Editorial: People with learning disabilities in the criminal justice system in England and Wales: a challenge to complacency

Abstract

People with learning disability form an important group among those arrested by the police. Whilst Robertson et al. (1995) estimated the proportion of those arrested with a learning disability in England and Wales to be small (less than 1%), Lyall et al. (1995), in a sample of 251 arrestees taken to a Cambridge police station over a three-month period, found that 11.5% had received special education and 4.4% had attended schools for children with moderate learning difficulties. Gudjonsson et al. (1993) found the average IQ of 160 randomly selected detainees at two London police stations to be 82; approximately 9% had an IQ below 70, i.e. intellectual functioning within the range of learning disability (WHO, 1994) with a further 42% functioning in the borderline range.

An Empirical Study on the Relationship Between Intellectual Ability and an Understanding of the Legal Process in Male Remand Prisoners

“…They are also likely to possess characteristics which seriously disadvantage them in the criminal justice system, including difficulties in their expressive and receptive skills, concrete thinking patterns, memory problems, short attention span, a desire to please others (particularly authority figures), suggestibility, inability to understand their rights, impaired judgement, pretending to understand what is being said to them and attempting to conceal their disability (Cockram, Jackson, & Underwood, 1998;Cooper & Grisso, 1997;Hayes, 1994;Howard & Tyrer, 1998;Ierace, 1989;Jackson, Cockram, & Underwood, 1994;Lyall, Holland, & Collins, 1995;Prosser & Bromley, 1998;Turk, 1989). These characteristics will impact on their capacity to participate meaningfully in their trial (Birgden & Thomson, 1999).…”

“…They are also more likely to confess to a crime they did not commit due to their acquiescence and desire to please authority figures (Bull, 1995;Cockram et al, 1998;Howard & Tyrer, 1998;Turk, 1989) and are more suggestible (Prosser & Bromley, 1998;Turk, 1989). At the pretrial stage, people with an intellectual disability are more likely to be remanded in custody for a variety of reasons, including not understanding their bail conditions, previous breaches of bail conditions or lack of appropriate supports, accommodation and resources / 2000Hayes, 1993Hayes, /1994Jackson et al, 1994;Lyall, Holland, & Collins, 1995).…”

“…People with an intellectual disability are more likely to be detained for questioning and/or arrested (Cockram, 1998;Hodgins, 1992;Lyall, Holland, & Collins, 1995) and fail to understand their legal rights Cockram, Jackson & Underwood, 1998;Howard & Tyrer, 1998;Ierace, 1989;Jackson, Cockram, & Underwood, 1994). They are also more likely to confess to a crime they did not commit due to their acquiescence and desire to please authority figures (Bull, 1995;Cockram et al, 1998;Howard & Tyrer, 1998;Turk, 1989) and are more suggestible (Prosser & Bromley, 1998;Turk, 1989).…”

Dificultades para la detección de personas con discapacidad intelectual y psicosocial detenidas por la policía en la Ciudad de Buenos Aires

“…Desde hace más de dos décadas, este grupo particularmente vulnerable ha recibido gran atención en el ámbito de la justicia penal en diferentes países, y sobre todo en aquellos países donde la policía tiene la facultad de interrogar a las personas detenidas, dado que se ha detectado que las personas con discapacidad sometidas a la justicia penal tienen dificultades para comprender sus derechos, son más sugestionables, más aquiescentes, y pueden auto incriminarse a través de confesiones falsas (Howard y Tyrer, 1998).…”