aspergers and criminal behavior

Post Reply New Topic

It was a joke? hmm guess I didn't get it nor do i get what the hell prone to negativity crime is.

prone to disagree-ability crime?

prone to in your face rhetoric crime..... ooops my bad

Even though I am pulling up an old topic here, I just recently put some insight on the topic and meanwhile most studies indicate that people with Aspergers are significantly more likely to commit murder or arson than an NT while are significantly less likely to commit sexual crimes or robbery. Some studies differentiate between HFA and AS, stating that people with HFA are unlikely to commit crimes while those with AS are more likely to commit a crime. However it is also stated that any connections between HFA specifically and crime have not been thoroughly researched and only statistical observations had been made. Most of the studies however lump AS and HFA together as hfASD (high functioning Autism Spectrum Disorders, which means AS, HFA and PDD-NOS).

If first got interested in this topic, when I noticed that half the known people listed on Wikipedia who were diagnosed with AS were convicted murderers while barely any convicted murderers were listed as diagnosed with HFA. To those who think that HFA and AS are too similar or even the same: The differences are, those with HFA are mostly apt with motor functions, possess more than one specific area of interest, a lower verbal IQ, a higher performance IQ, lower ability to express empathy, smaller gender ratio than AS and more likely to have Tourettes as a comorbidity. However people with AS are better at socializing with each other, are more likely to find a job and are more likely to live independently.

Criminality among NTs is often associated with lower functioning (IQ of 60 to 90), antisocial behavior disorders and desperation or habit (due to unlucky circumstances when growing up such as poor education, poverty or inability to find employment).

This all seems like part of the trend of labeling every mass murder an autistic. Speaking on mass murder itself (not all criminality), I would posit the only common trait they have is that they've either been mistreated in the past to the point that they feel they have no other option but to retaliate, or they THINK they've been mistreated to that point. People with genetic mental disorders don't come out of the womb stabbing with a knife or shooting with a gun, they may be more suseptable to that behavior but it's a learned behavior.

In almost every case the killer has a group or groups of people they target (society in general being a group sometimes). These groups aren't random, there's something this group did to said mass murderer for the person to retaliate, or at least the mass murderer THINKS they did. That said it amazes me how deaf society can be. Almost all mass murders have a point to why they do what they do and if you listen you can find a solution: don't mistreat people and they won't mistreat you. But we'd rather blame violence on TV, or a mental illness, or poor upbringing, since that alleviates responsibility for how we treat people-- "yeah I picked on that guy a lot in high school because he was different, I mean jeez look at him he's a mass murderer now". Klebold & Harris didn't tear apart Columbine High School because they had a mental disorder, they did it because they were consistently picked on and outcast. James Holmes didn't blow up the theater in Aurora because he had a mental illness, it's because he was jacked around by the school administrators that suspended him and ruined his career, mostly for being different and "weird". Point being if you corner an animal (and social outcasting is a form of cornering) that animal has no other options than fight their way out.

I'm not condoning their behavior, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go deaf to what they are communicating because if you listen you can find a solution and it's not in the form of new laws, new psychology, or new technology, it's in the form of the old golden rule: treat others the way you wish to be treated. If people became less narcissistic and more compassionate you would see mass murder, all murder in fact, decrease. There will always be people that can't control themselves, but a lot of these mass murders could have been solved years beforehand by the community that created these individuals. It's unpopular, I know, but I'm all about solutions, not fear and reactionary reasoning. As I've told countless people about autism-- the only autistic you have to fear is the one you mistreat.

I agree with the above.

Be nice to each other. This is the best we can do.

This probably sounds simplistic but what else is there?

Maybe we can swallow a gigantic megabullet and learn a lesson.

Aristophanes: I don't think you read a single study/scientific paper on the matter. It clearly defines the difference between an NT who has committed murder and a murderer diagnosed with ASD. Most of those with ASD, didn't have any criminal record before the crime, were diagnosed before the occurance of the crime and were commonly said to not have experienced the same issues during their childhood that NT murderers had.

By the way, you seem to have mistaken "significant increase" for "most people with hfASD are murderers". In one study, it is mentioned that 3% are likely to commit murder versus 1.5% for NTs. While arson is 15% for hfASD and 5% for NTs. Not all murders have something to do with retaliation or anger. Many of them happened out of sheer negligence. There is one case mentioned where a man diagnosed with Aspergers lit his house on fire, because he wanted to look like a hero and start anew. However his daughter died in the incident. He got jailtime for murder.

And autism isn't an indicator for mass murder and serial killing. It is indicated that people who kill many (by themselves compared to dictators), are in fact often of extraordinary intelligence. It is not an assumption. It is an observation. Back in the olden day, it is unknown of what intelligence mass murderers were, since back then people could not be tracked as quickly and temporarily get away with it. Nowadays, to commit more than just a double murder or even plan a murder, people need to be thorough and intelligent, trimming down the group to those who are more intellectually adept.

So, instead of assuming what people think you should do the research.

There is a valid way of determining how likely an individual is to commit a crime???

I've never heard of this and find it hard to believe. Can you point to a source for this remarkable claim?

Edited to include:

I see a lot of stuff about data mining and prediction, but they come down to the kind of muddled thinking demonstrated here:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas ... re/?page=1

Berk has bamboozled himself with his algorithms. What he means is not that the hypothetical boy has a 1 in 3 chance of committing a homicide, but the 1 in 3 boys with a similar profile will murder by 18. That means 2 in 3 will not.

There is no ability inherent in these statistics to draw any useful inference about the specific probability of any one of the three boys, one of whom has a 100% chance of being a murder and two of whom have a 0% chance of being murderers. Any claim to the contrary is statistical abuse.

You're completely missing my point because you're narrowly focusing on the paper and not the broader picture. Having studies that attempt to link mental disorders with criminality, even if it disproves a link, does no good because mental disorders aren't the cause of criminality. Even having the discussion further links the two together because all people hear is "autism" & "criminal". How about a study that attempts to find the causes of criminality as opposed to narrowly focusing on one sub group of the population-- the underlying ASSUMPTION OF THE RESEARCHERS being that there is some link.

As for research: research can be biased, manipulated, and inaccurate, hence the reason we get bombarded with "new research claims" followed by a something that contradicts "old research". What's the old Mark Twain quote, ah yes, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics". Ask any accountant that used to work for Arthur Anderson how you can manipulate data to show anything you want, they'll give you a thousand ways. Furthermore, the article is a glorified book report, look at the bibliography-- no actual unique or new data collection to validate their research just the paraphrasing of other authors.

Sorry you don't agree with me, that's no reason to throw accusations such as "I don't think you read a single study/scientific paper on the matter." I did read the article, or paraphrasing of other authors so to speak. As for individual bibliographical essays (the actual research), no I did not because I have neither the time nor interest to look through 60 papers by people that obviously think there is a link, but just can't find it yet.

Here are some of my favorite parts, which do indeed show a bias:

"Rather, we shall describe the features of hfASD that would most likely be involved when criminal actions occur.
Criminal activity associated with hfASD psychopathology can be divided into two broad domains..."
Paraphrase: we're not saying autism causes criminality, but when autism does cause criminality here's how.

"Such fixations, if left unchecked by normal awareness of social mores and constraints, may lead to maladaptive fantasies. These deficits appear to be dramatically highlighted by sexual serial killers with hfASD who live highly compartmentalized lives with a 'prosocial component,' in which they tend to function as law-abiding citizens, and an 'antisocial' component, during which they live a sexually predatory lifestyle."
Paraphrase: autistics are socially ret*d and don't know right from wrong. If there's an especially ret*d one they'll lead a "sexually predatory lifestyle". *hmm, on a side note how about non-autistic serial killers, everything I've heard says that they live compartmentalized lives, hence the reason everyone is sooo shocked that so and so next door was a serial killer.

"For example, persons with hfASD may perpetrate sexual crimes closely associated with their repetitive, stereotyped, and excessively focused interests."
Paraphrase: don't teach autistics about sexuality, it could become a "special interest" and they'll become rapists, because again they're ret*d and don't know right from wrong.

"Violent behavior among children, adolescents, and even adults with AD (Asperger's Diagnosis) is not uncommon. hfASD individuals charged with crimes may present with nonsexual violent behavior."
Paraphrase: violent behavior among "normal" people is uncommon, but with autistics it is. Also, be super afraid, they're not just murders and rapists, they do other really bad things too.

"The universe of repetitive narrow interests that may be associated with criminal activities in hfASD is likely to be very large."
Paraphrase: there's a lot of criminal activity out there that autistics make their "special interest".

"In terms of criminal responsibility, the broad range of impairment that is present in those with hfASDs may result in substantial differences of opinion regarding whether hfASDs defendants meet the threshold of having a severe mental disease."
Paraphrase: they're ret*d but not ret*d enough that we can't prosecute them.

I mean the list goes on and on and on, and I'm already bored reading this drivel a 2nd time. It's obvious to me that these "researchers" have no clue what Asperger's really is-- it's a sensory input discrepancy due to different brain wiring, not a mental disorder that creates anti-social behavior. Autistics don't do well socially, yes, but that's a symptom of sensory overload, not because autism makes someone anti-social (translation: hate other people). Case study 1 should have been all they needed to research-- the guy did it for attention, he even said so. How does that have anything to do with autism? Autistics are more likely to shy away from attention since it's generally a path to ostracization-- not seek it out.

Also, the "meta" point of my first post was that research like this wouldn't even exist if there wasn't so much media hype surrounding mass murders and an autism link. If someone commits a heinous crime they can't hide behind autism to get off, nor should they. I know right from wrong, most every autistic on these forums knows right from wrong-- the ones who don't may have some disorder or brain damage creating it, but it's not autism. By narrowly focusing on one sub group, the implication is that said sub group is "other" and therefore the cause-- the media, the law, and psychiatry need to wake up and realize disorders don't create crime, generally it's the social niche these sub groups have been outcast to that creates criminal mentality.

I don't believe it. Unless they can say which 3% of the sample are likely to commit murder, these statistics do not have anything to say about how likely any specific neurotypical or high functioning autistic person is to commit murder or arson. To say that autistic people in general are more prone to criminal behavior on the basis of this is to prove the saying about statistics.

Hear! Hear!

Lifelong hypersensitivity to sensory stimuli may form personalities in many observable and predictable ways, but it does not preclude nor inhibit knowledge of right or wrong. Lifelong abuse as a result of one's handicaps, OTOH almost invariably leads to emotional pain and resentment that may compel some to retaliate.

The very act of looking for such a connection demonstrates a bias on the part of the researchers, indicating that they expect to find one. Bias leads to selective interpretation of data and that's not science, its propagandizing.

I am hearing people arguing out of denial. Always consider the possibilities. That is how science works. Seeking a connection doesn't necessarily require pro bias. A study in that direction can also be on the basis of scientists wanting to show that there is no connection at all.

Aristophanes: I recognized that you are vastly emotional on the topic while leads to poor paraphrasing ability.

And by the way, yes mental disorders can be underlying causes of criminality. People don't just commit murder because of retaliation. Someone with the inability to express empathy can quickly dehumanize victims and therefore feel nothing when and after killing. People can feel pleasure while killing. People can kill out of feelings of superiority. And so on. While the percentage of murderers with disorders may seem less significant, view what occurrence of these disorders in the general populace is. The argument is not whether murder is caused by psychological disorder but whether disorders may lead to increased potential of criminality.

To the paraphrasing:

1. ASD traits MAY cause criminal actions. We will describe it. There are two fields that this can be divided up into.

2. Autistics may end up having dangerous fantasies if left neglected during developmental stages of life. "Insert definition of sociopath here." (on a side note, I disagree with the quoted article, due to an amount of fallacies made by people unable to differentiate autism from sociopathy)

3. You took that totally out of context. It describes that people with autism who perpetrate sex crimes will often choose a person or a fashion related to their area of interest such as an elevator repairman and doing it in the elevator or a secretary at work. It can be expanded to actions too such as always using whips.

4. Again out of context. It is not suggesting that violence among NTs is uncommon. And always, I mean always REGARD THE "MAY". "May" represents possibilities and not certainties! Either you are misinterpreting it out of emotional bias or you aren't very literate. I mean seriously, you are becoming ridiculous.

5. A lot of interests in the autistic worldview can be associated with criminal actions. I mean literally you can turn many subjects into the basis of criminal actions such as chemistry (acid burns, arson, explosives), physics (fall injuries, trauma, use of force), biology (use of anthrax), psychology (manipulation), pharmacology (wrong dosage, malicious use of substances), mechanics (sabotage) etc.

6. Impairment does not necessarily mean retardation. You tend to interpret things as retardation a lot. Might you have been emotionally or verbally abused by your peers?

And to your definition of AS. You didn't get it all. AS often comes with comorbidities such as antisocial disorders, dysthymia, alexithymia, superiority/inferiority complexes and so on. The fact that people with AS have these more commonly that others can partially back a further analysis into the subject. The problem is that people deny potential problems regarding a trait they have because this trait may be insignificant enough that they do not realize how it may be when that trait is more severe. AS can be put on a severity spectrum. While you may be on the lighter end, there are people who have more severe AS related problems. You will never know what it is like to have more severe problems. Anti-social in psychology is not hatred towards other people. It is a dislike of society and social interaction. Anti-social behaviors can range from isolation or increased aggressiveness. It is a very broad spectrum. Hating other people is simply misanthropy.

Additionally, I am from a country where autism is barely talked about in the media and mass murder in the media here is normally linked to depression and lack of help against depression. However there are still many studies here on possible connections between autism and crime due to autistics being over-representative of the national prison population and making up a good share of the murders that werent caused by immigrants.

I recommend you stop interpreting something in a way that you want to hear just so that you can outright discredit it. So work on understand that "may" means "can, possible or uncertain" and not an absolute certainty.

http://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=en& ... 5&as_sdtp=

Read some more. There are 22900 of these. I have read 102 already but the second one comes quite close to some of the points I mentioned.

I may have lost a bit control midway (the part with me saying you are becoming ridiculous). But most importantly for me is scientific deduction and recognizing emotional bias. If you still are of the opinion that the studies are incorrect because they conflict with your worldview, then I wont be able to help you. I try to find progression, because ignorance is ruining the world and corrupting science and I am not the type to deny an observational paper, just because it offends me. Those papers provides the basis for better understanding, proper intervention and better therapies. Instead of denying that there may be a connection between autism and criminality, you must consider the possibility that it could have a link. But from there it will go upwards towards a better future to deal with it the best we could to maybe ensure that some people with autism will not end up as criminals.

If I may add: Considering the possibilities whether or whether not something may be is not bias. Drawing conclusions before an investigation is bias and regarding that very point of calling an investigation on the matter bias is what people call "irony" as you have drawn a conclusion before any certain statements were made.

As a friend I was discussing this with on Skype said: "It's like Aristotle said: the sign of an educated mind is the ability to hold two contrary positions in the mind at the same time."

1. I understand scientific research perfectly fine. Said article was not it, it was what's called synthesis: taking multiple arguments and tying them together. Synthesis is no more than a glorified book report to show someone that you've read something.

2. I have no problems with disagreement whatsoever, I have a problem with people presenting something as unbiased and therefore "accurate" when the bias is merely shoveled behind academic phrasing and esoteric wording.

3. If you have a problem with someone using logic and reasoning to critique a "scientific" paper, let alone a glorified book report, then you're missing the entire point of science.

4. Of course I didn't read upteen million books on the subject, I read the article given to us by the OP, since that is in fact the point of the thread. If you want to illuminate on the subject further and add your knowledge to the thread, I strongly suggest you do because I'm always up for more opinion on the matter; but I myself am not going to read everything you have, it's not a major interest. That being said it doesn't mean I'm not allowed my own opinion on the matter, nor does it mean that my opinion doesn't have validity. When Einstein proposed the theory of relativity he was initially rebuffed by the scientific community because he didn't have the fancy degrees they had, it wasn't until a few years later that Max Planck (who did have the degrees) championed the idea and then it became accepted. Was Einstein wrong because he didn't have the degrees and therefore couldn't possibly have any knowledge on the subject? No, obviously not. Research and reading are exactly that, reading and research-- just because you read and research doesn't mean that you necessarily grasp the concepts you read and research, as the early 1900's scientific community demonstrates in my example.

5. I am from the U.S. where the article originated and I can tell you from localized experience (how we interpret phrases here in the USA) "anti-social" is often times interpreted to mean "hates other people", I can also say that impairment often times is viewed as "retardation" (I hate the term, but that's how many people see it).

6. Also the two authors had M.D. next to their name-- in our country they are medical doctors, not psychologists. Their experience with mental disorders is minimal, even when they have specialized certification it's a lot less than an actual psychologist would have. That point right there tells me they have no business presenting something as psychological research-- if the article were about a mechanical issue with the actual body I would trust their certification since that's what it's for, but not mental disorders. Fact of the matter is that diagnosis of mental illness in this country has always had a problem with M.D.s misdiagnosing patients instead of referring them to a specialist.

7. The use of qualifiers, such as "may", "possibly", "could", etc. are useless. It's like saying "You did a great job on that project, BUT it was a failure because of...." The qualifier means nothing, it's a rhetorical tool to soften the blow or mask the feeling of the words that come after.

8. I'm done responding, I've made my views utterly clear. If we disagree then we disagree. I'm ok with that, different people are going to draw different conclusions-- again experiential bias. Feel free to respond to this post if you choose to, I WILL read it but will not respond because it will just keep snowballing into an argument between us and choke out others that may have opinions on the thread as well.

Ya mean...this is NOT an April Fools joke?

Being impaired in reading the emotions of others (lack of empathy) causes a person to become a VICTIM of crime, and pretty much bars a person from ever BEING a criminal.

If you cant read emotions then you cant lie, cheat, manipulate, nor have enough street smarts to stay in a gang. So how could you exist as a criminal for longer than a heartbeat?

That theory is as ass-backward as you can get.

Aspies may lack empathy. But not necessarily sympathy. Sociopaths have empathy, but lack sympathy. The later can read your emotions and then use that to exploit you. Aspies sympathize with you, but cant figure you out.

The abstract for the first paper of those 22900 says:


In the full text of the second paper of those 22900 you will find:


The third cannot be said to support your statements to any degree whatsoever, but may instead provide a framework for understanding your position as part of an erroneous new understanding of autism.


The next link is about autism awareness among police in the UK and makes no statement about the propensity of people with ASDs to commit crime.

The next link is about;
Again, not relevant to the argument at hand.

The next one COULD be relevant, but doesn't appear to be--the strongest statement in the abstract is

And this leads one, naturally, to note that the often repeated truth that correlation does not mean causation and neither does 'covariance'.

The next paper seems right on target, in subject at least "Autism spectrum disorders and offending"--but wait, what's this in the abstract???

OK, so this seems to refute the proposition that there is an increased propensity to violence in people with ASDs.

The next one is "An update on autism: science, gender and the law" and has nothing germane to say:


The next link begins with a clear assertion:

OK then, that's the end of the first page of links.

I have dipped into five other pages from the Google results and can report that the results on the first page seem typical in terms of their relevance to this question. I wonder which 102 papers you have read and what they actually say. In that sample, there is no data to support the idea that ASD causes criminality.

You keep on linking stuff that actually supports my points. You don't quick seem to understand my point though and your inability to understand my point is making further discussion pointless.

Did you not pay attention that words have a very important role in these papers? It is always the "may" and "could" suggesting a possibility and not a fact. However you seem to try to put your opinion of autism not being connected to criminality as fact.

So I am done here as it will just go on and on and on about you trying to state a certainty and me trying to state a possibility and not a certainty.