Defence Lawyers using defence of ASD for offenders that commit serious crime.

I agree. The knowledge that a defendant is autistic may be relevant to the case and may be something that should be made known to the jury, but it is not something that the general public needs to know as it ends up reinforcing negative stereotypes, especially when they make the statement in isolation without any clarifying data, such as why it is relevant to the case

I too agree, most of us know the difference between right and wrong, the only thing I can think of where ASC could be part of a defence is if as part of that same defence, the defendant say's they've been groomed by others.

Its the fact the media say it straight away like they did with the Stockport incident, male was caught and charged amd immediately it was reported he was ASD.

That is what annoys me, here in Scotland, a guy who was found guilty of voyeurism over a 10 year period had the defence of autism, sorry, no, he is a sexual predator regardless if he is autistic or not

TheCatWoman said:

Given that the rates of prosecution, let alone conviction of any sexual offence is so low in this country and police so unwilling to take any notice of sexual offences in general, I doubt that the sort of case you're describing would make it to court. The CPS have to take publc interrest into account before taking a case to court, I doubt if this sort of case would meet the already high bar.

But the example I gave was real. I pulled it off a lawyer’s website. See the thing is the reason most sex crimes don't get prosecuted is lack of evidence of the fact. Either you can't prove the sexual activity happened or you can't prove there wasn't consent. When the autistic person realises, they were mistaken about consent after the fact (usually because someone says stop) they will admit this. And as far as the police are concerned that's a confession. The police tend to forget it's not enough to prove there wasn't consent you must prove the other party knew that (or reasonably should have known that).

So the 2 big hurdles the prosecution have, proving the act and proving the lack of consent, are cleared by the defendants own testimony. They see it as a slam dunk open and shut case and forget about the 3rd hurdle of proving a lack of belief in consent. ... because they tend to assume that's obvious when in fact it definitely isn't.

Also they tend to assume if autism is raised as a defence it will be as a form of insanity defence and government guidelines specifically tell them to prosecute even if they think there is an insanity defence. However as previously mentioned the autism is usually more relevant to the mens rea (mental component) of the crime which is different.

TheCatWoman said:

Given that the rates of prosecution, let alone conviction of any sexual offence is so low in this country and police so unwilling to take any notice of sexual offences in general, I doubt that the sort of case you're describing would make it to court. The CPS have to take publc interrest into account before taking a case to court, I doubt if this sort of case would meet the already high bar.

But the example I gave was real. I pulled it off a lawyer’s website. See the thing is the reason most sex crimes don't get prosecuted is lack of evidence of the fact. Either you can't prove the sexual activity happened or you can't prove there wasn't consent. When the autistic person realises, they were mistaken about consent after the fact (usually because someone says stop) they will admit this. And as far as the police are concerned that's a confession. The police tend to forget it's not enough to prove there wasn't consent you must prove the other party knew that (or reasonably should have known that).

So the 2 big hurdles the prosecution have, proving the act and proving the lack of consent, are cleared by the defendants own testimony. They see it as a slam dunk open and shut case and forget about the 3rd hurdle of proving a lack of belief in consent. ... because they tend to assume that's obvious when in fact it definitely isn't.

Also they tend to assume if autism is raised as a defence it will be as a form of insanity defence and government guidelines specifically tell them to prosecute even if they think there is an insanity defence. However as previously mentioned the autism is usually more relevant to the mens rea (mental component) of the crime which is different.