Autistic people are often the targets of violence
Multiple studies show that autistic people may be at considerable risk for interpersonal violence & victimization
Yet another school shooting has occurred in the United States. On social media, the trolls are out in force. It’s not the first time alleged perpetrators of violent acts have been linked to autism. Coverage of school shootings at Sandy Hook and Parkland in the United States similarly linked these acts of deadly violence to potential diagnoses of autism. There’s a tendency to link such events to autism, even though there’s no link between autism and violence.
Autism advocates have been quick to respond — autism does not typically cause violence or motivate an individual to violence. So what does the science say? Are autistic people more prone to violence and, if so, what precautions should be taken?
Reduced risk of violence
The straightforward and scientifically supported answer to the question is unequivocally that no, autistic individuals are not prone to violence any more than any other individual in society.
One of the most rigorous studies to date on this topic has shown that, in fact, individuals with ASD are less likely to engage in violent acts.
This study, which examined almost 300,000 individuals in Sweden, explored psychiatric diagnoses, gender, age, and many other variables in the context of violent crime. Overall, 4.4 per cent of autistic individuals in this large sample were convicted of violent crime in contrast to 2.6 per cent of neurotypicals. This increased risk of 40 per cent would seem to suggest autism as an influential factor. However, once co-occurring conditions were accounted for, the rate of violent acts by autistics was less than the neurotypical group. And, importantly, the evidence indicates that being autistic actually reduced the risk of violence.
In essence, it is not being autistic that contributes to an individual’s propensity for violent acts; rather, other psychiatric conditions such as conduct disorder and/or adverse childhood experiences appear to be much stronger factors. Other researchers have investigated this topic and arrived at similar conclusions.
Media fear-mongering
So, what should we take from this? First, journalists should be more aware of their power to influence public perceptions of those with mental health challenges.
They should be clear on what autism is before asserting that it had any role to play in the atrocities of late.
Second, focusing the narrative around a single potential causal factor for violent acts simplifies what is, inherently, a complex issue. Perpetrators of violence do not commit their acts because of any one single factor. To state that autism may cause an individual to behave in a violent manner is false at best, and very harmful to a large number of individuals.
Third, and most importantly, the public should be better informed about the array of amazing and unique individuals who are autistic.
As almost any autistic individual, their family, or people that support them will tell you, it does not contribute to propensity for violence; however, autistic people are often victims of it.
Researchers and clinicians struggle to provide this information to the public in an effective manner. There are significant efforts to improve society’s understanding of autism — such as World Autism Awareness Day and many local, state / provincial, and national events to educate society about autism — many of which have proven to be effective.
We now have to progress towards society’s acceptance of autistic people. This will involve learning about autism and how we can all work and live together to our mutual benefit, without a climate of fear-mongering or inaccurate information.
If we can achieve that, we will all be better off.
So how do we do that?
A few years ago, the University of Chicago’s Jens Ludwig was visiting the Juvenile Temporary Detention Center in Chicago, which is where the teenagers deemed "highest risk" are held while their cases go through court. A staff supervisor told him he always tells the kids they're not bad people, they're just people who made bad decisions during enormously difficult situations. Or, as he puts it to them: "If I could give you back just 10 minutes of your lives, none of you would be in here."
This suggests one way to reduce violence is to make the difficult situations young people are forced to navigate -- those 10-minute windows -- more forgiving. In the context of America's traditional approach to violent crime, that's a radical idea. It runs directly counter to the notion that incapacitating people is the only way to reduce violence. Instead, it tells us to focus our policy efforts on changing the situations people face and the tools they have for navigating those situations.
As the Moving to Opportunity study (MTO) shows us, perhaps the most important structural change we could make in this regard is to reduce the segregation that plagues our cities and leaves too many neighborhoods under-resourced and over-stressed. Another would be to limit the widespread availability of illegal weapons on our streets, which makes crimes much more deadly. But progress on either of these fronts, while critical, has proven to be very slow.
In the meantime, there are tangible steps we can take right now to make difficult situations more forgiving. For one, we can make it more likely that there are adults around who can step in and help de-escalate arguments before they spiral out of control. This is the logic behind street outreach and violence interrupter organizations, which for the first time is targeted for substantial funding in next year's proposed federal budget.
The potential for this approach to help prevent gun violence is not wishful thinking. Research from a series of randomized controlled trials of the sort that provide "gold standard" evidence in medicine, as well as studies of naturally-occurring "policy experiments," show almost anything that gets more people out on the streets, from installing better street lighting to turning vacant lots into parks, reduces crime.
A second, complementary approach that has historically not been part of the public debate is to help young people navigate the difficult situations that our past policies have failed to fix.
Consider an exercise practiced in one of Chicago's most effective violence intervention programs, Becoming a Man (BAM). Teens are paired up; one is given a rubber ball, and the other is given 30 seconds to get the ball out of his partner's fist. Inevitably, the two teens end up on the ground, wrestling and fighting to get -- or keep -- the ball.
After the teens switch roles and the same struggle occurs, the BAM counselor asks why no one just asked their partner for the ball. They usually look surprised and say something along the lines of, "The other guy would have thought I'm a wuss." The counselor asks the partner if that's true. The usual answer: "No, I would have given it to him. It's just a stupid ball."
This exercise, called "the fist," doesn't teach participants to be better people. Instead, it gives them the tools they need to address the actual problem: the situation. By teaching young people to slow down during stressful situations, it helps them navigate in-the-moment decisions that could otherwise lead to violence.
Essentially, they learn to evaluate their automatic responses, and in some situations, just ask for the ball -- or stop to help a person coughing in a doorway. Research including several randomized controlled trials by my research center, the University of Chicago Crime Lab, found BAM reduces violent crime arrests by nearly 50%. While scaling social programs is often a challenge, it is encouraging that we see similarly beneficial effects from related programs, like Choose To Change and programs delivered in other settings like juvenile detention centers.
The tragedy is that the conventional wisdom that crime is a product of bad people led America to focus on a narrow set of policy responses that created the world's largest prison system. You don't throw someone in prison for life if you think they can change.
The good news is that our improved understanding of human behavior helps us see that preventing violence isn't about dealing with bad people. It's about creating the situations that give people those key 10 minutes back.