Criminal Justice System

I really admire your courage and determination.

My only qualm is that the so-called Legal System is just another dysfunctional spoke in the larger neurotypical wheel. As some have pointed out: there are already provisions for defendants with autism, but like all institutions—because neurotypicals run them, they also choose when and to whom they apply these provisions. As long as Police Officers, Judges, Jurors and the CPS are neurotypical, it would require nothing short of a major evolutionary shift to make it treat autistic people fairly.

That said, I fully support any attempt you make to improve the system.

Autistic "mens rea " is totally different from neurotypicals and they should never have been prosecuted. There was NO crimnal intent .See Gary McKinnon and Lauri Love.

Criminal intent is required for a crime

Who are Gary McKinnon and Lauri Love?

I'm sorry but what you're suggesting is almost certainly not possible. Schedule 3 section 3 of the equality act reads as follows

(1) Section 29 does not apply to—

(a) a judicial function;

(b) anything done on behalf of, or on the instructions of, a person exercising a judicial function;

(c) a decision not to commence or continue criminal proceedings;

(d) anything done for the purpose of reaching, or in pursuance of, a decision not to commence or continue criminal proceedings.

(2) A reference in sub-paragraph (1) to a judicial function includes a reference to a judicial function conferred on a person other than a court or tribunal.

section 29 is the part of the act where it says it applies to services and public functions. #notlegaladvice

Actually questions like mens rea, intent and automatism are highly relevant to criminal cases involving autism. Dr Beardon has written at length about this. You may wish to skip to chapter 6.

If 'didn't know it was wrong' is their defence, they're really shooting themselves in the foot. 'Ignorantia iuris non excusat' (ignorance of the law is not an excuse) is the foundation of most common law legal systems and definitely the UK legal system. Other things in the unwritten constitution may be questioned now and then but this definitely isn't one of those and will never be. (Fun fact: 'No full knowledge' only works as a mitigation in the Catholic definition of mortal sin.)

I agree with Dave that there should be some updates to the legal system (not just the criminal justice system but civil law as well) to be fairer to autistic people but I honestly don't think there's need for an 'overhaul'. I also find the focus on 'mens rea' to be a futile cul-de-sac. It is a useful point within the larger context of helping criminal justice actors understand autistic thinking but as an end in itself it's pointless. As I've mentioned there are existing sections in the Equality Act 2010 (namely S15 & S20) that are waiting to be harvested by an autistic person in the criminal justice system who believes him/herself unfairly treated. The focus for such a campaign for autistic rights should be focussed on finding and publicising a good case of such unfair treatment and hiring good lawyers to use S15/20 to set a precedent. This case would need the ability to garner some general public empathy and support, so I don't think activist-hackers would work as most people hate them unless they're funny.

(Above is not legal advice, I'm not your lawyer, etc)

And to think I only went online to order bread from Morrisons... next thing I know, I'm setting of nukes from the Pentagon...

Yeah, over and over again - don't you just hate it when that happens. 

Yeah, over and over again - don't you just hate it when that happens. 

And to think I only went online to order bread from Morrisons... next thing I know, I'm setting of nukes from the Pentagon...