Apparently not - I don't know what the latest is. I certainly don't believe he should be extradited to the US because he won't get a fair hearing there.

I've read a lot of comments on this website, and also on other autism community forums, and a lot of people have said that AS should not be used as a defence. I'm aware that I'm about to disagree with this site's developer, and the general opinion in the community, so I'll just say that this is my own personal opinion, and everyone else is of course perfectly entitled to theirs.

The criminal justice system does not deal with people with ASCs at all fairly. I am aware in my own locality of an incident where police were very heavy-handed with an autistic man who they believed was "resisting arrest", when the reality was that he couldn't bear to be touched or man-handled, and so lashed out against the officers.

There is great potential for discrimination against us at every step of the criminal justice process - during arrest, during interrogation, the jury's perception of our demeanour during court appearances, and so on. The fact that someone has autism, in my view, is relevant and important information in dealing with a criminal case.

On the specific issue of diminished responsibility, I understand that some people are very queasy about the effect on public attitudes if ASCs are used as a defence in this way. But we can't let concerns over the responses of an already ignorant public over-ride the defence of the rights of autistic people.

Several features of autism do mean that an individual may be said to have decreased responsibility in law for his own actions. A typical example would be such as the one I've given above. In Gary McKinnon's specific case, it's perfectly accurate and reasonable to put forward the case that he hadn't considered the full consequences of what he was doing, due to the fact that he was acting on his personal obsession, and that extradition to a foreign land would be incredibly difficult for him to cope with.

I don't think he's using this as a reason to deny all guilt. He's admitted guilt, and he's happy to be tried, and to accept a sentence. But I believe he's entitled to have his condition taken into consideration in terms of how proceedings are dealt with, and what kind of sentence is passed down. The overwhelming majority view on this side of the Atlantic is that the US courts will simply ignore that and make an example of him with a disproportionate sentence. The US record, for example on the execution of mentally ill people, makes a lot of us in the UK shudder in disbelief.

If we fight every issue on the basis of what's right for better public perception, we're kind of playing by the same old rules.... their rules. If people were better educated, i.e. they were aware that overwhelmingly, autistic people are the victims of crime, rather than the perpetrators, and that autistic people are overwhelmingly positive contributors to society, not "cases in need", then people might be more understanding of the use of ASCs as a mitigating factor when it was truly appropriate, without it affecting their general perception of autistic people.

And fair play to the guy, he did the Pentagon a favour. If it was that easy to break into their systems, it's probably a good job a harmless hacker pointed that out to them, and not a terrorist network. He's just an easy target. I think outrage at that is an appropriate and logical response.

Articulately expressed Robinhood !

I think the key points that you make, that have the most resonance with me, are the following:

I would like to add my own "amen" to these points.  I think that in interaction with the police and legal system, that aspies are at a distinct disadvantage.   Particularly since we are inclined to take things like the rights and responsibilities of a citizen literally.   For instance,
-- When the police say that they want our "cooperation" they don't mean "them and us working together" (co = together, operation = to work)  rather they want us to work for them and do what they say.  That is subordination, not cooperation!
-- when they arrest the innocent and say ".... if you cannot afford a lawyer one will be appointed for you"  and then ask "Do you understand these rights" by "afford" they mean "after we wreck you life by requiring you to expend any money or property you own" so that if you win you still lose.
-- In the U.S. it is legal for police to lie to suspects but a crime for a suspect to lie to the police.  (Why would you ever even talk to the police in such a lopsided situation ?)
-- With "plea bargaining" as practiced in the U.S.  The accused can expect to be charged with a huge list of crimes dreamed up in the wildest imagination of the state's attourney as a threat to coerce a guilty plea from an innocent person or a person guilty of a much much lesser infraction.
etc.

I expect it will be a grave miscarriage of justice if McKinnon is extradited and tried in the U.S. and it will be to the shame of the British nation that it was allowed to happen.  The U.S. and any other nation has no right to claim extraterritorial status of our laws and subject foreign citizens to penalties that simply don't apply in their own countries.  I am ashamed of my own nations actions in this matter as they attempt to "cover the a** (a**e)" of the incompetents who maintained the computer system that McKinnon hacked.

Yay! Thanks for your response Outlander!

We're a diverse community and there's always room for different opinions, but I feel taking a position against Gary McKinnon in order to make our arguments for equality is a little incongruent.  To me, equality doesn't mean we all get treated the same.  It means we all have the same access to opportunities in society.  If that means some of us get more support than others, then good.  

Equal treatment assumes a level playing field, which isn't our experience of reality.  For instance, I've twice tried pre-diagnosis to complete higher education, and failed spectacularly.  Now I have a diagnosis I'm getting lots of support I wouldn't have otherwise had, and I'm thriving.  Does that mean I'm getting privileges for being autistic?  Some people might think so.  But I'm a bit surprised if an autistic person would think so.  It's not a privilege, it's additional support to give me the same fair chance as everyone else has.

The criminal justice system is one of the major areas of inequality for autistic people.  What to speak of the justice process itself, the experience of prison life as an autistic person cannot be comparable to that of a neurotypical person.  Remember life with the bullies in the playground?   That, but with no escape?

If autistic people commit crimes for which we can be said to be responsible to a greater or lesser extent (and Gary McKinnon is, by his own admission) then we should be tried and punished.  But throughout the judicial process, just as in education, health, housing and all other areas of social concern, our differing needs need to be respected.  To me, that's what the autistic rights movement is about.  I don't want "special" treatment.  But I don't want "equal treatment" either, because what that means is that I will have a lower quality of life than those without my condition.  That's life before the advent of discrimination laws.  That's not true equality.  I'm not asking for privileges.  I'm asking for parity.

I can't understand how this presents an ideological problem to people.  When I read the main intro to this site, I was really excited that I'd found a group that was working toward the same things that I am as an individual.  But when I scrolled down to this article, I just didn't feel I could be a part of that.  I'm sorry to those who may be offended, but I think this antagonistic position on Gary McKinnon is a tactical mistake that values the perceptions of neurotypical people over the welfare of autistic people, and also fails to recognise the extremely serious problem of discrimination against us in the criminal justice system generally.  

I guess that's not going to make me very popular, but hell, I'm an aspie, and I don't really care, especially not about what common-or-garden right-wing Joe Public NT wants to think about me

By the way, I can't find how to edit posts on this forum... any clues or suggestions?

I'm not here to cause a fight, certainly not... but I hope a few people see where I'm coming from.  Some NT's perceptions are never going to change, and people are always going to stereotype.  Our movement shouldn't become a battle over perceptions, it's a battle for tangible changes in our quality of life.  The politics of perception is a modern creation of spin doctors and other dubious types.... I don't think we should play that game.  But that's just my opinion.

Very well put, robinhood.

This has been a contentious issue on AFF, and I think you have expressed very well the key issues as I see them.

Okay, he wants to be tried, he is willing to take responsibility over his actions, he is willing to be sentenced but I do not like the aspie defense. Lot of us don't want to be portrayed as we commit crimes due to our obsessions and more likely to. Then pretty soon everyone will assume we're all criminals. Look at pedophiles. Lot of people think if someone is a pedophile, they are going to sexually assault a child. But no, not all of them sexually assault kids or do child porn but why do people think all of them do that? Because they have been portrayed in the media that way. I heard even people assume Schizophrenics commit crimes because they were also portrayed in the media that way. Do we want to be portrayed as criminals freaks who commit silly crimes due to our obsession. We have heard of the aspie who stole a bus and he drove it taking the same bus route, he collect bus fare, stopped at all the stops, and I think that was one of his obsessions, I think there was another incident where an aspie was obsessed with trains so he went in the subway and started driving a train. Now this. I don't see this as discrimination. If an NT were to do this, wouldn't they be facing the same consequence? Wouldn't they want the NT to be extradited here? (what's the word?)


I make my point here with this trolling question about the KcKinnon case:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...125AAbWXye


A crime is a crime and if you know something is illegal to do, don't do it.

I didn't say a crime is not a crime.  What I said, I hope, was that there is discrimination against autistic people in the criminal justice system.  

If the officer who arrests you ignores your hatred of being touched, as a result of which you become un-co-operative, as a result of which your later treatment is prejudiced, where's the equality?

If the officer who interrogates you manipulates your tendency to take things literally, and interprets your demeanour as shifty or un-co-operative, where's the equality?

If the jury who convicts you takes a dislike to you because your body language and eye contact make them think you're aloof or dishonest, where's the equality?

If the prison the judge sends you to is full of aggressive idiots who target you specifically because of your differences, where's the equality?

What does it matter what a troll thinks?  What does it matter what a right-wing ignorant NT thinks?  These rights are worth standing up for.

If your view is that an aspie stops deserving the support of the autistic community as soon as he's committed a crime, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I just don't believe that's true.

Also, I think it's a point I made earlier that if we educate people about autism generally, then they'll be less likely to make judgments based on criminal cases.  But I'm personally not willing to sell our own people down the river in order to appease neurotypical judgment-making.  The right to fair justice is one of the most fundamental rights of all citizens.  I don't think ignoring this as part of our agenda is really doing us any favours.  It feels a bit like selling out to me.

I created that question to prove my point. I liked the responses. But I see your point but I see this as different. No one made him hack into the computer system. He made himself do it, no one threatened him to or blackmailed him to nor was any gun pointed to his head to do it.

The other stuff you mentioned was different. I think everyone should have those rights if they have those difficulties, aspie or not.

Sure, and he is culpable to a fairly high degree (although not entirely imo), and he should be tried and punished... there's no disagreement about that.  But the original article this thread relates to suggests that we shouldn't use the McKinnon case to argue for rights as autistic people.  I think the dynamics of the case are a very good example of the difficulties we face in the criminal justice system.  The argument isn't over whether he's guilty.  It's over whether the British government should extradite one of our own citizens to a foreign country (a country which is widely believed in Europe to have draconian legal and penal systems), where the individual concerned is dx'd with a serious condition which would make his experience of the process substantially more disturbing than a non-autistic person.  Especially when justice could be equally well served by trying him here.  Surely the answer has to be "GET REAL!"  You'll hardly find a single article in the UK media that supports the extradition, and very few politicians who agree with it.  Even Judges are beginning to shift their views in his favour now.  I'm glad that's the case.

It is considered by Tony Attwood an aspie in trouble with the law faces problems that an articulate NT doesn't, These being, the initial interview. The suspect is automatically assumed to be lying when telling the truth because of the inability to maintain eye contact. They are also susceptible to bully boy tactics police use to get confessions. Plus everything is taken at face value as well.

Since the person appears "odd" it is then taken for granted they are guilty. A trial by jury would make matters worse, especially the US perchant of convicting people on how they appear. Then there is the problem in the US of defence lawyers wanting to be on good terms with the court so they get additional work.

Mind you he did something wrong and needs a suitable punishment, but please, US style justice is just terrible. I honestly don't know how the US citizens put up with it. Basically, it has come down to, guilty till you prove yourself innocent. And that costs an arm and a leg. It is also used as a weapon by the prosecution to eliminate the persons assets quickly so they can no longer defend themselves. Justice perverted.

I strongly disagree that there is discrimination against Autists within the criminal justice system. 99% of the time  it is not known that a person is Autistic. When an officer places you under arrest if you make any kind of move to pull away, even if you are 90 years old it is still considered resistance. You must submit. That is a fact. I dont like it ,no one does.

Your defence can use a DX  of Autism in court, but it only suggests diminished capacity to the jury. As a result you may end up in a mental institution.


By the by, in american police academies here in the states, police are not taught that their mission is to Serve and Protect,anymore. Instead they are drilled that they are here to supervise. All of us.

So instead of asking for real justice just for the Autist, we should be asking for real and equal justice for all.

As for Gary that has already been discussed to death here. Yeah he is guilty and I have sympathy, but he must do his time either here, or in the UK. Get it over with, so he can get on with his life.

Ok, first I'm not trying to say that a police officer finds out you're autistic and then decides to give you a hard time.  I'm saying he responds to your characteristics, whether or not you are aware of the diagnosis.  Some police forces in the UK have cottoned on to this now, and recruits are being trained to consider that someone may have autism.  I guess there wouldn't be a need to do that if a) we had better access to diagnosis, b) the police weren't inclined to behave in a bullying fashion in the first place.

As far as touch sensitivity is concerned, if you put your hand in a fire, you instinctually react to remove it.  The same if you are touch sensitive.  That should be considered.

A dx does not automatically infer diminished responsibility, unless the specific circumstances relate to it.  It may be considered a mitigating factor in certain cases, but that is different to implying diminished responsibility.  What a dx absolutely MUST mean is that an individual is fairly and sensitively treated, and that appropriate adjustments are made to ensure that he/she has the same ACCESS to proper justice as everyone else would have.

Real justice for all is certainly called for. In OZ the police is taught every civilian is guilty of something it is just a matter of finding out what. A terrible attitude. My wife worked for them as a civilian prior toour marriage so I had a bit of an insight.