What does neurodivergence mean in the legal field?

Natural variations in brain functioning that affect attention, impulsivity, social cognition and understanding of norms; recognition ensures legal processes adapt to diverse cognitive profiles and protect procedural fairness.

How do neurodivergences influence legal decision-making?

Neurodivergences can increase vulnerability and overrepresentation in justice systems, impair comprehension of rights and procedures, and alter behavior during investigation, trial and sentencing, potentially leading to inequitable decisions without proper identification and adjustments.

How does ADHD affect legal behavior and decision-making?

ADHD-related impulsivity, inattention and reduced inhibitory control can produce opportunistic, less planned offending and difficulty foreseeing consequences, affecting interrogation, culpability assessments and sentencing; effective treatment may reduce criminal involvement.

How can autism impact participation in legal proceedings?

Autism can involve differences in social cognition, empathy and cognitive flexibility, causing rigid rule application, difficulties interpreting intent and atypical communication, which may hinder testimony, consent or participation without tailored supports.

What is the role of forensic neuropsychological assessment in justice?

Forensic neuropsychological assessment evaluates cognition, executive function, attention, memory and social cognition, screens for malingering, and provides recommendations for capacity determinations, accommodations and rehabilitation to promote fair legal outcomes.

What courtroom accommodations support neurodivergent people?

Recommended accommodations include simplified structured language, scheduled breaks, visual aids and pictograms, extended time, specialized intermediaries or interpreters, expert witnesses, and staff training to ensure accessible and equitable proceedings.

Neurodivergences in the Justice System

Marçal Nadal de Mata explores how neurodivergences influence legal decision-making and the key role of neuropsychological assessment.

What neurodivergences are and why they are relevant in the legal field

The term neurodivergence has evolved as a response to the stigmatization of certain neurodevelopmental diagnoses and to the recognition that social models of disability and strength-based approaches are necessary to understand experiences and ensure the well-being of neurodivergent groups (Sonuga-Barke & Thapar, 2021).

Neurodivergence recognizes the inherent variability in neurological functioning between people, shaped by a complex interaction of biological, cultural and social factors. This concept emphasizes that variations in cognitive processing, behavior and ways of interacting with information are natural and contribute to human diversity (Thorp, 2024).

Neurological conditions such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dyslexia, learning difficulties and other neurodivergent conditions should be understood as variations of the human brain, not as diseases to be cured (Armstrong, 2015; Miranda-Ojeda & San-Juan, 2023).

This article addresses how neurodivergences can influence legal processes (whether as defendants, witnesses, victims or participants in proceedings) from several perspectives: prevalence and risk in the justice system, mechanisms such as impulsivity, social cognition, understanding of norms; and why neuropsychological assessment and intervention are key to safeguarding rights and ensuring fair decisions.

Neurodivergences and the judicial system

Various studies have indicated that neurodivergent people are overrepresented in the justice system. For example, it is estimated that people with ADHD or neurodevelopmental conditions may be present at much higher rates in custodial settings than in the general population. A review study found that people with ADHD have a significantly higher likelihood of being involved in the criminal justice system (Young & Thome, 2011).

Moreover, the challenges do not only stem from criminal behavior: in the judicial environment (police, courts, prisons) there is a lack of identification, staff training and appropriate adjustments for neurodivergent people, which also explains a greater risk of vulnerability and less equitable decisions (Clasby et al., 2022).

Subscribe
to our
Newsletter

Impulsivity and decision-making: ADHD in the justice system

One of the core features of ADHD is impulsivity, along with inattention and, in some cases, hyperactivity. This behavioral and cognitive impulsivity has legal implications: reduced inhibitory control, greater urgency for immediate rewards, diminished planning and oversight of consequences. In this regard, a study in adults with ADHD found that symptoms of hyperactivity and impulsivity as well as inattention were associated with greater involvement in criminal behaviors across development (Engelhardt et al., 2019).

More recent reviews suggest that the type of infractions committed by people with ADHD tends to be more opportunistic, impulsive and less planned (Young et al., 2023). From the perspective of legal decision-making, this means that a person with ADHD who has committed an offense may have acted without the capacity to properly foresee the consequences, or with less ability to adjust their behavior according to social and legal norms, which can affect the investigation, interrogation, trial or sentencing phases.

In terms of intervention, it has been observed that ADHD treatment (for example, medication plus behavioral intervention) may be associated with a reduction in criminal behavior (Carlander et al., 2024).

Social cognition, empathy and understanding norms: the challenge of autism in justice

Social cognition (the ability to infer others’ mental states, intentions and emotions) is a critical component in many legal decisions: criminal responsibility, recognition of guilt, witness credibility, capacity to consent and assessment of norms.

In the case of autism these processes have been investigated. A study compared adults with high-functioning autism and control subjects in moral judgments. No significant differences were found in simple behavior, but there were differences in brain activation: reduced activation of the amygdala and other brain regions related to empathy in the ASD group (Schneider et al., 2013).

Other research indicates that people with ASD show subtle differences in some moral bases; for example, greater emphasis on systematization versus cognitive empathy (Greenberg et al., 2024).

Additionally, on reasoning tasks based on social rules, children and adolescents with ASD have been observed to know social rules but tend to apply them more rigidly and have reduced flexibility when processing intentions or complex mental states (Komeda et al., 2016).

These differences have implications in the legal context. For example, an autistic person may understand the written rule but not fully anticipate another’s intent, correctly assess human impact, or grasp the flexibility allowed by the legal system. Also as a witness or victim, they may have difficulty processing the procedure, understanding what is expected of them, or communicating in a way perceived as “typical.” Consequently, neuropsychological assessment should include these domains of social cognition, understanding of norms and flexibility in decision-making.

NeuronUP Assessment

Understanding legal norms and capacity

Full and fair participation of a person in a legal process requires that they understand the procedure, their rights, the consequences, and can communicate and participate meaningfully. In the context of neurodivergences, these capacities may be compromised by cognitive differences, social processing or attention. For example, a good practice guide for courts notes that neurodivergent participants may feel anxious, confused or misunderstood in a judicial environment that expects a “neurotypical” communication style (Family Justice Council, 2025).

Likewise, in family proceedings, “affective participation” requires that the person understands the nature of the process and the rights being exercised, something that may be altered in people with ASD, ADHD or other neurodivergences (The Michael Sieff Foundation, 2025).

From a forensic neuropsychological assessment perspective, it is especially important to evaluate cognitive and volitional capacity (capacity to understand, direct and control behavior), executive function (planning, inhibition, decision-making), attention and memory, and the person’s social cognition. These functions directly impact decisions about whether a person can testify, consent or be tried fairly. On the other hand, judicial systems may require accommodations (for example, simplified language, breaks, visual support) to ensure that the neurodivergent person is on an equal footing.

Do you work in forensic neuropsychology? Discover NeuronUP resources for assessment and cognitive rehabilitation.

Forensic neuropsychological assessment: ensuring equity in legal processes

Neuropsychology plays a fundamental role in legal processes that involve neurodivergences. Some implications include:

Screening and early identification: the justice system is recommended to carry out screening for neurodevelopmental conditions so that neurodivergent profiles are identified and procedures adapted (Clasby et al., 2022).
Neuropsychological assessment: with emphasis on attention, memory, executive functions, social cognition, understanding of norms, impulsivity and understanding of consequences. This evaluation should include tools to detect malingering and dissimulation.
Strengths-based intervention: beyond the “deficit” model, adopt a neurodiversity approach that recognizes distinct abilities and the reasonable adjustments needed.
Procedural adaptations: such as structured language, breaks, pictograms, expert witnesses, extended times. Without these adaptations, justice can be compromised for neurodivergent people (Washington State Supreme Court Disability Justice Task Force, 2025).
Training and awareness for judicial staff: judges, lawyers, police and prison services require training to understand how neurodivergence can affect behavior, communication and legal decision-making (Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2021).
Early intervention in ADHD as a protective factor: evidence indicates that treating ADHD reduces the risk of criminal behavior, suggesting that early intervention has a preventive role in the legal field (Carlander et al., 2024).

Conclusion: towards an inclusive, neuro-informed justice system

Neurodivergences present specific challenges in the judicial context and legal decision-making: from a greater vulnerability to entering contact with the criminal justice system, to barriers in full and equitable participation in legal proceedings. The mechanisms involved include impulsivity (especially in ADHD), differences in social cognition and empathy (ASD), and difficulties in understanding norms, planning and attention that affect legal comprehension. Therefore, adopting a neurodiversity approach (which recognizes neurological differences as human variations and not solely as “pathologies”) facilitates the implementation of comprehensive neuropsychological assessments, appropriate procedural accommodations and early interventions that can improve the well-being of neurodivergent people, justice, equity and legal outcomes.

Bibliography

Armstrong, T. (2015). The Myth of the Normal Brain: Embracing Neurodiversity. AMA Journal of Ethics, 17(4), 348-352. https://journalofethics.ama assn.org/article/myth-normal-brain-embracing-neurodiversity/2015-04
Carlander, A., Rydell, M., Kataoka, H., Hildebrand Karlén, M., & Lindqvist Bagge, A. S. (2024). A Remedy for Crime? A Systematic Review on the Effects of Pharmacological ADHD Treatment on Criminal Recidivism and Rehabilitation in Inmates With ADHD. Brain and behavior, 14(11), e70120. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.70120
Clasby, B., Mirfin-Veitch, B., Blackett, R., Kedge, S., & Whitehead, E. (2022). Responding to neurodiversity in the courtroom: A brief evaluation of environmental accommodations to increase procedural fairness. Criminal behaviour and mental health: CBMH, 32(3), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2239
Criminal Justice Joint Inspection (2021). Neurodiversity in the criminal justice system: a review of evidence. https://share.google/KWHw0row8cBYX72LN
Engelhardt, P. E., Nobes, G., & Pischedda, S. (2019). The Relationship between Adult Symptoms of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Criminogenic Cognitions. Brain sciences, 9(6), 128. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci9060128
Family Justice Council (2025). Family Justice Council Guidance on Neurodiversity in the Family Justice System for Practitioners. https://share.google/f4ZU8LF4RZrMuEqoW
Greenberg, Y. D. M., Holt, R., Allison, C., Smith, P., Newman, R., Boardman Pretty, T., Haidt, J., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2024). Moral foundations in autistic people and people with systemizing minds. Molecular autism, 15(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-024-00591-8
Komeda, H., Osanai, H., Yanaoka, K. et al. (2016). Decision making processes based on social conventional rules in early adolescents with and without autism spectrum disorders. Nature, Scientific Reports 6, 37875. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37875
Miranda Ojeda, R., & San-Juan, D. (2023). Letter to the Editor Concerning “Evolution and Medical Implications of Neurodiversity: Where Must We Go?”. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 53(6), 2529–2530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-022-05556-5
Schneider, K., Pauly, K. D., Gossen, A., Mevissen, L., Michel, T. M., Gur, R. C., Schneider, F., & Habel, U. (2013). Neural correlates of moral reasoning in autism spectrum disorder. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 8(6), 702–710. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss051
Sonuga-Barke, E., & Thapar, A. (2021). The neurodiversity concept: is it helpful for clinicians and scientists? The lancet. Psychiatry, 8(7), 559–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00167-X
The Michael Sieff Foundation (2025). Justice for children with SEND & neurodivergence. https://share.google/CstUT1xyXOyDGc6mx
Thorp H. H. (2024). Science needs neurodiversity. Science (New York, N.Y.), 384(6694), 365. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq0060
Young, S., Cocallis, K., Lane, C., & Chong, M. D. (2023). Overview of Offenders with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. In J. M. McCarthy, R. T. Alexander, & E. Chaplin (Eds.), Forensic Aspects of Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Clinician’s Guide (pp. 34–47). chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Young, S., & Thome, J. (2011). ADHD and offenders. The world journal of biological psychiatry : the official journal of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry, 12 Suppl 1, 124–128. https://doi.org/10.3109/15622975.2011.600319
Washington State Supreme Court Disability Justice Task Force (2025). Supporting Individuals with Autism in Court: Tools and Strategies for Effective Support. https://share.google/3UMT1tX7b8FwzS70B

Frequently asked questions about neurodivergences and legal decision-making

1. What does the concept of neurodivergence mean in the legal field?

The term neurodivergence refers to natural variations in brain functioning that influence attention, impulsivity, social cognition and understanding of norms. In the legal field, recognizing these differences is essential to ensure that judicial processes are fair and accessible to everyone.

2. How can neurodivergences influence legal decision-making?

Various studies have indicated that neurodivergent people are overrepresented in the justice system. For example, it is estimated that people with ADHD or neurodevelopmental conditions may be present at much higher rates in custodial settings than in the general population. In the case of ADHD, a review study noted that people with this neurodevelopmental disorder have a significantly higher likelihood of being involved in the criminal justice system.

3. How does ADHD influence legal decision-making?

The impulsivity characteristic of ADHD can affect the ability to plan, foresee consequences or inhibit responses. These cognitive differences can influence legal behavior and need to be assessed through a forensic neuropsychological evaluation to ensure proportional and fair judicial decisions.

4. How can autism affect participation in a legal process?

People with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may present difficulties in social cognition, cognitive empathy or flexibility in interpreting norms. This can lead to misunderstandings during interrogations or statements, so it is important to adapt the language and the judicial environment to their needs.

5. What role does forensic neuropsychology have in justice?

Forensic neuropsychology evaluates the cognitive and emotional functions involved in understanding, decision-making and behavior control. Its reports help judges and lawyers interpret the real capacities of a neurodivergent person and recommend accommodations or treatments that promote legal equity.

6. What accommodations can be implemented for neurodivergent people in courts?

Recommended procedural accommodations include: clear, structured language, breaks during questioning, visual supports, specialized interpreters and the presence of professionals expert in neurodiversity. These measures promote more accessible and inclusive justice.

7. Why is it important to adopt a neurodiversity approach in justice?

Adopting a neurodiversity approach means recognizing that neurological differences are not deficits but human variations. This approach fosters a neuro-informed justice system that understands each person’s cognitive particularities and adjusts procedures to ensure equal opportunities and respect for human rights.