The Understanding of Wrongfulness by Autistic Individuals in the Criminal Justice System

Purpose: This study investigated the impact autism and difficulties with theory of mind (ToM) have on one’s ability to reason about the wrongfulness of criminal behaviour, and whether this relationship was affected when explicit information was given about the intentionality behind, and harmful outcome of a behaviour. It was hypothesised that when intent and harm information were absent, ToM would mediate the autism and reasoning ability relationship. 

Method: The ToM and reasoning ability of 57 non-autistic and 55 autistic adult participants was assessed. To test reasoning ability, participants read criminal scenarios with intent and harm information absent or present and reasoned why the behaviour was or was not ‘wrong’. Their responses were then scored based on the level of information they provided about intent and harm in their reasoning. 

Results: Overall, autistic participants scored lower on the reasoning task than non-autistic participants. When intent and harm information were absent, evidence for the group difference remained, albeit weaker, and ToM did not mediate this relationship. The gap in reasoning ability between groups was smaller when harm information was included, compared to when it was absent. 

Conclusion: The lower reasoning ability of autistic compared to non-autistic participants suggests that autistic individuals may not consider the intentionality or potential harmfulness when engaging in illegal activity or confronted with wrongful situations. However, if informed about the intent and potential harm, the difficulties in reasoning experienced by autistic people are reduced, suggesting that anticipating the potential outcome of behaviour may not be intuitive for some.