their instance. Hopefully as the neurodiversity movement stretches its wings, so to speak, we can begin to work both inside and outside the system to create an environment that serves autistic needs as well. It isn’t that we learn less readily than neurotypicals, it’s that there is a difference in the tactics that work best. For instance, a longer maturing period for Asperger’s autistics is probably a result of an environment geared towards neurotypical society, not a result of any inherent disability in maturity. When we have the right learning environment in place (in the context of an inclusive educational environment – a topic that is worth discussing at length at some later point), the sort of naivete and openness to manipulation that leaves many of us open to sociopaths and manipulators will be substantially less prevalent. — Ari Ne'eman    Jan 26, 11:12 PM    #

  17. Bonnie V. makes a very valid point. We know a family, a very, and I mean VERY, wealthy family, whose daughter is Autistic among other things. They live well, but, every year, without fail, the NYC Department of Ed rejects their daughters placement until the family goes through a hearing to have the placement approved. Fortunately, they use the same letters, etc. year-to-year and just change the dates. It is a farce, and the hearing officer even uses the same decisions, just changing the dates. That system needs serious overhaul.

    As for the article…my older son has AD/HD and it just p*sses me off whenever someone tries to use that as a defense for criminal activity. There is NO way that AD/HD can fit into the legal definition of mental disease or defect. What it does do, however, is to further stigmatize the person with the problem and, thus, make it that much harder for someone with it. — TheProbe    Jan 26, 11:25 PM    #

  18. Ari, the guardianship case was discussed on AFF:
    http://www.aspiesforfreedom.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=18794 — Bonnie Ventura    Jan 27, 12:25 PM    #

  19. I’m taking a class on special ed from a man who has been very influential in the state of California as far was writing up special ed laws or whatever. I don’t know if he has a postition on any influential committees now. He’s faculty at UCD, I think…

    anyway, I just love to hear him lecture. He points out every horrible failing of the system and they are really bad. He says basically, the system is sick and needs to be totally taken apart and rebuilt.

    The people within the system seem really sick. I don’t know if the special ed system just draws sickos to it, or if the system is just so bad that it corrupts people. Of course, not all special ed teachers are bad, but even the good ones are constrained and offended by the system.

    He asked me if I would speak to the class about my experiences with IEP’s and having a special ed child of my own. I haven’t yet. The professor’s daughter got meningitis as a baby and lost her hearing, that’s how he came to know the system from the side of a parent. (His daughter is grown now and attends Gallaudet U.)

    For the class I missed when Kathleen was visiting, (had to miss it I was at the MIND institute listening to Dr. Bauman) he discussed how the different racial groups in California were under- or over-represented in different disability categories.

    Back to the “AS card?. I think it’s obvious that people with AS shouldn’t be given a “get out of jail free? card for every crime they may want to commit, and I don’t know if anyone with AS would really try to do that. We tend to be very fair minded. That’s the thing, an AS “criminal? or criminal would likely admit to the crime and not play any kind of game of “I didn’t do it!!?.

    I think the bullying that most AS people get needs to be weighed, and I think the sentence should be mitigated by the fact that the person has AS if the AS contributed significantly. Just like if a deaf person didn’t hear a cop yell, “stop? and so he didn’t stop, that needs to be weighed.

    I don’t think that many NT people have been played as the fall guy. I bet if you go into prisons you find an over-representation of ASD folks who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and/or deliberately set up. I really don’t think you would find too many NT people in that situtation, but that’s just a hunch.

    I’m sure there are lots of black people who have been convicted for looking like another black person or just because some white person didn’t like him, too. But I guess that’s a different topic. — Camille    Jan 28, 12:02 AM    #

  20. Ari, thanks for your thoughtful piece. I wouldn’t say that an ASD diagnosis could never, ever be relevant to a legal issue, but I agree that it is no get out of jail free card. — Anne    Jan 28, 01:17 AM    #

  21. I think the biggest problem with special ed is that so many of the people who set policy there and who work there look at it like a charitable service, something they do and by doing so become humanitarians, rather than as providing a service – education – that everyone has the right to.

    There seems to be a lesser standard for the special education system in terms of quality of instruction because people believe that there’s only so far anyone in the system can go. When I was in special ed I was shocked at how behind academically some extremely capable and intelligent people had become, due to all the years they had spent in the system. The real reason behind this was that they weren’t being taught the same things mainstreamed students were being taught. Instead, the focus was on teaching them low level ‘vocational’ skills and how to integrate into normal society. Some type of social skills education is a good thing, but when it becomes the only thing schools teach…well, you can see the problem.

    The saddest thing about this is that the outlook that brought it about has the potential to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. When a system doesn’t provide equal educational opportunities to students, or provides them only in a context where it is much harder for them to take advantage of them, is it so surprising that the disadvantaged students come out the worse for it?

    Of course not. Yet those results only feed the mindset of limitations that has turned the special education system into a sub-par medium for educating students.

    I truly think we hold similar positions about the criminal matter. The problem doesn’t arise when mitigating factors (being the fall guy, lack of intent) are used to lessen a sentence and AS is the method used to demonstrate them. The problem arises when we do see that “get out of jail free? card defense that implies we are mentally ill and incapable of controlling our own actions. — Ari Ne'eman    Jan 28, 01:29 PM    #

  22. “I don’t think that many NT people have been played as the fall guy. I bet if you go into prisons you find an over-representation of ASD folks who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and/or deliberately set up. I really don’t think you would find too many NT people in that situtation, but that’s just a hunch.?

    I bet there are many. I read about a boy who told his little brother to steal computer equipment and then claimed he had nothing to do with it. They were both NT (although the older one had conduct disorder). Now, neither of them were old enough to go to jail, but had they been a bit older, that scenario could still happen. I think the younger boy, on some level, knew he shouldn’t be stealing but figured if his brother told him to do it it must be OK.
    And there are also plenty non-autistic non-NTs who get set up. For example, someone with FAS might get accused of doing a crime and he can’t remember doing it, but knows his memory isn’t very good so he might’ve done it, and several other people are saying he did it and others are saying he’ll be in less trouble if he confesses, so he confesses to a crime he didn’t commit. And people with FAS are also socially naive and often born into environments where there’s a lot of crime, because alcoholism causes FAS and is associated with discrimination, poverty and abuse, and some people deal with those things in illegal ways.
    And speaking of FAS, I can see Katherine Seidel’s point. Google Serena Nicotine sometime if you want to see an example of a girl with FAE (mild FAS) who was described as inherently violent because of her FAE but who grew up in an abusive home and sounds like she probably decided to lash out in order to cope with the abuse. One article is “Fighting the ‘hangover that lasts a lifetime’? and it says:

    “Fetal alcohol syndrome impaired Nicotine’s ability to think before she acts. According to the textbooks, the rules about right and wrong are stored in the left hemisphere of the brain, while impulsiveness comes from right. Exposing an unborn child to alcohol damages the connective tissue between the two halves, making it difficult for a person with fetal alcohol syndrome to control her or his behaviour.?

    The connection between the hemispheres is called the corpus callosum. There is a neurological trait called agenesis of the corpus callosum in which the corpus callosum is absent or less developed, which can be caused by a wide variety of things including FAS. I’ve never heard of bad behavior in people with ACC but not FAS being “explained? that way.
    Also, impulsiveness doesn’t necessarily mean aggressiveness. Sure, impulsiveness may relate to Serena Nicotine’s behavior, most notably how very unsubtle she is (at one point she was screaming insults at a judge, for example) but chances are if she were less impulsive she’d be no less violent, just more sneaky. An impulsive person who hasn’t decided to take their troubles out on others is likely to impulsively do kind things or non-social things and unlikely tostab someone repeatedly, deliberately drown a child, or some of the other things Serena Nicotine did.
    Ettina — Ettina    Jan 31, 08:35 PM    #

  23. I strongly beleive that Asperger’s is a defence to criminal behaviour. I am a person with AS as well as having a strong knowledge of the condition as well as the law. Many AS end up in trouble with the law also as others have stated someone with Asperger;s is likely to be socially and emotionally immature for their age making them prone to manipulation and desperate to make friends. Or as in “Jerry’s” case he felt so rejected and clearly damaged by being undiagnosed he snapped. In understand this but do not condone it. If Aspie’s do end up in prison I strongly beleive there needs to be proper help available to them in prison. I congratualate Boston Public on their portrayal.

    — Tyler    May 22, 08:41 PM    #

  24. [name removed by blog administrator] picked up for 2nd degree sexual assault on a 14 year old who happens to be his child and mine…
    claiming Asperger’s caused the behavior… people just don’t understand the way he touches her… two independent witnesses saw this in public… St. Cloud Times, St. Cloud MInnesota has the original story… hasn’t gone to trial yet….
    in his police statement admitted to crossing her boundaries…. has a history of this … one other incident… was let off with “parenting classes”....
    I think it’s appalling that someone would use any disability as an excuse for not taking responsibility for one’s actions…. oh, yes… he had never been diagnosed with Asperger’s until after the sexual assualt occurred… then rushed to get an “expert” who would declare he had Asperger’s … The whole thing makes my stomache turn….

    — sandi    Jun 22, 12:53 PM    #