Asperger's as a defense in court -- my unpopular opinion

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think an Aspie would get far with a defense of insanity.....we're no less sane than the average Joe. But the legal system in many countries is often prepared to cut tourists a bit of slack, on the grounds that they may be unfamiliar with local law, so I don't see why Aspies shouldn't be granted a bit of leeway for similar reasons. It's part of the legal mantra that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but in practise ignorance is indeed accepted as migitagion.

It could also be used to steady a jury, I suppose. I mean, people with AS have difficulty looking people in the eyes and this is also a feature of lying. Also you got inappropriate facial expressions, tics, slow response times maybe? Also features of lying. Yep, any prosecutor worth their salt would rip someone with AS to shreds in a courtroom and the jury would be totally convinced of their guilt.

Faced with a Jury, Aspergers is not going to be understood as anything but an excuse, and that is pleading guilty. Alien mind control is more understandable.

I will have to think of where Aspergers might be an excuse, ...nothing yet, ...no..., sorry, I spaced out, started thnking of something else.

I do disagree with your stance, but I have to say one thing: that was an extremely well-written post, and you are impressively honest in your self-assessment. I don't agree with you, but I have a lot of respect for you after reading that.

Yup. I think I worked up the stats that, by sheer odds, there should be one or two autistic criminals in every town.

I think, if I used Asperger's as an excuse for some serious crime, I wouldn't be able to enjoy any freedom I gained by it. Which assumes, of course, that I hadn't lost every scrap of morality to commit the serious crime in the first place.

Gaining any freedom is highly unlikely anyhow, since if you do use AS as an excuse, you would be put into an institution, and would stay there for life because AS is lifelong and people who say they are mentally ill and use it as an excuse are generally institutionalized until their mental illness is under tight control and has been for quite a long time. AS is incurable; therefore, it's a matter of choosing the funny farm over prison at the cost of betraying people who are already vulnerable to prejudice.

Think about it this way: It's like a black guy claiming that he couldn't help committing murder because all black guys are murderers; and therefore, he should be allowed to go to a mental institution instead of prison.

Could you live with yourself after doing something like that?

My criminal law instructor is a crown prosecutor who is currently prosecuting an aspie over allegations of creeping some NTs out with his behaviour.The defense is asking that he just plead guilty and get by with probation which is the sentence for the alleged crime.The prosecutor is wondering if he should use Aspergers as a way of saying the defendant is mentally incapable, and having the defendant incarcerated indefinately in a mental hospital.In Canada, sometime mental incapacity can result in being incarcerated for a longer period of time rather than the regular sentence. Which would you rather have, Plead guilty and not use aspergers as a defence thus getting by with a short jail term or probation OR use aspergers, and end up being incarcerated in a mental institute indefinately..possibly for life.

I think that AS might be a reasonable defence in a slander trial.

It might not work so well in a libel case UNLESS it was for something blurting a post on an internet message board.

It wouldn't work in a murder case, which of course would need the 'temporary insanity' defence.

Of course, there is nothing to say that an Aspie wouldn't do something terrible in a moment of 'temporary insanity'

What did he do? 'Creep out' is a common phrase for anything not socially acceptable around here. The entire situation sounds medieval, with the way you worded it.

Here in the U.S. you can only be hospitalized against your will if you pose a danger to yourself or others. Unless you have violent tendencies, or a criminal conviction (rehab for drugs, as an example), they can't hold you against your will, no matter how loopy you are.

Personally, I can't think of any way to use AS as an insanity defense, unless you're addressing purely secondary aspects of it. By secondary, I mean being tormented to the point you just snap. Then and only then could I understand using AS as part of a temporary insanity defense.

Last edited by CerebralDreamer on 17 Oct 2009, 4:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

I find plenty of people to creep me out and I didnt know this was yet a criminal offence EVEN in the English speaking countries.

Any chance you could give us a clue as to the alleged 'offence'?

ps Does this count as 'gossip' which of course all Aspies despise

My now ex-friend suggested I use mention of Autism to the government to get a grant for my business, under the guise that "I'm handicapped".

My response was "no way in hell"

Not that Squitward is referring to criminals who have to defend themselves in court. I think having committed a crime by itself is reasont o assume a deficient sense of responsibility. Besides, responsibility to your own child or pet, is different from responsibility towards a group of anonymous Aspies whose image you might be damaging by using Asperger's as a defense. I bet very few criminals would care for some anonymous people's image if they could avoid a long time in prison by damaging it (and tha tis of course assuming that the "it damages othe rpeople's image" argument is logical int he first place).

Tomasu wrote:

Don't worry, there's nothing you wrote that offends me. .

You have a point. Not everyone would do the same thing, but I think it's a safe generalization to make. Prison is never desirable, and for most, the opportunity to use Asperger's Syndrome would definitely be put to good use in a defence. I speak mainly for myself, but I've also seen other, less ego-centric people, using it as a defence, most likely on the advice of their lawyer.

leejosepho wrote:


Using the words "must always" is a bit sensationalistic on my part, so I apologize. It's just I feel it can be considered a general rule. For example, if you and another person were knocked over by someone running past carelessly, wouldn't you pick yourself up off the ground first before helping the other?


leejosepho wrote:


That's an interesting question. The thing about Asperger's is that it is not obvious, and usually people won't know you are on the Autistic spectrum unless you tell them. If somehow it came to be that the general consensus was that Aspies were inherently criminal (which they aren't), then those unwilling to have their social life (if applicable) thrown into disarray can divorce themselves of the label when dealing with members of the public. Hopefully that needn't apply to close friends and such who already know you are an Aspie, as they will know you well enough to know that you're not a criminal.

Oregon wrote:


I'm of the view that Asperger's should (well, not necessarily should, but is) be twisted and warped in every which way it can in order to form as solid a defence for whatever criminal actions as it can. If you are fighting for your freedom, then I say pull out all the stops, exaggerate, manipulate, to ensure you are not sent to live in a cage. Normally I would feel tremendous guilt, but if I'm lying to and manipulating the very people who could potentially have me locked in a cage, then that's fine with me.

As it is, Asperger's on its own doesn't make anyone completely exempt from the law, though that would end up being greatly beneficial to me personally (should I ever face criminal charges), however much those campaigning against the misrepresentation of Asperger's would lose.

TPE2 wrote:


I would also answer “yes” to the second question.

The part in brackets is true. Every person up facing criminal charges of any kind should, and, in my opinion, must, use absolutely anything and everything at their disposal in their defence, lest a punishment befall them.

sinsboldly wrote:


I realize this. My problem with it is the inherent cruelty in saying such a thing to someone. On the one hand you have A, wishing the very best for himself, Heaven, which for a religious person is very, very good thing. On the other there’s G, cruelly, scathingly calling him out on it, saying that he’s going to Hell. It doesn’t matter if G is a religious authority or even religious at all. It’s clear she’s just countering whatever self-righteous statements A makes in an attempt to cause him pain.
sinsboldly wrote:


In calling G that, I didn’t choose the word because of her gender, it was merely the most offensive four-letter word I could think of.

In answer to your question, if G was male, I’d have called him the same thing.

(I’m sorry if this offends you.)

Stinkypuppy wrote:


Perhaps you’re right, but in the specific case of using Asperger’s as a defence in a criminal trial, it’s not really going to sacrifice anything you hold dear, and in fact may benefit your child or pet or other loved ones in that they will not be deprived of your presence and care.

With “saving our own ass”, it can be extended to include doing what’s right for your loved ones, as you know that should any harm befall them is to have psychological harm inflicted on yourself. This sounds unbelievably ego-centric, but in a way it does boil down to that.

And given the choice, would you have harm inflicted on your own child or your neighbour’s child? It’s a horrible situation to have to envision, but I think that most would answer the former, and this too is a facet of self-preservation.

pat2rome wrote:


Thanks. It’s not often my online exploits earn me respect from people. I have some quite extreme views that others find frightening, particularly regarding crime and punishment, and oftentimes I find myself incapable of explaining myself, usually because my argument is for how I would like the world to be, and their argument is for how the world is.

I went to law school, but I chose not to practice.

Frankly, I'd be hard-pressed to find any criminal charge to which AS would be a defense.

If you had Tourette syndrome and was accused of some charge because you were shouting obscenities in the town square, I'd understand how the disability could pose a valid defense, but how do the outward manifestations of AS produce what would be seen as criminal behavior?

I think it could be used effectively as a defense in a civil case, say, against a sexual harassment accusation.

I don't think aspergers is a valid court defense. Sorry.

I thought of that too. I could see an employer deflecting a sexual harassment charge by citing that the offending employee has AS and is unable to distinguish what is "appropriate" in the office, but frankly, even that doesn't wash.

While some might cry "sexual harassment" at the first incident, most times a complaint has no merit until the victim notifies the offender that the incident is unwelcome and is not to be repeated. The next time, the complaint gains merit. Most anyone with AS knows to not do something once they are told it is wrong. Now, if the "offending behavior" is that the person with AS stares inappropriately, that's hardly sexual harassment.