Judging Offenders With Intellectual Disabilities: Systematic Review of Criminal Justice System Professionals' Expressed Views and Attitudes Towards Offenders With Intellectual Disabilities

TL;DR

This review explores how criminal justice professionals view offenders with intellectual disabilities, revealing widespread negative attitudes and suggesting ways to improve understanding and perceptions.

Contribution

The study systematically synthesizes qualitative research on CJS professionals' attitudes toward offenders with intellectual disabilities, identifying key themes and methodological insights.

Findings

CJS professionals often hold negative perceptions of offenders with intellectual disabilities.

Methodological quality of included studies was high, but all failed to address researcher-participant relationships.

Five key themes emerged, including conflating diagnoses and the impact of training on perceptions.

Abstract

The diagnosis of an intellectual disability is suggested to have particularly stigmatising connotations, particularly within the criminal justice system (CJS). This paper aims to synthesise qualitative studies investigating the attitudes of CJS professionals to people with intellectual disabilities (PWID), specifically offenders with intellectual disabilities, and to appraise their methodological quality.

A systematic search was conducted using PsychINFO, Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Complete and EThOS databases. Articles were screened for inclusion by title, abstract and full text to ensure predefined inclusion criteria were met. Individual study quality was rated using the 10‐item Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist, with the addition of an eleventh item to capture included studies' theoretical underpinnings and optimise the value of the quality appraisal. Thematic synthesis was then used to explore and synthesise the findings of the included studies.

Ten papers were included in the review, spanning 766 participants. Studies included utilised mixed methods surveys (n = 3), qualitative surveys (n = 1), semistructured interviews (n = 3), semistructured focus groups (n = 1), unstructured interviews (n = 1) and secondary analysis of previously collected research data (n = 1). Methodological quality was broadly of a high standard; however, all included papers failed to reflect on the relationship between the researchers and participants. Five themes were identified: conflating diagnoses, perceptions of PWID as offenders, procedural issues affecting PWID, development and maintenance of perceptions, and impact of training.

This review highlights pervasive negative perceptions of offenders with intellectual disabilities within CJS staff groups. Clinician‐ and system‐level factors are considered in the development and maintenance of such attitudes and suggestions made for improving CJS staff perceptions and knowledge of offenders with intellectual disabilities.

Figures