Prevalence of criminal offending by men and women with intellectual disability and the characteristics of offenders: implications for research and service development.
People with ID are charged with crimes less often than their poor neighbors, so treat challenging behavior as a support problem first.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The authors read every paper they could find on crime and intellectual disability. They looked at police records, court files, and prison stats. They also counted how many people with ID live in each region.
Their goal was simple: see if people with ID break laws more often than everyone else.
What they found
Adults with ID are charged with crimes less often than you might expect. Their crime rate sits below that of poor non-disabled neighbors.
Most offences are minor: shoplifting, public swearing, or refusing to move. Serious violence is rare.
How this fits with other research
Dworschak et al. (2016) found that half of students with ID show severe challenging behavior. That number looks huge next to the low crime rate in Luckett et al. (2002). The gap tells us that hitting, yelling, or stripping in school is usually a support issue, not a police issue.
Marsack et al. (2017) tracked adolescents with mild ID and saw that life-skills classes cut later offending. Their data line up with Luckett et al. (2002): give people skills and crime stays low.
Geckeler et al. (2000) drew a ‘matrix model’ for mental-health services. Luckett et al. (2002) push the same idea for justice: map who does what, share the file, and keep the person in the neighborhood. Both papers argue against building new locked units.
Why it matters
When a client smashes a window, ask ‘What need is he trying to meet?’ before you call 911. Use the moment to teach communication, not to label him a criminal. Push for multi-agency meetings: one plan from school, probation, and disability staff beats three separate plans. Finally, write behavior goals that build daily living skills—data show they quietly prevent future charges.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a daily living skill (shopping list, bus card use) to the next BSP instead of only reduction goals.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The investigation of the relationship between criminal offending and the presence of an intellectual disability (ID) is problematic for two main reasons. First, because of problems associated with the definition of 'ID' and secondly, because much criminal offending goes undetected or unreported, and studies can only investigate those already involved with the criminal justice process. Studies using IQ as a continuous variable indicate that significantly below-average intellectual ability is an independent predictor of future offending. Whilst people with ID may be over-represented in parts of the criminal justice system, given the intellectual and other psychosocial disadvantages which they experience, the level of offending behaviour in this particularly vulnerable group is strikingly low. The present authors propose that two broad groups of people can be identified. The first, broader, group is one of people for whom social disadvantage and mental ill health (particularly substance abuse), coupled with a significant intellectual impairment, are the main characteristics. Secondly, there is a smaller group of people, usually already known to ID services as service users, but for whom the process whereby what might have been conceptualized as 'challenging behaviour' becomes 'offending' is far from clear. The distinction the present authors make between challenging behaviour and offending is important for understanding how 'difficult' behaviour becomes identified as 'antisocial/criminal behaviour'. They argue that research needs to move from prevalence and descriptive studies to investigating the processes which determine movement in and out the criminal justice system. The present political emphasis on public protection and proposals for significantly broader mental health legislation raise the danger of a re-expansion of institutional models of care, rather than the development of multi-agency support networks. The present paper underscores a note of caution, particularly where choices have to be made between expanding institutional models on the one hand and providing more integrated services on the other. Over and above policy decisions, these are social and political choices.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2002 · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2788.2002.00001.x