Study finds autism diagnosis increases witness reliability; advocates for a more inclusive legal system.
Autistic individuals often face unique challenges in the courtroom. Their behavior, such as avoiding eye contact or using monotone speech, can be misinterpreted by jurors, leading to biased assessments of their reliability and competence. To counteract this, it is proposed to implement diagnoses and witness support. But how effective are these measures? And are they truly sufficient to eliminate prejudices?
Australian researchers Joshua W.S. Smith and Celine van Golde, of the School of Psychology at the University of Sidney, recently conducted a study examining how jurors assess autistic witnesses.
In this article, I describe their findings and add some critical reflections from my perspective as an autistic person. The goal is to provide a nuanced view of the role of autistic witnesses in a legal system that is not yet fully aligned with the core idea of neurodiversity, which posits that all neurological functioning is equally valid.
The Study: Research on Perceptions
Smith and Van Golde’s study focused on two questions:
- Does mentioning an autism diagnosis influence how jurors assess a witness’s reliability, competence, and confidence?
- Does the presence of a witness supporter change this perception?
To answer these questions, mock jurors were presented with a murder case involving an eyewitness. There were four scenarios:
- A neurotypical witness.
- An autistic witness without mentioning autism.
- An autistic witness with explicit mention of autism.
- An autistic witness with a diagnosis and a witness supporter.
Jurors evaluated the witnesses on reliability, competence, and confidence. Additionally, they provided their judgment on the defendant’s guilt.
Jurors found autistic witnesses with a stated diagnosis to be more reliable than those without, as behaviors like avoiding eye contact were attributed to autism rather than nervousness or uncertainty.
Results:
- Autism Diagnosis Increases Reliability: Jurors found autistic witnesses with a stated diagnosis to be more reliable than those without, as behaviors like avoiding eye contact were attributed to autism rather than nervousness or uncertainty.
- Competence Was Not Significantly Affected: Mentioning autism had little effect on how competent the witnesses were perceived.
- Witness Supporters Had Limited Influence: Jurors did believe that the presence of a supporter improved the accuracy of the testimony.
- Reliability as Key to Guilt: Jurors based their judgment of the defendant’s guilt primarily on how reliable they found the witness.
Critical Reflection: More Than Diagnoses and Perceptions
As an autistic adult, I find that this study offers valuable insights but also raises questions and concerns.
- Autism Diagnosis: Useful but Problematic Mentioning an autism diagnosis can help better interpret behavior, but it has a downside. It reinforces the stereotype that autistic people are “always honest.” While this seems positive, it is a distorted view that does not account for the individual complexity of autistic people. An autism diagnosis should not determine how reliable someone is considered, and people without a diagnosis deserve the same understanding.
- Competence and Context The lack of influence of a diagnosis on perceived competence seems positive but raises questions. It suggests that autistic witnesses are considered competent as long as their responses are clear and structured. This fits within a neurotypical norm and ignores other ways of communicating that can be equally valuable.
- Witness Support as a Fundamental Right Although witness support had no direct impact on jurors’ perceptions, its importance for the well-being of some autistic witnesses is crucial. The legal system must look beyond the influence on perceptions and focus on supporting vulnerable witnesses in a way that respects their autonomy and dignity.
- Education: Beyond Simplification Educating jurors about autism can reduce prejudices, but only if this education is nuanced and in-depth. Oversimplified messages, such as “autistic people avoid eye contact,” reinforce stereotypes instead of breaking them down.
- Emphasis on Reliability The focus on reliability as the main criterion in judging guilt is, in my opinion, a missed opportunity. Autistic people deserve a legal system that recognizes their full humanity, not just whether they are seen as reliable or unreliable.
Practical Recommendations
Educating jurors about autism can reduce prejudices, but only if this education is nuanced and in-depth. Oversimplified messages, such as ‘autistic people avoid eye contact,’ reinforce stereotypes instead of breaking them down.
To build a fair and inclusive legal system, structural changes are needed. Based on both the study and the reflection, the following recommendations are essential:
- Normalization of Neurodivergent Behavior: Understanding diversity in communication should not depend on a diagnosis.
- Flexible Education: Jurors must learn that autism is not a fixed concept but a spectrum with wide variations in behavior and communication.
- Witness Support as a Right: Support should focus on the witness’s well-being, not just on the jury’s perception.
- Involve Autistic People in Policy Making: Expertise from those with lived experience is crucial to develop policies that meet the needs of autistic individuals.
Conclusion
The research shows that diagnoses and witness support can have positive effects on how autistic witnesses are perceived. However, these measures should not be the core of the solution. The legal system must go further and develop a deep understanding of neurodiversity, independent of diagnoses or stereotypes. Only then can the legal system truly be fair and inclusive for everyone.
Smith, J. W. S., & van Golde, C. (2024). Mock juror perceptions of an adult autistic witness: effect of diagnostic label and witness intermediary presence. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2024.2404856
The European Autist 