Police interactions and the autistic community: perceptions of procedural justice

Abstract

Autistic people are a vulnerable group in the community who are regularly coming into contact with police. This study examined the perceptions of autistic adults and parents of autistic people about the autistic person’s interactions with police using a procedural justice framework. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 autistic adults and 19 parents of autistic children and adults who recalled interactions with police in Australia in the previous five years. Content analysis of the descriptions of 39 separate interactions revealed that autistic adults’ perceptions of procedural justice were predominantly negative. The majority of accounts given by parents indicated a higher proportion of positive perceptions of procedural justice for their son or daughter. Findings shed light on the barriers to fair and just treatment that may exist for autistic people when interacting with police and ways that police may be supported to respond to autistic people in a procedurally just manner.

Points of interest

• People who believe that police have treated them fairly are more likely to trust police and follow their directions.

• Previous research has found that many autistic people are very unhappy with their treatment by police but it is not clear why this is the case.

• The research found that autistic adults described many instances of unfair treatment by police and many of them no longer trust police. Parents of autistic children and adults also talked about unfair treatment but they also gave examples of times where police were helpful.

• Positive descriptions often included examples of police changing the way they spoke or did things to take into account the needs of the autistic person.

• The research recommended that police receive training about autism so that they can have a better understanding of how to talk with and assist autistic people.

Keywords:

• Autism
• police
• procedural justice

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.