Criminalised, Not Criminal: Reflections on Autism and the Justice System

I recently watched a conversation shared by The Hidden 20% featuring Dr Luke Beardon, and it stopped me in my tracks, not because it was shocking, but because it articulated something I see repeatedly in real life.

Not in headlines.

Not in statistics alone.

But in people.

Dr Beardon speaks about autism and the criminal justice system in a way that challenges some deeply ingrained assumptions. One thing he is very clear about is this: autistic people are not more likely to be criminals, and they are not more likely to be violent. Yet time and again, autism is dragged into crime reporting as if it somehow explains or causes criminal behaviour.

That framing is not only inaccurate, it's harmful.

Behaviour is not the same as intent

One of the most important points Dr Beardon makes is the distinction between behaviour and intent.

In legal terms, this is often described as the difference between:

the act itself

and the intention behind that act

What Dr Beardon highlights, and what resonates strongly with my own work, is that many autistic people come into contact with the criminal justice system not because they intended harm, but because their behaviour was misunderstood.

Autistic communication differences, sensory overwhelm, stress responses, shutdowns, or difficulties with executive functioning can easily be interpreted as:

non-compliance

defiance

aggression

guilt

when judged through a non-autistic lens.

Once that misinterpretation happens at the point of first contact — whether with police, security staff, schools, or other authority figures — everything that follows often escalates.

Criminalised for neurology

Dr Beardon raises a deeply uncomfortable but necessary question:

If reasonable adjustments are not made for autistic people, are they being substantially disadvantaged by the criminal justice system?

And if they are, what does that mean in relation to equality and the law?

This is not about excusing crime.

Autistic people, like anyone else, can commit crimes deliberately.

But what concerns me — and what Dr Beardon articulates so clearly — is that some people are being criminalised for being autistic, rather than for criminal intent.

When behaviour rooted in neurology is judged against a non-autistic standard, the system itself becomes the problem.

What I see in practice

In my work supporting neurodivergent individuals and families, I see how early misunderstandings snowball.

A young person who cannot regulate under pressure.

An adult who freezes or shuts down when questioned.

Someone who does not respond “appropriately” when overwhelmed.

These are not signs of guilt or malice — they are signs of a nervous system under strain.

Without proper understanding of autism, systems respond with punishment rather than adjustment, and control rather than support. That is how people become pulled into pathways they never should have been on.

This is a systems issue, not an individual one

What Dr Beardon makes clear — and what I strongly agree with — is that this is not about blaming individuals working within the system. It is about recognising that systems designed without neurodivergent people in mind will continue to cause harm.

Understanding autism is not optional.

Making reasonable adjustments is not a “nice extra”.

It is a legal, ethical, and human responsibility.

I am grateful to Dr Luke Beardon for his work and for the clarity he brings to this conversation. Voices like his help shift the focus away from stigma and towards accountability, not of individuals, but of systems.

If we are serious about justice, then we must be willing to ask uncomfortable questions about who our systems are built for, and who they continue to leave behind.