Knowledge of legal terminology and court proceedings in adults with developmental disabilities.

Abstract

This research compared 40 adults with mild developmental disabilities (DD) and 40 nondelayed adults (ND) in terms of knowledge of legal terms and court proceedings. For all of the 34 terms studied, with the exception of "police officer" there were significant differences between the DD and ND groups with respect to degree of conceptual understanding of terms. Results indicate that all but 6 terms assessed (adjourn, allegation, crown attorney, defendant, prosecute, and court reporter) were well-defined by 85% or more of ND participants. In contrast, only 8 of the terms (police officer, lawyer, jail, court, lie, truth, judge, and witness) were reasonably conceptually understood by at least 75% of DD participants. Reported familiarity with terms in DD participants is not a reliable indicator of actual familiarity with terms. Results are discussed with respect to the need for education of DD individuals and legal professionals to support participation and fair treatment of DD individuals in legal situations.To date, very little research has been conducted to examine understanding of legal proceedings and terminology in people with developmental disabilities (DD). People with DD, however, are increasingly coming into contact with the criminal justice system. This is in part due to the fact that over the past decade it has come to light that people with DD are significantly over-represented in cases of physical, sexual, and

Sexual relationships in adults with intellectual disabilities: understanding the law

“…Clare & Gudjonsson (1995) found that few people with IDs understood the police caution and their rights in detention in England, and Fulero & Everington (1995) have shown that this also applies to understanding of Miranda rights in the USA. Similarly, Ericson & Perlman (2001) discovered that, when asked about legal terms and court proceedings, people with IDs had a significantly less good understanding of all but one of the 34 legal terms tested than people without an ID, even though a large proportion of them had experienced direct involvement in court cases. Ericson & Perlman (2001) also found that there was a very wide range of scores, some people with IDs doing as well as some of the top scoring people without disabilities, just as was reported in the present study.…”

Police contact with people with an intellectual disability: the Independent Third Person perspective

“…The fact that contacts between police and people with ID continue to be on the increase, is perhaps most problematic because of the additional disadvantage brought about by their lack of understanding of legal processes (Ericson & Perlman 2001). Indeed, the available research has consistently shown that people with ID have difficulty understanding their rights as given to them by police, that they are also likely to respond affirmatively to questions they do not understand (Gudjonsson & Clare 1992), the latter perhaps being associated to their increased risk of exploitation because of confusion about how to respond to different behavioural cues ( Wilson et al 1996).…”

Communication and cross-examination in court for children and adults with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review

“…A list of authors was recorded beside the information from the codes to ascertain the most common findings. An additional subject (court language) was added as one of the papers was different in its area of research compared to the other papers included (Ericson & Perlman, 2001). The data were also analysed by the second two authors for inter-rater reliability in terms of including papers and to guard against any inclusion bias from the primary author.…”