'Appropriate adult' (legal term) in relation to ASD people?

Post Reply New Topic

For anyone who doesn't know what it is. Not sure how many of you are aware that for ASD people, apparently, an 'appropriate adult' is a necessity while being questioned by the police (oh, so now I'm legally an adult... except I'm not 'appropriate'?!)

The Codes of Practice, which I tried reading at the time, seemed to imply somewhere that it's optional, but my impression whenever it was mentioned is that it was what absolutely needed to be done (in fact, a solicitor is apparently more optional than an 'appropriate adult').

I hope someone could possibly know something about this - and if you don't know but are interested I encourage you to read up about it and form an opinion - but, all this seemed to indicate to me is that I'm subhuman simply because of an ASD. Not only did they not care an iota about my condition, despite being fully aware of it (thus the 'appropriate adult'), almost blinding me with excruciating light and conducting the interview despite having had a headache for four hours (due to forgetting glasses at home) - I had to wait about three hours in total for the glorious arrival of this appropriate adult... and all they did is stare in the interview.

I felt so helpless, but now I am filled with such rage. Could anyone else not see how the concept of 'appropriate adults' are made to degrade us, in the hypocritical name of advancing our rights? (They're supposed to clarify some things to "those dumb subhumans" (after all, minors are considered mostly dumb too), but I don't see what they can clarify that a solicitor can't, with regards to the law, and I'm certainly socially aware that they're using ASD as an excuse to lock us up for longer).

I ended up transgressing an online communications act due to the unbearableness of my condition, and then they so interestingly used that same condition to make my life even more unbearable, throwing straight out of the window any and all forms of empathy that could ever exist in the universe.

The law is still against us, as a minority. Let's rise up against it!! !

Doesn't it just mean that a person is an adult for the purpose of entering into legal contracts? Most adult autistic people are legal adults in that sense. A few very disabled autistics are not, and have legal guardians, but most of us have the judgment to be adults under the law.

That may be generally in most countries (even though the linked article only mentions the relevant definition in the UK), but here it seems to be a concept applied and practiced mainly in police stations (in which case nothing to do with contracts).

The term might seem patronising but the concept behind it is sound. You can't have the police interviewing an autistic person under suspicion of a crime, with no supervision, when said person may:

- Not fully understand what the officers are trying to communicate (e.g. by failing to notice non-verbals or changes in the officer's demeanour)
- Act in a way which, for a "normal" person, might appear suspicious (averting gaze, behaving "unusually", being very anxious)
- Become stressed to the point of being unable to effectively communicate verbally (again potentially arousing unwarranted suspicions in the officers)

There are probably plenty of other good reasons but those are what just came to mind. Having a social worker or someone like that present cannot really be to anybody's detriment. The ASD-interviewee is afforded a degree of protection against officers who may be out to pin a crime on whoever they can or are perhaps just plain uninformed about ASDs, while the officers/the justice system/the taxpayer AND the interviewee are protected against the possibility that the suspect's autistic behaviours might lead the officers to come to a false conclusion and, perhaps ultimately if the suspect is wrongly charged and put to trial, create a miscarriage of justice.

I think feeling a bit patronised by a term is well worth the benefits I mentioned. You can be certain if I am ever accused of a crime that I will insist on a social worker being present as an "appropriate adult" - in addition to a solicitor to represent me legally - while I am being interviewed.

When the police stormed Utøya after the Norway killer had finished his massacre the police arrested a young boy who had attended the camp. They took him to a cell and questioned him. They kept him for almost a day without even contacting his parents. The reason? - He was just standing their looking normal. He did not look terrified, shocked, or ran around like a headless chicken. This and only this was enough for the police to think he had something to do with the massacre, even though they already arrested the man behind it all.

Now I do not have any information that would make me believe that this young man was autistic, but the point is that the police often have a very poor understanding of psychology and different psychological disorders and/or reactions. They would probably have kept me for a long time since they could have shown me pictures and stuff without me reacting with anything else than curiosity. I am more than capable of explaining why I do not react like everyone else to this stimuli but the person being questioned often does not have any credibility in the police officers eyes. I'm not saying that the best fix to this problem is to be considered less of an adult, the best thing would obviously be if the police had more knowledge about psychology. But as long as that is not the case, maybe this is a fairly good solution?

The few times I've had any altercation with police, I've been very glad that my parents were present. I have a tendency to shut down from panic when I'm in trouble with police, and end up with a lot of difficulty speaking. Having someone there to speak for me is extremely helpful.

Do they mean parents, legal guardians, and in cases where these do not apply, our lawyers?

In USA anyway it is best to always Lawyer Up its called. Ask for your lawyer and don't say anything to the police at all until your lawyer is there. No matter how nice that officer seems... wait for lawyer. If you don't have one they will get you a public defender to wait for.

If you really didn't do it just blab i suppose

Yep.

I'd rather this situation in USA. In USA they pretty much won't care at all if you have AS or any other mental disorder. They'll run you through the police station, court system just the same until you get to prison, and then they'll put you in a mental health specific prison.

The "appropriate adult" thing is actually really awesome. Cops if you get interviewed by yourself will just lie about what you say usually. With a witness there, especially one you know, it makes life significantly easier for you, as the cop can't just make up things.

If they were to have the Appropriate adult thing in the USA, it would be great. God knows how many times cops have picked up kids on the spectrum who are minors even, then question them with no regard to letting the child know (or the cops can't even comprehend if the child or person would know what they mean when read the rights) It should automatically be a legal guardian, or lawyer there for the person on the spectrum.

No. It's still a good idea to talk to your lawyer first, to avoid saying things to unintentionally make them think you did it (or something else) when you didn't. It's not a sign of guilt to want to talk to your lawyer, despite what TV makes out. It just means you know your rights.