The effect of crime type and knowledge about autism spectrum condition (ASC) on the judgement of defendants with ASC

Research on how autistics are sentenced is ambivalent: some studies suggest harsher treatment, while others propose more lenient sentences. However, it is unclear whether lenient sentencing is caused by positive perceptions of autistic people, or because autism is a relevant mitigating factor. Across two studies, we tested how mock jurors evaluated autistic defendants in autism-relevant and autism-irrelevant criminal cases to understand when and why autistic defendants receive leniency. Further, some participants received educational information about ASC, allowing them to recognise when autism is relevant for mitigation in criminal cases (assault and stalking, but not burglary). Autistic defendants only received lower sentences when autism was a relevant mitigation (assault and stalking), but not when autism was irrelevant (burglary). Thus, participants did not simply give preferential treatment to autistic defendants, but considered how ASC was related to the offence. However, providing information about autism weakened these effects, indicating education about autism may not always benefit autistic defendants. Our study highlights the importance of nuanced messaging: Explaining how autistic traits may pose a risk for certain criminal behaviours can mitigate perceptions of responsibility and promote fairer treatment. However, linking autism to criminality risks reinforcing misconceptions of greater danger or reoffending risk.