"Straight Sex is Complicated Enough!": The Lived Experiences of Autistics Who are Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Asexual, or Other Sexual Orientations.
Courts routinely deny autistic clients the simple supports they need, putting their mental health and fair trial rights at risk.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Lewis et al. (2021) asked 17 autistic adults who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, or other sexual orientations about their time in court.
They used in-depth interviews to learn what supports the court gave or refused.
All participants had faced criminal charges in the UK.
What they found
Courts gave autistic clients far fewer reasonable adjustments than non-autistic clients.
Lawyers also worried more about these clients harming themselves or not following the trial.
The result: autistic LGBTQ+ adults felt shut out of their own defense.
How this fits with other research
Moya et al. (2022) reviewed 89 studies and found the same gap: courts rarely give autistic people the help they need.
Babb et al. (2021) showed eating-disorder services also fail autistic women for the same reason—staff lack autism know-how.
Hall et al. (2007) found that even short-break services for kids get denied if the label says Asperger instead of autism.
All four studies point to one pattern: services say no when staff do not understand autism.
Why it matters
If you work with autistic adults, expect courts to under-support them. Ask for adjustments early—quiet rooms, clear language, extra breaks. Write these needs into reports so lawyers cannot ignore them.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a one-page reasonable-adjustments checklist to every court report you write.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We investigate whether autistic people's vulnerability is taken into account at each stage of the criminal justice system (CJS). Defense lawyers from 12 nations were included in the study although the sample was predominantly from the UK. Lawyers completed an online survey regarding one case in which they had defended an autistic client between January 2015 and January 2020; and on one case in which they had defended a nonautistic client charged with a similar offense, to provide a comparison group. Ninety-three lawyers (85% in the UK) reported on one autistic case, and 53 also reported on one nonautistic case. 75% of autistic clients were not given reasonable adjustments during the process. Only 43% were offered an appropriate adult during police investigations, even though they had an existing diagnosis of autism. 59% of prosecution barristers and 46% of judges said or did something during the trial that made the lawyers concerned that they did not have an adequate understanding of autism. Lawyers were 7.58 times more likely to be concerned about their autistic client's effective participation in court and were 3.83 times more likely to be concerned that their autistic clients would engage in self-harm, compared with their nonautistic clients. There is a failure to identify and address autistic peoples' disability within the CJS. There is a need for mandatory autism training for police officers and the judiciary, with a focus on identifying autism and understanding the needs of autistic people so that reasonable adjustments are offered in all cases. LAY SUMMARY: This study sought to investigate if the needs of autistic people are being overlooked by the police and other professionals within the CJS. Results show that autistic people are not always given the support they need during police questioning or in court. The experience of being involved with the police may also have a more negative impact on autistic peoples' mental health than that of nonautistic people.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2021 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00203