Not sure where to start...

[CivilSybil]

Hi! I am new here. I have read threads and posts on some of the forums before I joined and got some strange impressions. I won't get into that for now. I am curious what police officers think about interrogating a suspect who they know is developmentally dissabled. I guess that's where I'll start. If you know a person is develompmentally dissabled do you take that into consideration? Do you think it should matter? Do you care? Do you have special procedures in place to deal with situations like that? I just would like to know some thoughts about this subject.

Thanks!

[Sgt. Slaughter]

I am curious what police officers think about interrogating a suspect who they know is developmentally dissabled. I guess that's where I'll start. If you know a person is develompmentally dissabled do you take that into consideration? Do you think it should matter? Do you care? Do you have special procedures in place to deal with situations like that? I just would like to know some thoughts about this subject.

Criminal statutes have levels of culpability written into them. During an interview, we will determine what type of mental capacity someone has to commit the alleged offense.

[CivilSybil]

Criminal statutes have levels of culpability written into them. During an interview, we will determine what type of mental capacity someone has to commit the alleged offense.

How do you determine what type of mental capacity someone has? For instance someone who is on the Autism spectrum will often tell you they understand what you are saying when they do not. How would you know that they truely understand what you are saying and asking?

[Citicop]

The police are not trained psychiatrists. If someone is high functioning enough that they appear to be aware of what is going on and they tell me they understand what is going on, then I am going to take them at their word.

If I can tell there is a problem or think they don't really get it, then of course I will take that into account. The police in America are not in the business of pinning charges on those who are not capable of understanding their situation.

For those who claim a disability or disorder that I miss, it's an issue to raise at trial for the defense.

-Citicop.

[Rlong1985]

First off I would like to welcome you to the forum. I hope you find this a productive atmosphere,

I am not promoting this article in any way, but I think you may find it useful.

http://cforjustice.org/wp-content/up...bled-paper.pdf

[pac201]

in a case where it is obvious, there usually has to be an assessment of his/her mental capacity. In our state we do have committal hearings for the criminally insane.

I also agree with Citicop, I will take them at their word, if it appears to me that they can understand.

[CivilSybil]

Thanks to your replies and to the link. I will just give the story of my experience and then maybe it will help define my question more. My nephew is autistic, high functioning. He was accused of something and when the detective called to speak with him I informed him of his developmental dissability. He said okay and called my sister. So my sister took my nephew down to talk with the detective and she thought she would be able to go to the back with them while her son was being questioned (he is 18). So they signed the paper work that said he waived his miranda and then the detective told my sister she could not go with them to the interview room. Now part of the blame is on my sister because she has not done very much to help my nephew and she is very ignorant about what autism and aspergers is. Once he was in the room alone with the detective that was it. There is no going back now, his statement can be used against him, even if he didn't truely understand his rights. Who looks out for people like my nephew? They have no money, they had to find a lawyer that is doing the work on his defense basically pro-bono. The public defender would not talk to my sister even though he too knew my nephew is autistic. He spent 30 days in jail and would shower with his clothes on and didn't know to ask about commissarry or how to make phone calls. He didn't even know to ask someone. I had to finally contact the chaplain and plead with her to please explain to him how the phone calls worked and how he could access his commissarry. So I'm not saying it's any one person's fault. I think that the system failed my nephew. When he was finally released it was the middle of the night and they just release them, he doesn't know how to use the bus, he doesn't realize that he should try to get to a pay phone and call his mom collect. So the only reason this didn't lead to a possible tragedy is that my sister waited outside the jail for him for I don't know how many hours. My nephew is 18 and he tells me that he want's to be a rapper when he grows up.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

Aspergers or mild autism does not instantly absolve someone of guilt. I've charged people that were "slow" before, but knew that what they did was wrong. (In one case, the suspect got mad and threw a brick through a glass window of an expensive car.) It's not something I've personally run across alot. More often they are the victim of a crime, rather than a suspect. Each case and suspect is evaluated accordingly.

[Citicop]

You missed what I said.

It is simply not true that it is case closed, his statement can be used against him.

That is an issue for trial. Your nephew will have an attorney. That attorney will be able to challenge the admissibility of the confession or any admissions based on his disability. The judge will decide whether he really knew what was going on after hearing evidence on the matter from both sides.

We as the police do not decide what evidence can be used and what can't. That's an issue for the courts.

-Citicop.

[Rlong1985]

Correct me if I an wronge but I thought aspregers were socially obnormal but differ from normal austistic in the manner of being highly intelligent.

Do you know what the charge was, or is?

[retdetsgt]

Yeah, it's for the courts to decide if the person is capable of making a voluntary statement. I would never NOT interview someone because I thought they were disabled. Who knows, they might be able to exonerate themselves through an interview? Happens all the time in real life.

[viperphi]

The judge gets to decide if he is competent to stand trial. We lowly, uneducated, miscreant police officers aren't made for such decisions. Once you said you got some "strange impressions" from us, I knew I didn't want to throw my thoughts in.

[eaglei]

Peace Officers are trained in dealing with people with a variety of disabilities, including autism. It does not absolve a disabled person of responsibility. Your sister did not have the right to be present during the interview regardless of her son's age. Your nephews attorney had the responsibility of addressing the disability in court. Your nephew was convicted either by trial or he pled guilty. The jail had a responsibility to address his disability, but only if it was brought to their attention. They may have been aware of his autism, but they can't force him to shower without his clothes. They can only so so much.

[MikeG]

My 0.02. Not a cop or lawyer so YMMV. Firstly, for the future, Miranda rights can be invoked at any time. Just because you sign a statement or a waiver doesn't mean you can't invoke them. In fact, it probably says just that on the paper you signed as this is a basic premise of that right. As for the police, if a reasonable police officer would believe he is cabable of understanding the Miranda warning, then an interview is fair game regardless of whether he is actually capable or not. From what I understand, courts don't hold police to be psychiatrists or other medical professionals. They don't have to be psychic. I could be wrong, but to throw out the confession, the defense would have to prove both that your nephew didn't actually consent because he didn't understand AND that a reasonable police officer should have known that. I don't believe there is strict sets of rules on what it means to understand Miranda rights. Society is made up of a huge range of intelligences and I believe the courts have held that only the very basic understanding of the words of Miranda are necessary. The court will also not just look at his mental acuteness but rather the entire setting ot the interview. One of 'Miranda's premises is getting at the truth that is unshadowed by coercion. If your nephew is able to understand "you can stop at any time" that may be all that is necessary. If the interview was recorded and there was no signs of intimidation and it was just a friendly conversation and it appears to be truthful and uncoercive, the defense would have a hard time getting it thrown out because the letter and spirit of Miranda have been carried out.

Secondly, is he anybody's ward? If he's not competent enough to understand society and right/wrong, he should be declared as such by a court and made a ward of someone who can make these decisions. If he is competent enough to understand right and wrong and function in society then he will have to deal with the criminal justice system just like any other adult. His mental capacity may be a mitigating factor, but it's not a free pass to commit crimes. If he is not responsible for the harm he causes, someone else must be. it sounds like you want it both ways: he gets to play adult and do things on his own but if he gets in trouble he is not responsible nor is anyone else.

I have other questions such as why didn't you/your sister/mom know when he was going to be released? Were you able to visit him and explain how these things worked?