Search

The purpose of this paper was to determine whether recommendations made by King & Murphy (Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 44:2717–2733, 2014) in their review of the evidence on autistic people in contact with the criminal justice system (CJS) have been addressed. Research published since 2013 was systematically examined and synthesised. The quality of 47 papers was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Findings suggest a limited amount of good quality research has been conducted that has focused on improving our understanding of autistic people in contact with the CJS since 2013. Methodological limitations make direct comparisons between autistic and non-autistic offenders difficult. Autistic people commit a range of crimes and appear to have unique characteristics that warrant further exploration (i.e., vulnerabilities, motivations for offending).

Background:\ud The Adapted Firesetting Assessment Scale was developed for use with adults with developmental disabilities targeting fire-related factors thought to be associated with deliberate firesetting behaviour (i.e. attitudes towards fire, fire interest, fire normalisation, identification with fire and fire safety awareness). However, the psychometric properties of the scale are yet to be evaluated.\ud \ud Method:\ud The reliability, validity, comprehensibility, relevance and comprehensiveness of the Adapted Firesetting Assessment Scale were evaluated. Fifty-nine adults with developmental disabilities, some of whom had a history of firesetting, completed the Adapted Firesetting Assessment Scale on two occasions. Feedback about the questionnaire was sought from both participants and professionals.\ud \ud Results:\ud The AFAS has acceptable internal consistency and excellent test–retest reliability. The attitudes towards fire, fire normalisation, poor fire safety subscales and total scores discriminated firesetters from non-firesetters. Content analysis of feedback indicated items of the AFAS were understood, relevant, accessible and comprehensible.\ud \ud Conclusion:\ud A larger study is needed to examine the factor structure of the AFAS.

Background\ud The theoretical understanding of firesetting behaviour has predominantly been developed with men in prisons or psychiatric hospitals without neurodevelopmental disabilities. Consequently, there is a lack of evidence regarding the validity of current theory when applied to adults with intellectual disabilities and/or autism. \ud \ud Method\ud Thirteen adults in England with intellectual and other developmental disabilities were interviewed about the affective, cognitive, behavioural, and contextual factors leading up to and surrounding a recorded firesetting incident. Offence account interviews were analysed using a Grounded Theory approach.\ud \ud Results\ud The resulting model consists of four main phases: (1) background, (2) early adulthood, (3) pre-offence period, and (4) offence, and post offence period. \ud \ud Conclusion\ud The model accounts for unique precursors to firesetting within this population including mental health deterioration, poor problem solving, and new motivations for firesetting. Unlike other offence chain theories, the Firesetting Offence Chain for Adults with Intellectual and other Developmental disabilities highlights the significance of post offence behaviour and cognitions (e.g., an attempt to extinguish the fire). \ud