Content uploaded by Nathan Hughes
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nathan Hughes on Aug 28, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Neurodisability in the youth justice system: recognising and
responding to the criminalisation of neurodevelopmental impairment
Nathan Hughes, University of Birmingham, UK; Murdoch Childrens Research Institute,
Australia; University of Melbourne, Australia
Howard League What is Justice? Working Papers 17/2015
http://www.howardleague.org/what-is-justice/ 1
Neurodisability in the youth justice system: recognising and
responding to the criminalisation of neurodevelopmental impairment
Nathan Hughes, University of Birmingham, UK; Murdoch Childrens Research Institute,
Australia; University of Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
A recent comprehensive review of research evidence reveals a disproportionately high
prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders amongst young people in custodial institutions
that is consistent across various international contexts (Hughes et al., 2012). This reveals a
widespread failure of current practices and interventions intended to prevent offending and
reoffending to recognise or to meet the needs of these vulnerable young people, and
therefore promotes a fundamental rethinking of the approaches of the youth justice system.
Cognitive and emotional traits associated with specific neurodevelopmental disorders
increase the propensity to antisocial or criminal behaviour, as well as heightening
susceptibility to a range of negative social experiences that further increase risk of
criminality. An awareness of this vulnerability emphasises the role that could be played by
family support and education services in reducing the risk of future criminal behaviour due
to neurodevelopmental impairment, if underpinned by models of Therapeutic Justice and
Justice Reinvestment. Furthermore it serves to challenge the processes within youth justice
systems that serve to disable, and ultimately criminalise, young people with
neurodevelopmental impairment. Such processes include inadequate forms of assessment
and screening, and inappropriate assumptions of verbal and cognitive competence that
underpin legal processes and youth justice interventions.
Neurodisability in the youth justice system: recognising and responding to the criminalisation of
neurodevelopmental impairment
Nathan Hughes
www.howardleague.org/what-is-justice/ 2
Introduction
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5; American
Psychiatric Association, 2013: 31) specifies diagnostic criteria for a range of
‘neurodevelopmental disorders’: ‘a group of conditions… [which] typically manifest early in
development, often before the child enters grade school, and are characterised by
developmental deficits that produce impairments of personal, social, academic, or
occupational functioning.’ This category therefore comprises a range of clinically defined
disorders, including: intellectual/learning disability; specific learning disorder;
communication disorders; attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; and autism spectrum
disorder.
The specific impairments associated with each of these disorders are briefly outlined in
Table 1, and commonly include: communication difficulties, cognitive delays, learning
difficulties, significant difficulties with everyday tasks, and emotional and behavioural
problems. Such impairments are often the result of a complex mix of influences, including
genetic, pre-birth or birth trauma, infection, illness or injury in childhood, or nutritional,
educational or emotional deprivation (Patel et al., 2011).
A recent review of research and government data drawn from a variety of national contexts
examined the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders among incarcerated young
people, and compared these to equivalent rates established in studies of young people in
the general population (Hughes et al., 2012). The findings of this review are summarised in
Table 1. This data clearly requires careful interpretation given the methodological and
analytical challenges in undertaking such a review, combining and comparing studies with
varied definitions, measures, methods, populations and national/policy contexts (Hughes et
al., 2012). Notwithstanding these challenges, and the caveats to interpretation that they
require, the evidence available consistently suggests a disproportionately high rate of
neurodevelopmental disorders among incarcerated young people. Indeed, it suggests that a
significant proportion of young people in the custodial estate have one or more
neurodevelopmental disorder, signifying high levels of need. What’s more, the prevalence of
clinically defined disorders is likely to be an underestimate of the proportion of young people
affected by particular symptoms or sub-clinical levels of impairment.
This weight of evidence warrants a search for explanations as to why young people with
certain childhood neurodevelopmental disorders may be at greater risk of criminality,
criminalisation, and ultimately custodial intervention. It suggests a widespread failure of
current practices and interventions intended to prevent offending and reoffending to
recognise and meet the needs of these vulnerable young people. In particular it calls into
question whether Articles 37 and 40 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child (UNCRC) are being upheld for this population. These articles establish the need for
children and young people in the criminal justice system to be dealt with in ways that take
account of their specific developmental needs, including through interventions that promote
care, guidance and support. Consequently, this evidence promotes a radical rethinking of
the approaches of the youth justice system, and of policy and services more generally, in
seeking to meet the needs of and ensure justice for these young people.
3 www.howardleague.org/what-is-justice/
Table 1. Prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders (Hughes et al., 2012)
Neurodevelopmental
disorder
Definition
(based on APA, 2000; 2013)
Prevalence
rates among
young people in
the general
population
Prevalence
rates among
young people in
custody
Learning /
Intellectual
Disability
Deficits in:
- cognitive capacity (measured by an
IQ score of less than 70); and
- adaptive functioning (significant
difficulties with everyday tasks)
Onset prior to adulthood
2–4%1
23–32%2
Dyslexia
A significant discrepancy between full-
scale IQ and reading ability
(Nb. replaced in DSM-5 with Specific
Learning Disorder)
5–10%3
43–57%4
Communication
Disorders
Problems with speech, language or
hearing that significantly impact upon
an individual's academic achievement
or day-to-day social interactions.
Includes:
- language disorder (expressive and
receptive-expressive language)
- speech sound disorder
- childhood-onset fluency disorder
(stuttering).
5–7%5
60–90%6
Attention-
Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder
Persistence in multiple symptoms of
inattention and/or
hyperactivity/impulsivity
1.7–9%7
12%8
Autistic Spectrum
Disorder
Qualitative abnormalities in reciprocal
social interactions and
communication, and markedly
restricted repetitive and stereotyped
patterns of behaviour and interests
0.6–1.2%9
15%10
1 McKay and Neal, 2009; Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2003; Gerber, 1984
2 Kroll et al, 2002; Rayner et al, 2005
3 Siegal, 2007
4 Rack, 2005; Reid and Kirk, 2002; Snowling et al, 2000.
5 Tomblin et al, 2000; Larsen and McKinley, 1995.
6 Bryan et al, 2007; Bryan, 2004; Snowling et al, 2000; Gregory and Bryan, 2011.
7 SIGN, 2001; NICE, 2008; SIGN, 2001; Merrell and Tymms, 2001
8 Fazel et al., 2008
9 Chakrabarti and Fombonne, 2005; Gillberg, 1995; Baird et al, 2006.
10 Anckarsater et al, 2007
Neurodisability in the youth justice system: recognising and responding to the criminalisation of
neurodevelopmental impairment
Nathan Hughes
www.howardleague.org/what-is-justice/ 4
This paper provides a framework that is intended to inform such a rethink. It begins by
examining the various ways in which the symptoms and expression of specific
neurodevelopmental disorders can influence a propensity towards criminality and
criminalisation. There are clearly limitations in adopting clinically defined
neurodevelopmental disorders as a means to understand offending behaviour. The
accuracy and distinctiveness of specific disorders can contrast to the fluid and overlapping
nature of the symptoms of impairment experienced by individuals (Kruger et al., 2005).
Furthermore such definitions can ignore those with ‘subclinical’ levels of need that do not
meet diagnostic criteria for individual disorders, who are still significantly affected by
multiple and complex expressions of impairment. Nonetheless, as the discussion will
illustrate, a range of intrinsic risk factors for offending are strongly associated with particular
neurodevelopmental disorders.
The approach of the DSM has also been criticised for being historically and socially
constructed, based on the dominance of specific scientific disciplines and discourses
(Mallett, 2006), and with inherent cultural and gender biases (Hartung and Widiger, 1998;
Lewis-Fernandez et al., 2010; Narrow, 2007; Thakker and Ward, 1998). The use of the
clinical diagnoses can also reinforce the dominance of a ‘medical model’ in understanding
impairment, emphasising individual deficit to be addressed through medical intervention
(Baldry et al., 2008). Such an approach is at odds with understandings of the influence of a
complex array of experiences on the expression of neurodevelopmental difficulties,
including in relation to the propensity towards antisocial behaviour. The discussion that
follows therefore also emphasises the social and environmental factors that serve to
increase risk of offending, as well as experiences of disability, discrimination and
criminalisation that are inherent in systemic and institutional processes.
Taken together, these strands of analysis offer significant insights into how youth justice
systems may be reformed so as to address the prevalence of neurodevelopmental
disorders among young people in custody. The conclusion outlines some of these
implications.
Antisocial behavioural traits resulting from cognitive or emotional deficits
Developmental psychopathology is the study of psychological disorders over the life-course
so as to understand how their manifestation and progression can cause divergence from
normative or typical development (Cicchetti, 1993; Rutter & Scroufe, 2000). Through an
‘analysis of the social difficulties arising from neurological insults’ (Yeates et al., 2007,
p.535), developmental psychopathology seeks to understand:
how children’s daily functioning in the social world is associated with their abilities to
identify, think about, produce, and regulate emotions; to consider other people’s
perspectives, beliefs, and intentions; and to solve interpersonal problems.
(Yeates et al., 2007: 536)
Such research therefore considers how impairments in cognitive functions (reasoning,
thinking and perception) and social-affective functions (the expression of emotion and
5 www.howardleague.org/what-is-justice/
formation of relationships) may produce certain behavioural traits in particular contexts and
situations.
Models and frameworks emerging from developmental psychopathology can be used to
understand how cognitive and emotional traits associated with particular
neurodevelopmental disorders can directly influence propensity towards aggressive and
antisocial behaviour in particular social situations, and therefore increase vulnerability
towards criminality (Hughes, 2015). The following examples serve to illustrate this.
The behavioural symptoms of ADHD perhaps offer the most well-known association
between a neurodevelopmental disorder and problematic behaviour. ADHD is
characterised by a combination of symptoms, including inattentiveness,
hyperactivity, and impulsivity. The latter is particularly implicated in certain forms of
antisocial behaviour through a ‘de-coupling of cognition and emotion’ (Williams,
2013) expressed as impatience, sensation-seeking and difficulties in restraining
emotional reactions. This can increase the likelihood of spontaneous, impulsive acts,
particularly in response to provocation or conflict.
Understanding the particular hormones and neurotransmitters associated with
autistic spectrum disorders offers an explanation for a propensity towards certain
forms of aggressive or antisocial behaviour in particular novel or stressful situations.
Young people with autism can have levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin that are
lower than the norm (Chugani et al., 1999). Van Goozen et al. (2007: 162)
demonstrate a link between serotonin and aggression and argue that low levels of
serotonin ‘lead to behavioural disinhibition’. In parallel, autism is associated with an
‘increased reactivity of the HPA [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis to stress and
novel stimuli’ (Spratt et al., 2012: 75). This can affect stress response mechanisms,
inhibiting the appropriate assessment of emotional social cues, and potentially
leading to ‘hot-headed’ behaviour, such as reactive aggression (Crockett, 2009).
Deficits in executive functioning are apparent in the expression of a range of
neurodevelopmental disorders. Executive functioning is an umbrella term describing
the various cognitive processes used to undertake complex goal-oriented thought
and action. It includes the initiation, planning and sequencing of tasks, concentration,
responsivity to novel or changing circumstances, and the self-regulation of
contextually appropriate behaviour (Meltzer, 2007; Funahashi, 2001). Deficits in
executive functions are known to influence certain forms of antisocial behaviour by
‘decreasing behavioral inhibition, impairing the ability to anticipate behavioral
consequences and assess punishment and reward, [and/or] damaging the capability
to generate socially appropriate behavior in challenging contexts’ (Ogilvie et al.,
2011: 1064). Such deficits have been particularly associated with aggressive forms
of antisocial behaviour (Giancola et al., 2001; De Brito et al., 2013).
Communication impairments are associated with a reduced capacity for effective
social interaction. Social or pragmatic communication relates to conversational skills
such as taking turns, selecting appropriate language for a given social context, and
Neurodisability in the youth justice system: recognising and responding to the criminalisation of
neurodevelopmental impairment
Nathan Hughes
www.howardleague.org/what-is-justice/ 6
using appropriate non-verbal communication techniques. Poor social communication
may result in difficulties understanding and expressing emotions, or the use of
challenging behaviour as a means to communicate emotions (Ryan et al., 2013).
Poor social communication is also associated with difficulties in developing coping
strategies and understanding the perspective of others (Brownlie et al., 2004; Snow
and Powell, 2011).
These illustrative examples offer a brief insight into the diverse and complex ways in which
cognitive and emotional difficulties that are symptomatic of neurodevelopmental impairment
might, in particular social contexts, give rise to the expression of aggressive or antisocial
behaviour associated with criminality. In doing so they suggest that, whilst young people
with neurodevelopmental impairments may commit crime for exactly the same reasons as
other young people, there may also be certain additional triggers or particular patterns of
behaviour related to cognitive and emotional deficits. Such an understanding of antisocial
behaviour has strong resonance with Wikström’s Situational Action Theory (SAT; 2004,
2006). Wikström highlights the interaction of individual traits and situational factors in the
causation of criminal behaviour, emphasising the influence of biology, psychology and
agency on a person’s perception of alternative actions and choices in particular situations
and interactions, such that in certain contexts a crime may be perceived as a viable and
appropriate option even when a person is otherwise law-abiding. Such an understanding
demonstrates a need to identify such deficits and to respond accordingly in seeking to
reduce offending and reoffending. The concluding section argues that this suggests a need
to reform youth justice practices based on the principles of Therapeutic Justice.
Increased exposure to social and environmental risk
In addition to cognitive and emotional deficits that are directly implicated in offending
behaviour, it is also possible to identify a range of social or environmental risk factors for
criminality that either affect or interact with symptoms of impairment. The influence of
neurodevelopmental impairment may be more greatly realised among young people
experiencing adverse social and environmental conditions. In parallel, neurodevelopmental
impairment may increase the likelihood of exposure to social and environmental risk or
increase susceptibility to a range of negative social experiences that further heighten risk of
criminality. The following examples serve to illustrate these associations through
consideration of three well established social and environmental risk factors for offending:
negative peer group influences; problematic parenting practices; and educational
disengagement.
Peer group influence
The previous section noted the relationship between social communication and social
interaction. Deficits in social communication can influence the formation and maintenance of
peer relationships. In particular, Baldry et al. (2011) argue that such deficits can promote a
heightened desire in a young person ‘to want to be accepted by their peer group’, and
therefore argue that such deficits can increase the risk of engagement in criminality, if
associating with criminal peers. Conti-Ramsden and Botting (2004) suggest that young
people with speech and language difficulties are approximately three times more likely to be
‘regular targets for victimization’ when compared to those without such difficulties. A similar
7 www.howardleague.org/what-is-justice/
finding has been established in relation to ADHD. Gudjonsson et al. (2008) argue that
young people with ADHD are ‘more compliant in their temperament’ and may therefore be
more susceptible to peer influence, whether negative or positive, while Mrug et al. (2012)
demonstrate that peer rejection predicts subsequent delinquency among this population.
Such findings are further replicated among young people with a learning disability
(Baumeister et al., 2008, Mishna, 2003). This suggests that young people with
neurodevelopmental impairments may be readily targeted and manipulated by peers.
Parenting practices
Parenting a child with a neurodevelopmental disorder can clearly bring a range of
challenges, particularly when that disorder is not diagnosed or support services are not
adequate. Such challenges can inadvertently lead to the use of parenting practices that
serve to increase the risk of antisocial behaviour and offending. For example, in presenting
‘A Systematic Review of Parenting in Relation to the Development of Comorbidities and
Functional Impairments in Children with Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder’, Deault
(2010) demonstrates associations between ‘oppositional and conduct problems’ and ‘a lack
of positive parenting practices’ and/or ‘a negative or ineffective discipline style’. The
relationship between parenting and child behaviour is not straightforward, however. It is
possible that parents adopting such practices create ‘pathogenic environments that cause
or aggravate the disorder in the child’ (Biederman et al., 1996: 445) or that the association
is better explained by ‘reciprocal interaction patterns between parents and children’
whereby the behaviour of one increases the distress and therefore alters the behaviour of
the other (Deault, 2010: 174). Nonetheless this illustrates how social and environmental
responses related to parenting can serve to amplify the risk associated with an impairment
such as ADHD.
Educational disengagement
The relationship between neurodevelopmental disorders and social and environmental risk
is most apparent in relation to education. The links between various neurodevelopmental
disorders and experiences of disengagement are well established. Disorders with onset
early in childhood can impact on ‘school readiness’. For example, a review of the literature
by Daley and Birchwood (2010) suggests that the link between ADHD and educational
difficulties is commonly established prior to starting school. A variety of symptoms
associated with ADHD are seen to potentially inhibit ‘school readiness’: ‘impulse control,
attentional capacity and hyperactivity’ are seen to ‘hinder [the] ability to acquire crucial skills
such as focusing on teachers, interacting with peers and authority figures, and learning
emergent literacy, mathematics and language’ (Daley and Birchwood, 2010: 456), while
associated executive functioning deficits are found to cause ‘problems with memory,
reasoning, academic skills, conceptual development, [and] general cognitive ability’ (Daley
and Birchwood, 2010: 456).
Difficulties in pre-school and early educational experiences can have a cumulative effect on
educational careers, with difficulties prior to the age of 8 leading to subsequent challenges
in engaging with further stages of education. For example, Snow and Powell (2012)
describe the cumulative challenges facing young people with oral language deficits, as
experienced by those with particular communication disorders or learning difficulties.
Recognising the shift from ‘learning to read’ to ‘reading to learn’ that typically occurs in the
fourth year of formal education, Snow and Powell (2012) argue that those who have
struggled to successfully engage with the formal literacy instruction of the first three years of
Neurodisability in the youth justice system: recognising and responding to the criminalisation of
neurodevelopmental impairment
Nathan Hughes
www.howardleague.org/what-is-justice/ 8
school may ‘struggle enormously’ in entering this second phase. ‘For boys in particular, this
is often a time (around 8 years of age) when externalising behaviour difficulties becomes
apparent in the classroom’ (Snow and Powell, 2012: 2). A potential association between
early difficulties in engaging with education due to impairment and subsequent classroom
misbehaviour is therefore apparent.
Neurodisability, discrimination and criminalisation
The discussion so far has focused on impairment as experienced through the symptoms
and expression of specific neurodevelopmental disorders. The risk factors and relationships
highlighted indicate the direct impact of functional impairments on behaviour and their
indirect relationship with mediating and moderating social and environmental factors. In this
section the focus shifts from experiences of neurodevelopmental impairment to experiences
of ‘neurodisability’.
The concept of neurodevelopmental impairment is distinct from that of neurodisability, as is
made clear by analyses rooted in social model theory. A social model of disability is
premised on the notion that it is society, through its norms, structures and processes, that
disables a person with an impairment, rejecting any assertion that an impairment is
inherently disabling. A clear distinction is therefore drawn between the concepts of
impairment and disability:
Impairment is the functional limitation within the individual caused by physical,
mental or sensory impairment. Disability is the loss or limitation of opportunities to
take part in the normal life of the community on an equal level with others due to
physical and social barriers.
(Barnes, 1991: 2)
A social model theory therefore ‘redirects analysis from the individual to processes of social
oppression, discrimination and exclusion’ (Mulvany, 2000: 584), framing disability as the
relationship between a person with an impairment and their environment.
From a social model perspective, ‘neurodisability’ therefore refers to the influence of
disabling attitudes and practices experienced as a result of neurodevelopmental difference
or impairment. A myriad of such experiences are apparent. Perhaps the most obvious
example is in the experiences of disability implicit in the means by which
neurodevelopmental disorders are defined, diagnosed and applied. This is recognised by
Dowse et al. (2009: 33) who talk of
the array of social forces and relations that contribute to the production and shaping
of these ‘disorders’, the formation and reformation of the boundaries of their
diagnostic categories, and the ways remedial responses are driven in policy and
practice.
Diagnosis (or lack of) and classification determines the extent and nature of recognition and
response to neurodevelopmental impairment, and is therefore key to a variety of
experiences that can serve to increase risk of offending. In particular, as the discussion
9 www.howardleague.org/what-is-justice/
above illustrated, the failure of the education system to identify and respond to the learning
needs of young people with neurodevelopmental impairment may be the origin of potential
disengagement with education. It may also be directly implicated in the onset of problem
behaviour. Without an appropriate awareness of impairment, behaviour in the classroom
may be attributed to the wrong underlying cause. A cognitive or social-affective impairment
may therefore be misinterpreted as a behavioural problem and, on this basis, the child may
attract inaccurate and inappropriate labels. Law and colleagues (2013: 491) provide an
illustrative example in relation to communication difficulties:
What manifests in the classroom as a ‘behaviour problem’ (e.g. failure to negotiate
appropriately with other children around access to equipment) may in fact be more
appropriately described as a skill deficit, i.e. an inadequate repertoire of socially
sanctioned linguistic skills to enable prosocial engagement with others and
attainment of goals.
Disabling processes are equally apparent in experiences of the criminal justice system.
Various practices can be seen to increase the risk of criminalisation of young people with
neurodevelopmental impairments. A lack of recognition of impairment and its impact on
offending leads to a failure of services to identify and appropriately support those with a
neurodevelopmental impairment, both prior to and on arrest (Hayes, 2002). This may be
through insufficient knowledge or training regarding the needs of those with a
neurodevelopmental impairment (McKenzie et al., 2000), a lack of appropriate assessment
and screening tools (Hughes et al., 2012), or limited specialist service provision (Talbot,
2010). Youth justice interventions are often highly verbal or seek to ‘tap important
metacognitive skills, that is, ‘thinking about one’s own thinking’, so that unhelpful beliefs can
be identified and modified.’ (Snow and Powell, 2012: 4) Such approaches assume typical
levels of verbal and cognitive competence, and may therefore be inappropriate for some
young people with neurodevelopmental impairment. Inappropriate interventions that young
people struggle to engage with may increase risk of failure to complete an order, leading to
possible breach and return to court for further sentencing.
An inability of the young person to effectively understand and engage in a legal process that
is alien, confusing and misunderstood, can further serve to disable vulnerable young
people, leading to an inability to participate meaningfully. Sanger et al. (2001) identify
specific terminology and conceptual language that young people with neurodevelopmental
impairment commonly do not understand, including ‘penalty’, ‘verify’, ‘priority’, ‘caution’, and
‘crucial.’ Snow and Powell (2005, 2011) highlight difficulties in narrative language skills (the
ability to ‘tell their story’), posing considerable barriers in the context of forensic interviewing
techniques applied in court or by police. Low expressive vocabulary and poor narrative
language skills can mean ‘monosyllabic, poorly elaborated and non-specific responses that
may be accompanied by poor eye-contact and occasional shrugs of the shoulders.’ (Snow
and Powell, 2012: 3) ‘Such responses are likely to have a confirmatory effect on the biased
impressions that many authority figures already hold about marginalised young people’
(Snow and Powell, 2012: 3) and ‘may be mistaken for deliberate rudeness and wilful non-
compliance when being interviewed by police or cross-examined in court.’ (Snow and
Powell, 2011: 482) If interpreted as behavioural and attitudinal, communication difficulties
may create ‘additional disadvantage for the young person’s passage through the justice
system’ (Snow et al., 2012: 502).
Neurodisability in the youth justice system: recognising and responding to the criminalisation of
neurodevelopmental impairment
Nathan Hughes
www.howardleague.org/what-is-justice/ 10
Implications for the reform of youth justice practices
The high prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders among young people within custodial
institutions poses encourages scrutiny of current approaches within youth justice systems.
Whether considered from the perspective of the costly ineffectiveness of current youth
justice provision to ensure prevention and rehabilitation or concern for the unmet needs and
vulnerability of young people experiencing cognitive and social-affective impairment, the
case for reform is clear. Firstly, it is necessary to question the appropriateness of current
youth justice interventions to address offending behaviour among young people with
neurodevelopmental impairments if the underlying causes of that behaviour are not
adequately understood or responded to. Secondly, it is necessary to reflect on the
processes and practices of criminal justice agencies that may serve to disable,
disadvantage and criminalise these young people.
The previous three sections suggest a multitude of complex and interacting explanations for
the disproportionately high prevalence of neurodevelopmental impairments among young
people in custodial institutions. Taken together, these strands of analysis offer significant
insights into how youth justice systems may be reformed so as to address the prevalence of
neurodevelopmental disorders among young people in custody, utilising the principles of
Therapeutic Justice and Justice Reinvestment.
Therapeutic Justice
A youth justice system governed by the principles of Therapeutic Justice ‘aims to address
the root of the criminal offending in order to provide a more holistic and less punitive method
for the troubled groups within the society’ (Luther et al., 2013: 2). Under such a system the
principle of punishment is not the main concern of the courts. Instead the primary aim is to
address ‘the main factors – the roots – of what may lead the individual to come into contact
with the law’ (Luther et al., 2013: 12), whether these factors are economic, social or, in this
case, psychological and developmental. This offers a ‘more complete sense of justice’
(Luther et al., 2013: 12), offering an opportunity to consider social as well as criminal
concerns, and in doing so to ensure practice is directly governed by the requirements of the
UNCRC to provide care, guidance and support.
The application of such principles to the offending of young people with
neurodevelopmental impairments is clear. Such an approach recognises the propensity of
young people with atypical neurodevelopment to certain forms of behaviour as well as to
experiences of neurodisability, shifting the discourse from one of ‘risk’ to one of
‘vulnerability’. It supports the application of emerging findings from clinical behavioural
sciences to legal systems and interventions (Geary, 2013: 680; King, 2011: 21–2) through
an ‘emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation for all offenders.’ (Geary, 2013: 691)
Approaches rooted in Therapeutic Justice therefore recognise that, once involved in the
criminal justice system, young people with a neurodevelopmental impairment have very
different needs, and therefore require markedly different types of support in order to
address offending behaviour and support rehabilitation.
Recognition of these varied needs directly contradicts current use of generic approaches
which assume typical levels of verbal and cognitive competence, and which those with
11 www.howardleague.org/what-is-justice/
atypical neurodevelopment struggle to adhere too, resulting in experiences of
neurodisability fuelling further criminalisation. Instead Therapeutic Justice interventions
must be responsive to specific needs and learning styles to address the underlying needs
and vulnerabilities of young people with neurodevelopmental impairment when they engage
in offending.
Guidelines on how to support young people with specific neurodevelopmental disorders are
already established and can be readily utilised, including, for example, those published by
the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence regarding ADHD (NICE, 2008) and
autistic spectrum disorders (NICE, 2011). Specific guidelines for professionals working in
the criminal justice system have also been developed. For example, the National Autistic
Society (Siddles et al., 1997; NAS, 2001) advocate the use of the ‘SPELL’ principles, which
require a ‘Structured’ and consistent approach, highlighting the ‘Positive’ abilities of an
individual, ‘Empathic’ engagement, an immediate environment that is ‘Low’ in stress, and an
approach that attempts to develop ‘Links’ with other agencies. There is growing evidence of
the efficacy of individual therapeutic approaches to address and manage aspects of the
disorder and associated risk of offending; for example, adapted cognitive behaviour therapy
(Hare and Paine, 1997) and skills development using social stories and comic strip cartoons
to address emotional recognition and help develop coping strategies to manage stress and
conflict (Murphy, 2010).
Of course the implementation of such approaches requires an awareness of the cognitive
and emotional needs of young people within the youth justice system through an
improvement in the screening and assessment of neurodevelopmental impairment. Timely
screening and assessment are essential to the successful identification and management of
neurodevelopmental impairment and associated cognitive, emotional and behavioural
needs, and to the recognition of the possible relationship between offending behaviour and
these underlying needs. However recognition of need does not imply diagnosis of a
disorder. Assessments should emphasise function and need, rather than diagnosis. Brief
screening tools that can be utilised by non-clinicians to identify functional needs would
support early identification of difficulties, as well as a differentiation of those who are at
higher risk and require more detailed assessment. The discussion of the role played by
family, peer groups and educational experiences also highlights the need for holistic
assessments that recognise the influence and potential to alter these dynamic risk factors,
rather than adopting a more medical, impairment focused approach (Coid et al., 2011;
Mulder et al., 2011).
By encouraging responsive support and intervention, Therapeutic Justice is also alert to
unintended consequences of legal decision making that may be ‘antitherapeutic’ (Wexler,
2000). Only by recognising and responding to the specific needs of young people with
neurodevelopmental impairment can we counter experiences of neurodisability and
criminalisation. This includes an awareness of the potential disabling influence of a young
person’s inability to engage in the legal process, and consequently to effectively defend
themselves. This might suggest the need for specialist support and legal provision; however
an awareness of the disabling processes and practices leading to potential criminalisation
gives sufficient impetus for generic reform that is not therefore reliant on effective
assessment. An understanding of the potential impact of neurodevelopmental impairment,
even when it is not diagnosed in a young person, suggests a need for revised practices
within the criminal justice system that do not assume normative cognitive competence or
Neurodisability in the youth justice system: recognising and responding to the criminalisation of
neurodevelopmental impairment
Nathan Hughes
www.howardleague.org/what-is-justice/ 12
understanding of procedures, and therefore support better engagement and access to
justice for all young people.
Justice Reinvestment
Recognition of the influence of impairment on criminality also supports the application of
principles of Justice Reinvestment, emphasising the potential efficacy of support through
health, education and family support services in promoting prevention, early intervention
and decriminalisation. Justice Reinvestment initiatives seek to reduce both the level of
crime and the costs associated with current criminal justice processes and approaches. In
particular, such initiatives involve the re-direction of funds away from expensive and usually
inefficient custodial sentences and towards community-based alternatives which aim to
address the underlying causes of criminal behaviour (Allen, 2007; Fox et al., 2011). This
typically means that funding previously assigned to criminal justice processes and
interventions is reinvested in alternatives outside of the criminal justice system (Howard
League for Penal Reform, 2009).
To date the primary emphasis of Justice Reinvestment initiatives has been on area-based
approaches, creating an ‘incentive to decarcerate’ by utilising ‘financial incentives
introduced so that in areas where prison numbers are reduced, the resultant cost savings
could be invested locally’ (Allen, 2008: 41). Crime and criminality are recognised to
disproportionately affect communities in which economic, social, health and other
community issues are more prevalent (Allen, 2007: 5). By giving control of the criminal
justice budget to local areas, Justice Reinvestment seeks to encourage ‘a greater emphasis
on local ownership of those in trouble with the law and the development of local solutions’
(Allen, 2007: 8), and in doing so ‘to develop measures and policies to improve the prospects
not just of individual cases but of particular places’ (Allen, 2007: 5). This is achieved through
the commissioning of local services, informed by the collection and analysis of data on
crime and crime prevention and the application of models of effective practice.
Whilst emphasising area-based approaches, a similar framework can readily be applied to
particular groups who are disproportionately vulnerable to criminal behaviour, including
young people with neurodevelopmental impairments. The significant levels of
neurodevelopmental disorders among young people in custody demonstrate the potential
cost savings and the ineffectiveness of current approaches in addressing offending
behaviour. An awareness of the developmental pathways of young people who offend
supports the earlier recognition of neurodevelopmental impairment and subsequent
reinvestment in community programmes intended to counter onset or continuation of
problematic behaviour and prevent the development of secondary risk such as problematic
family functioning, detachment from education or substance misuse.
In particular the available evidence would seem to suggest emphasis should be placed on
family support, with a recognition that families are a key resource in supporting young
people that in turn need to be supported if they are to maintain an effective level of care
(Hughes, 2010). This might include greater investment in parenting support programmes
known to be effective for young people with specific disorders, as well as continued
engagement with parents enabling the provision of information regarding potential future
13 www.howardleague.org/what-is-justice/
symptoms and expressions of particular disorders that can support the identification and
appropriate response to emerging behavioural and functional difficulties.
Early educational support is also key. Many of the young people at risk of later antisocial
behaviour can be identified early within the education system by their challenging behaviour
or problems with academic engagement or attainment. The effective assessment and
understanding of the behavioural, cognitive and emotional causes of early learning
difficulties can support appropriate attempts to maintain educational engagement, with the
aim of not only reducing offending but also promoting better educational outcomes. For
example, identification of neurodevelopmental difficulties at primary school age can allow
young people to be appropriately supported on transition to secondary school, thereby
reducing the risk of disengagement and exclusion. Reinvesting funds from custodial
interventions would support mainstream educational services to develop a transparent
framework for assessing young people with behavioural difficulties for possible underlying
neurodisability through access to specialist assessments from different professionals
including educational psychologists, mental health specialists and speech and language
therapists. This suggests a significant set of training needs across a range of services in
order to ensure appropriate assessment and response. Staff in education services, family
intervention projects, social services and primary health care settings, as well as in
community youth justice services, require support to recognise and understand issues
relating to neurodevelopmental impairment. Awareness raising across a range of
practitioners and professionals will also support more appropriate referral to relevant
specialist services for further assessment and intervention.
Neurodisability in the youth justice system: recognising and responding to the criminalisation of
neurodevelopmental impairment
Nathan Hughes
www.howardleague.org/what-is-justice/ 14
References
Allen, R. (2007) ‘From Restorative Prisons to Justice Reinvestment’ in R. Allen and V. Stern,
(eds.) Justice Reinvestment – A New Approach to Crime and Justice. London: International
Centre for Prison Studies.
Allen, R. (2008) ‘Justice reinvestment: Making sense of the costs of imprisonment’, Criminal
Justice Matters, 71(1), pp. 41–42.
American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington DC: APA.
American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (5th ed., text rev.). Washington DC: APA.
Anckarsater, H., Nilsson, T., Stahlberg, O., Gustafson, M., Saury, J.M., Rastam, M., and
Gillberg, C. (2007) ‘Prevalences and configurations of mental disorders among
institutionalized adolescents’, Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 10, pp. 57–65.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2003) Disability Prevalence and Trends (No. DIS
34). Canberra: AIHW.
Baird, G., Simonoff, E., Pickles, A., Chandler, S., Loucas, T., Meldrum, D., & Charman, T.
(2006) ‘Prevalence of disorders of the autism spectrum in a population cohort of children in
South Thames: the Special Needs and Autism Project (SNAP)’, Lancet, 368(9531), pp.
210–5.
Baldry, E., Dowse, L., Snoyman, P., Clarence, M. & Webster, I. (2008) ‘A Critical Perspective
on Mental Health Disorders and Cognitive Disability in the Criminal Justice System’ in C.
Cunneen and M. Salter (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd Australian and New Zealand Critical
Criminology Conference, 19-20 June 2008, Sydney (January, 28 2009). Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1333994 [accessed: March 2015], pp. 30–445.
Baldry, E., Dowse, L. & Clarence, M. (2011) People with mental and cognitive disabilities:
pathways into prison. Darwin: National Legal Aid Conference.
Barnes, C. (1991) Disabled People in Britain and Discrimination: a case for anti-
discrimination legislation. London: Hurst and Co.
Baumeister, A., Storch, E. & Geffken, G. (2008) ‘Peer victimization in children with learning
disabilities’, Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 25, pp. 11–23.
Biederman, J., Faraone, S., Milberger, S., Guite, J., Mick, E., Chen, L., Mennin, D., Marrs, A.,
Oullette, C., Moore, P., Spencer, T., Norman, D., Willens, T., Kraus, I. & Perrin, J. (1996) ‘A
prospective 4-year follow-up study of attention-deficit hyperactivity and related disorders’,
Archives of General Psychiatry, 53, pp. 437–446.
15 www.howardleague.org/what-is-justice/
Brownlie, E. B., Beitchman, J. H., Escobar, M., Young, A., Atkinson, L., Johnson, C., Wilson,
B. & Douglas, L. (2004) ‘Early language impairment and young adult delinquent and
aggressive behavior’, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, pp. 453–467.
Bryan, K. (2004) ‘Prevalence of speech and language difficulties in young offenders’,
International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 39, pp. 391–400.
Bryan, K., Freer, J. & Furlong, C. (2007) ‘Language and communication difficulties in
juvenile offenders’, International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 42,
pp. 505–520.
Chakrabarti, S. & Fombonne E. (2005) ‘Pervasive developmental disorders in preschool
children: Confirmation of high prevalence’, The American Journal of Psychiatry, 162, pp.
1133–1141.
Chugani, D. C., Muzik, O., Behen, M., Rothermel, R., Janisse, J. J., Lee, J., & Chugani, H.
T. (1999) ‘Developmental changes in brain serotonin synthesis capacity in autistic and
nonautistic children’, Annals of Neurology, 45, pp. 287–295.
Cicchetti, D. (1993) ‘Developmental psychopathology: Reactions, reflections, projections.
Developmental Review’, 13, pp. 471–502.
Coid, J. W., Yang, M., Ullrich, S., Zhang, T., Sizmur, S., Farrington, D., & Rogers, R. (2011)
‘Most items in structured risk assessment instruments do not predict violence’, Journal of
Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 22(1), pp. 3–21.
Conti-Ramsden, G. & Botting, N. (2004) ‘Social difficulties and victimization in children with
SLI at 11 years of age’, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, pp. 145–
161.
Crockett M. J. (2009) ‘The neurochemistry of fairness: clarifying the link between serotonin
and prosocial behavior’, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1167, pp. 76–86.
Daley, D. & Birchwood, J. (2010) ‘ADHD and academic performance: why does ADHD impact
on academic performance and what can be done to support ADHD children in the
classroom?’, Child: Care, Health and Development, 36(4), pp. 455–464.
De Brito, S.A., Viding, E., Kumari, V., Blackwood, N. & Hodgins, S. (2013) ‘Cool and Hot
Executive Function Impairments in Violent Offenders with Antisocial Personality Disorder with
and without Psychopathy’, PLoS One, 8(6), DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065566.
Deault, L.C. (2010) ‘A Systematic Review of Parenting in Relation to the Development of
Comorbidities and Functional Impairments in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder (ADHD)’, Child Psychiatry Hum Dev, 41, pp. 168–192.
Dowse, L., Baldry, E. & Snoyman, P. (2009) ‘Disabling criminology: conceptualising the
intersections of critical disability studies and critical criminology for people with mental health
and cognitive disabilities in the criminal justice system’, Australian Journal of Human Rights,
15(1), pp. 29–46.
Neurodisability in the youth justice system: recognising and responding to the criminalisation of
neurodevelopmental impairment
Nathan Hughes
www.howardleague.org/what-is-justice/ 16
Fazel, S., Doll, H. & Langstrom, N. (2008). ‘Mental disorders among adolescents in juvenile
detention and correctional facilities: a systematic review and metaregression analysis of 25
surveys’, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47(9), pp.
1010–1019.
Fox, C., Albertson, K. & Warburton, F. (2011) ‘Justice Reinvestment: Can it Deliver More for
Less?’, The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 50(2), pp. 119–136.
Funahashi, S. (2001) ‘Neuronal mechanisms of executive control by the prefrontal cortex’,
Neuroscience Research, 39, pp. 147–65.
Geary, P. (2013) ‘Juvenile mental health courts and therapeutic jurisprudence: facing the
challenges posed by youth with mental disabilities in the juvenile justice system’, Yale Journal
of Health Policy, Law and Ethics, 5(2), pp. 671–710.
Gerber, M.M. (1984) ‘The department of education’s sixth annual report to congress on P.L.
94-142: Is congress getting the full story?’, Exceptional Children, 51, pp. 209–224.
Giancola, P.R., Mezzich, A.C. & Tarter, R.E. (2001) ‘Executive cognitive functioning,
temperament, and antisocial behavior in conduct-disordered adolescent females’, Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 107(4), pp. 629–641.
Gillberg, C. (1995) 'The Prevalence of Autism and Autism Spectrum Disorders', in F. C.
Verhulst and H. M. Koot (eds.) The Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent
Psychopathology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 227–257.
Gregory, J. & Bryan, K. (2011) ‘Speech and language therapy intervention with a group of
persistent and prolific young offenders in a non-custodial setting with previously un-
diagnosed speech, language and communication difficulties’, International Journal of
Language and Communication Disorders, 46, pp. 202–215.
Gudjonsson, G. H., Sigurdsson, J. F., Einarsson, E., Bragason, O.O., & Newton, A. K. (2008)
‘Interrogative suggestibility, compliance and false confessions among prisoners and their
relationship with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms’, Psychological
Medicine, 38, pp. 1037–1044.
Hare, D.J. & Paine, C. (1997) ‘Developing cognitive behavioural treatments for people with
Asperger's syndrome’, Clinical Psychology Forum, 110, pp. 5–8.
Hartung, C.M. & Widiger, T.A. (1998) ‘Gender differences in the diagnosis of mental
disorders: Conclusions and controversies of the DSM-IV’, Psychological Bulletin, 123(3),
p. 260.
Hayes, S. (2002) ‘Early Intervention or Early Incarceration? Using a Screening Test for
Intellectual Disability in the Criminal Justice System’, Journal of Applied Research in
Intellectual Disabilities, 15, pp. 120–128
17 www.howardleague.org/what-is-justice/
Howard League for Penal Reform (2009) Do Better Do Less: The Report of the Commission
on English Prisons Today. London: Howard League for Penal Reform.
Hughes, N. (2010) ‘Models and approaches to family-focused policy and practice’, Social
Policy and Society, 9(4), pp. 527–532.
Hughes, N. (2015) ‘Understanding the influence of neurodevelopmental disorders on
offending: utilizing developmental psychopathology in biosocial criminology’, Criminal Justice
Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society. 28(1), pp. 39–60.
Hughes, N., Williams, H., Chitsabesan, P., Davies, R. & Mounce, L. (2012) Nobody Made the
Connection: The prevalence of neurodisability in young people who offend. London: Office of
the Children’s Commissioner for England.
King, M.S. (2011) ‘Therapeutic jurisprudence initiatives in Australia and New Zealand and the
overseas experience’, Journal of Judicial Administration, 21(1), pp. 19–33.
Kroll, L., Rothwell, J., Bradley, D., Shah, P., Bailey, S. & Harrington, R. (2002) ‘Mental
health needs of boys in secure care for serious or persistent offending: A prospective,
longitudinal study’, Lancet, 359, pp. 1975–1979.
Krueger, R.F., Watson, D., & Barlow, D.H. (2005) Introduction to the Special Section: Toward
a Dimensionally Based Taxonomy of Psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
114(4), pp. 491–493.
Larsen, V.L. & McKinlay, N. (1995) Language Disorders in Older Students. Eau Claire, WI:
Thinking.
Law, J., Reilly, S. & Snow, P.C. (2013) ‘Child speech, language and communication need re-
examined in a public health context: a new direction for the speech and language therapy
profession’, International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 48(5), pp. 486–
496.
Lewis‐Fernández, R., Hinton, D.E., Laria, A.J., Patterson, E.H., Hofmann, S.G., Craske,
M.G., Stein, D.J., Asnaani, A. & Liao, B. (2010) ‘Culture and the anxiety disorders:
recommendations for DSM‐V’, Depression and Anxiety, 27(2), pp. 212–229.
Luther, G., Mela, M. & Bae, V.J. (2013) Literature Review on Therapeutic Justice and
Problem Solving Courts. University of Saskatchewan: Saskatoon, Canada.
McKay, J. & Neal, J. (2009) ‘Diagnosis and disengagement: exploring the disjuncture
between SEN policy and practice’, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(3),
pp. 164–172.
McKenzie, K., Matheson, E., Patrick, S., Paxton, D. & Murray, G.C. (2000) ‘An evaluation of
the impact of a one day training course on the knowledge of health, day care and social care
staff working in learning disability services’, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4(2), pp. 153–
156.
Neurodisability in the youth justice system: recognising and responding to the criminalisation of
neurodevelopmental impairment
Nathan Hughes
www.howardleague.org/what-is-justice/ 18
Mallett, C. A. (2006) ‘Behaviorally-based disorders: The social construction of youths' most
prevalent psychiatric diagnoses’, History of Psychiatry, 17(4), pp. 435–457.
Meltzer, L. (ed.) (2007) Executive Function in Education: From Theory to Practice. New York:
The Guilford Press.
Merrell, C. & Tymms, P. (2001) ‘Inattention, hyperactivity and impulsiveness: Their impact
on academic achievement and progress’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1),
43–56.
Mishna, F. (2003) ‘Learning disabilities and bullying: Double jeopardy’, Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 36, pp. 336–347.
Mrug, S., Molina, B.S.G., Hoza, B., Gerdes, A.C., Hinshaw, S.P., Hechtman, L. & Arnold, L.E.
(2012) ‘Peer rejection and friendships in children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder:
contributions to long-term outcomes’, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(6), pp.
1013–26.
Mulder, E., Brand, E., Bullens, R., & Van Marle, H. (2011) ‘Risk factors for overall recidivism
and severity of recidivism in serious juvenile offenders’, International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(1), pp. 118–35.
Mulvany, J. (2000) ‘Disability, impairment or illness? The relevance of the social model of
disability to the study of mental disorder’, Sociology of Health and Illness, 22(5), 582–601.
Murphy, D. (2010) ‘Extreme violence in a man with an autistic spectrum disorder:
Assessment and treatment within high-security psychiatric care’, Journal of Forensic
Psychiatry and Psychology, 21, pp. 462–477.
Narrow, W.E. (ed.) (2007) Age and gender considerations in psychiatric diagnosis: A
research agenda for the DSM-V. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
National Autistic Society (2001) Approaches to autism: An easy to use guide to many and
varied approaches to autism. London: National Autistic Society.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2008) Attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder: Diagnosis and management of ADHD in children, young people and adults. NICE
clinical guideline 72. London: NICE.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2011) Autism: recognition, referral and
diagnosis in children and young people on the autism spectrum. NICE clinical guideline 128.
London: NICE.
Ogilvie, J.M., Stewart, A.L., Chan, R.C.K. & Shum, D.H.K. (2011) ‘Neuropsychological
measures of executive function and antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis’, Criminology. 49(4),
pp. 1063–1107.
19 www.howardleague.org/what-is-justice/
Patel, D.P., Greydanus, D.E., Omar, H.A. & Merrick, J. (eds.) (2011) Neurodevelopemntal
Disabilities: Clinical Care for Children and Young Adults. New York: Springer.
Rack, J. (2005) The Incidence of Hidden Disabilities in the Prison Population. Egham: The
Dyslexia Institute.
Rayner J., Kelly T. P. & Graham F. (2005) ‘Mental health, personality and cognitive
problems in persistent adolescent offenders require long-term solutions: a pilot study’,
Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, pp. 16, pp. 248–62.
Reid, G. & Kirk, J. (2002) Dyslexia in Adults: Education and Employment. Chichester: Wiley.
Rutter, M. & Sroufe, A.L. (2000) ‘Developmental psychopathology: concepts and challenges’,
Development and Psychopathology, 12, pp. 265–296.
Ryan, N.P, Anderson V., Godfrey C., Eren S., Rosema S., Taylor K., & Catroppa C. (2013)
‘Social communication mediates the relationship between emotion perception and
externalizing behaviors in young adult survivors of pediatric traumatic brain injury (TBI)’,
International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience, 31, pp. 811–819.
Sanger, D.B., Moore-Brown, B., Magnuson, G. & Svoboda, N. (2001) ‘Prevalence of
language problems among adolescent delinquents’, Communication Disorders Quarterly,
23(1), pp. 17–26.
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (2001) Attention deficit and hyperkinetic
disorders in children and young people: a national clinical guideline. Edinburgh: SIGN.
Siddles, R., Mills, R., & Collins, M. (1997) ‘SPELL – the National Autistic Society approach to
education’, Communication, Spring 1997, pp. 8–9.
Siegel, L.S. (2007) ‘Perspectives on Dyslexia’, Paediatrics & Child Health, 11, pp. 581–588.
Snow, P. C. & Powell, M. B. (2005) ‘What’s the story? An exploration of narrative language
abilities in male juvenile offenders’, Psychology, Crime and Law, 11(3), pp. 239–253.
Snow, P.C. & Powell, M.B. (2011) ‘Oral language competence in incarcerated young
offenders: Links with offending severity’, International Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 13(6), pp. 480–489.
Snow, P. & Powell, M. (2012) ‘Youth (in)justice: Oral language competence in early life and
risk for engagement in antisocial behaviour in adolescence’, Australian Institute of
Criminology, Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice, No. 435, April 2012.
Snow, P.C., Powell, M.B. & Sanger, D.D. (2012) ‘Oral Language Competence, Young
Speakers, and the Law’, Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 43, pp. 496–
506.
Snowling, M. J., Adams, J. W., Bowyer-Crane, C. & Tobin, V. (2000) ‘Levels of literacy
among juvenile offenders: the incidence of specific reading difficulties’, Criminal Behaviour
and Mental Health, 10(4), pp. 229–241.
Neurodisability in the youth justice system: recognising and responding to the criminalisation of
neurodevelopmental impairment
Nathan Hughes
www.howardleague.org/what-is-justice/ 20
Spratt, E.G., Nicholas, J.S., Brady, K.T., Carpenter, L.A., Hatcher, C.R., & Meekins, K.A
(2012) ‘Enhanced cortisol response to stress in children with autism’, Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 42(1), pp. 75-81.
Talbot, J. (2010) ‘Prisoner’ voices: experience of the criminal justice system by prisoners with
learning disabilities’, Tizard Learning Disability Review, 15, pp. 33–41.
Thakker, J., & Ward, T. (1998) ‘Culture and classification: The cross-cultural application of
the DSM-IV’, Clinical Psychology Review, 18(5), pp. 501–529.
Tomblin, J.B., Zhang, X., Buckwater, P. & Catts, H. (2000) ‘The association of reading
disability, behavioural disorders and language impairment among second-grade children’,
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(4), pp. 473–482.
van Goozen, S.H.M., Fairchild, G., Snoek, H., & Harold, G.T. (2007) ‘The evidence for a
neurobiological model of childhood antisocial behaviour’, Psychological Bulletin, 133, pp.
149–182.
Wexler, D.B. (2000) ‘Therapeutic Jurisprudence: An Overview’, Thomas M Cooley Law
Review, 17, pp. 125–134.
Wikström, P-O.H. (2004) ‘Crime as alternative. Towards a cross-level situational action
theory of crime causation’ in J. McCord (ed.) Beyond Empiricism: Institutions and Intentions
in the Study of Crime. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, pp. 1–37.
Wikström P-O.H. (2006) ‘Individuals, settings and acts of crime: situational mechanisms and
the explanation of crime’ in P-O.H. Wikström & R.J. Sampson (eds.) The Explanation of
Crime: Context, Mechanisms and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.
61–107.
Williams, W.H. (2013) Repairing shattered lives: brain injury and its implications for criminal
justice. London: Transition to Adulthood Alliance.
Yeates, K.O., Bigler, E.D., Dennis, M., Gerhardt, C.A., Rubin, K.H., Stancin, T., Taylor, H.G.,
& Vannatta, K. (2007) ‘Social outcomes in childhood brain disorder: a heuristic integration of
social neuroscience and developmental psychology’, Psychological Bulletin, 133, pp. 535–
556.
21 www.howardleague.org/what-is-justice/
Acknowledgements
This paper draws on research funded through grants awarded by the Office of the Children’s
Commissioner for England, the European Union and the University of Exeter. I also
acknowledge the significant contributions of colleagues to the initial literature review
underpinning this paper; namely: Professor Huw Williams, Dr Prathiba Chitsabesan, Dr Luke
Mounce, Dr Rebecca Davies and Betony Clasby. Furthermore I thank the reviewers for the
reflections and critiques that helped to improve this final version.
About the author
Dr Nathan Hughes is Senior Lecturer in the School of Social Policy at the University of
Birmingham, UK. He is also currently Marie Curie Research Fellow in the Centre for
Adolescent Health at the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, and Visiting Senior Fellow
in the Melbourne School of Government at the University of Melbourne. His current
research is concerned with the application of biological and neurosciences to law and social
policy, including the considerable challenges posed by recent advances in these sciences
for pre-existing evidence and established wisdoms, and therefore the frameworks upon
which law and social policy are based. In particular, his work examines emerging
understandings of neuromaturation, their explanations regarding patterns of offending
amongst young adults and those with neurodevelopmental disorders, and their implications
for policy and practice within the criminal justice system.
Correspondence:
Dr Nathan Hughes
School of Social Policy Centre for Adolescent Health
University of Birmingham Murdoch Childrens Research Institute
Edgbaston Flemington Road, Parkville
Birmingham Melbourne
B15 2TT 3182
Email: n.j.hughes@bham.ac.uk
Web: bham.academia.edu/NathanHughes/
Twitter: @nathanjhughes
This paper is published by the Howard League for Penal Reform. However, the views
contained in the paper are those of the author, and not necessarily those of the Howard
League.
