Mental Illness on Trial: How the System Fails Neurodivergent Defendants
Author: Melody Horoufi
The courtroom is often imagined as a place of justice and order but for neurodivergent defendants, it can feel like a battlefield stacked against them. Behind the formal language and legal process, countless individuals are misunderstood, misrepresented, and left without the support they need. Growing up, I believed that the justice system was flawless, that trials were fair, judges were neutral, and everyone had equal opportunity to defend themselves. But as I learned more, I saw a different reality. Television and documentaries began to reveal that people with mental illness or neurodivergent traits are often left behind in a system built for neurotypical individuals. Despite growing awareness, the legal system continues to fail neurodivergent defendants by neglecting their needs and failing to provide essential procedural accommodations.
Neurodivergent individuals face persistent disadvantages during the legal process. One of the most pressing issues is the system’s failure to recognize and accommodate their specific needs. Court procedures and legal language are often confusing, fast-paced, and overwhelming, particularly for those with autism, ADHD, learning disabilities, or other cognitive differences. Yet, research shows that assessments in court tend to focus primarily on whether a person is “fit to plead,” rather than identifying barriers to fair participation or understanding how their condition might affect behavior and decision-making (Fair Trials, 2023). Without appropriate support, many neurodivergent defendants struggle to understand their rights or what is happening in their trial. Legal professionals are often not trained in recognizing these needs, which leads to harmful outcomes including coerced pleas, longer sentences, and wrongful convictions.
Statistically, neurodivergent people are overrepresented in the criminal justice system yet rarely receive the help they need. A large-scale study found that nearly 48.5% of defendants in custody had at least one psychiatric diagnosis, compared to 20.3% of those coming from the community. Still, only 16.7% of those from custody and 4.6% from the community were referred to support services like liaison and diversion teams (Bebbington et al., 2022). Even more alarming, only 2.1% of defendants were deemed unfit to plead, suggesting that thousands of neurodivergent individuals are being pushed through the legal process without proper evaluation or support. This is a direct failure of the system to identify who needs help before trial even begins.
Although the justice system continues to fall short, there are some promising efforts to improve accessibility for neurodivergent defendants. For example, Liaison and Diversion services have been introduced in several regions to identify individuals with mental health or cognitive needs early in the criminal process. These services aim to direct people toward mental health support and social services rather than jail or trial. However, despite their potential, they remain underutilized and inconsistently implemented. A growing body of research also points to the importance of applying a tiered model of procedural accommodations in courtrooms. This includes universal strategies such as using plain, accessible language and checking for understanding during proceedings, targeted strategies like permitting sensory breaks or adjusting the pace of hearings, and intensive interventions such as assigning cognitive facilitators or trained intermediaries to assist individuals with more complex needs. These changes could radically improve courtroom experiences for neurodivergent defendants and reduce the risk of unfair trials or wrongful convictions.
The legal system was built without neurodivergent individuals in mind and it shows. From poor identification to inadequate accommodations, the courtroom often becomes a hostile environment for those with mental and cognitive differences. But this issue is not without solutions. With proper training, universal design, early screening, and consistent courtroom observation, we can begin to shift the culture of justice toward one that is truly inclusive. Until then, court watching can serve as a critical tool to hold the system accountable and uplift the voices of those so often ignored.
Work Cited:
Bebbington, Paul, et al. “Assessing the Mental Health Needs of Defendants.” BJPsych Open, vol. 8, no. 3, 2022, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9169500/
Fair Trials. “Making Justice Accessible to Neurodivergent Individuals and Procedural Accommodations.” Fair Trials, 2023, https://www.fairtrials.org/articles/news/making-justice-accessible-neurodivergent-individuals-and-procedural-accommodations/
Gibbs, Victoria, et al. “Barriers to Justice: Procedural Accommodations for Defendants with Neurodivergent Conditions.” BJPsych Bulletin, vol. 46, no. 6, 2022, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9540328/
