Aspergers and Criminal violence - Studies Reviewed

Post Reply New Topic

They only reviewed a single study of a non-selected AS sample, and that one had a very small sample.

Overrepresentation of AS in prison could be due to increased violence in prison, or it could be that violent AS people are more likely to be caught than violent non-AS, or that violent AS who are caught are more likely to get convicted or get jail time than violent non-AS who are caught. Similar issues with the psych ward sample - how likely is it that a violent person with no psych diagnoses would get sent to a psych ward?

There are several good follow-up studies of AS/autism kids, not selected for violence or very severe issues, who were followed up into adulthood to look at their crime rate.

http://carrieresantementale.ca/Resource%20Library/Developmental%20Disability%20and%20Dual%20Diagnosis/Pervasive%20Developmental%20Disorders%20and%20Criminal%20Behaviour%20-%202008.pdf

Among the subset diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome, the rate of any convictions was 18.4%, compared with 19.6% of age and sex matched controls. This is not significantly different. Classical autism and atypical autism both had much lower rate of conviction than the general population. When specific crimes were compared, arson was overrepresented in AS, but no other violent crimes were. (It seems odd to me to count arson as violent, as the review linked to by the OP does, because most arsonists try to pick unoccupied buildings to burn.) Traffic offences were overrepresented in the control group (at least some of these may have represented dangerous behavior like driving drunk or extreme speeding).

Overrepresentation of arson was hypothesized to be motivated by an intense interest in fire. Otherwise, their conclusion was that crime is no higher in AS people.

http://www.drru-research.org/data/resources/68/Hippler-K.-et-al-2010.PDF

A study of people diagnosed by Hans Asperger found a rate of convictions of 1.3%, comparable to the male population rate in the same region (1.25%). Most of these convictions were for property offences, with only 9% of convictions involving violence. There was no indication than any specific offences were more common in AS.

So, no evidence that AS is linked to crime.

Incidentally, even if a psych condition is linked to crime, it doesn't mean we should be scared of anyone with the same diagnosis. I have a diagnosis associated with an increased risk of violence - PTSD. But I don't have many of the traits of violent PTSD individuals, like a tendency to externalize blame, flashbacks severe enough to loose touch with reality, or having been conditioned to use violent coping methods during traumatic situations (soldiers with PTSD are at particularly high risk).

Ultimately, it really all boils down to individual characteristics. After all, there are even some psychopaths who are never violent.

I'd like to see the data. I only know of one study of AS + psychopathy comorbidity, and they used a non-representative sample (kids at a special school for AS + aggression). They didn't compare AS/psychopaths with non-AS/psychopaths, just compared AS + psychopathy with AS alone (and found the exact same pattern as when non-AS psychopaths are compared to non-AS non-psychopaths). Nor did they measure violent behavior.

If AS psychopaths are more violent than non-AS psychopaths, my guess is it would boil down to good social skills providing non-AS psychopaths with a way to get what they want without resorting to violence. Most psychopaths put a lot of effort into learning how to manipulate people, and the most skilled manipulators are often the least violent psychopaths. An AS psychopath would take longer to realize they even can manipulate others, and their attempts at manipulation will always be immature for their age. Many will learn, over time, that overt violence is more likely to be successful than manipulation is. And since psychopaths don't learn well from punishments, their calculus will only count rewards, so if they got what they wanted even briefly before being punished they'll be more likely to try the same tactic again.

This is a very interesting discussion, and I am of the same view as Callista in this thread. At this point I would like to raise the very related issue of Labelling Theory.

Wikipedia gives an overview which covers it quite well.

"Labeling theory"--do you mean that autistic people who are prone to homicide may be pushed that last little bit by having been labeled homicidal?

I'm not sure what I think of that... My reaction has been more like, I want to prove how non-homicidal I am, somehow. On the other hand, I was never anywhere near homicidal to begin with; I'd have trouble killing an earthworm, let alone a human.

Do you think that someone who is autistic, and sociopathic, would respond to news articles of this type by moving closer to actually committing murder?

There is a branch of Labelling Theory that thinks like that, though like you Callista, I disagree and think that it is far too simplistic.


Bruce Link and Jo Phelan propose that stigma (negative labelling) exists when four specific components converge:

1.Individuals differentiate and label human variations.

2.Prevailing cultural beliefs tie those labeled to adverse attributes.

3.Labeled individuals are placed in distinguished groups that serve to establish a sense of disconnection between "us" and "them".

4.Labeled individuals experience "status loss and discrimination" that leads to unequal circumstances.

In this model stigmatization is also contingent on "access to social, economic, and political power that allows the identification of differences, construction of stereotypes, the separation of labeled persons into distinct groups, and the full execution of disapproval, rejection, exclusion, and discrimination." Subsequently, in this model the term stigma is applied when labeling, stereotyping, disconnection, status loss, and discrimination all exist within a power situation that facilitates stigma to occur.

My point was (though I didn't explain it yesterday, sorry, this is my fifth day of food poisoning and de-energised from it) that the media coverage of crimes like the recent one has the effect on intensifying the consequences of negative labelling on the targeted group.

That could explain the whiny conformism among a lot aspies. You are even considered criminal for not following immoral rules, because da law is an opinion with a gun. It is not about criminal bahviour, it is about violent criminal behaviour.

An aspie-psycho must be the most crippled person in existence. He fails as a psycho aka master manipulator by not being able to read and trick people but he can kill the neighbour's cat if it annoys him and enjoy the dinner at mommy's house one minute later without remorse.

I think it's possible.

This study found that the 'exposure to violence = engaging in violence' link is a lot stronger in psychopaths than non-psychopaths. Now, their sample had more direct exposure (witnessing spousal abuse, for example) but it's possible that the same effect could apply to a lesser degree to psychopaths exposed to violence in the media. And especially if they identify with the perpetrator.

Incidentally, the media could do a lot to make imitation less likely if they put a lot less emphasis on discussing the killer and more on discussing the victims. Think of how the 9/11 terrorist acts were portrayed - I heard almost nothing about the hijackers, but they interviewed a pile of people who'd survived being in the WTC and Pentagon, and gave a bunch of stats on the people in the planes. If they covered most mass murder events that way, the rate of mass murder would go down. People wanting attention wouldn't think killing people was a good way to do it, and focusing on the victims elicits more empathy. (Many psychopaths aren't entirely devoid of empathy, they just feel empathy less often and less strongly than normal. And not everyone who imitates media violence is a psychopath, either.)

There are violent and malicious Aspies but they are a smaller branch of our population.

People will say "autistic malice" is not a thing and we're no more violent than NT's but I don't agree with that. Considering a lot of Aspies have experienced social abuse whether that be physical bullying, psychological humiliation or prolonged alienation some of us are bound to have feelings of intense hatred towards others. Some want to seek revenge or vent their anger by behaving violently.

Also, don't take this as a gender stereotype but men are more likely to do this an women - though of course, there are exceptions. Women are more likely to internalize the abuse we received from NT's and destroy our selves than we are to attack others.

Hans Asperger coined the term "autistic malice"
A retrospective analysis of clinical case records of Autistic Psychopaths diagnosed by Hans Asperger and his team at the University Children's Hospital Vienna by Tony Attwood

I knew an aspie who was manipulative and he showed sign of conduct. He had like split personalities so he could go from "normal" to abusive. His name was Frankie. Just as long as he wasn't being challenged and he knew the consequences to his behavior, he would act normal and what I mean by normal is no behavior, no threats, no abuse, no manipulation. But he was a pathological liar. That part never went away, even at his good moments. But he did all this for control. I am not sure why he was such a liar and had to make up stories. I swear he had some psychopathy in him. It does overlap with Conduct Disorder and ODD. They all look the same except children with ODD aren't aggressive towards animals and people and they don't do any signs of conduct. But I read ODD can lead to Conduct disorder and 40% of them meet the ASPD criteria by the time they are adults.