Individuals with autism as victims in legal processes: A scoping review
Research in Autism, cilt.203056, sa.139, ss.1, 2027 (SSCI)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Derleme
- Cilt numarası: 203056 Sayı: 139
- Basım Tarihi: 2027
- Doi Numarası: 10.1016/j.reia.2026.203056
- Dergi Adı: Research in Autism
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)
- Sayfa Sayıları: ss.1
- Anadolu Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
Background: Although individuals with autism experience elevated rates of victimization, evidence concerning their experiences at specific stages of legal processes remains fragmented. This scoping review mapped the available evidence on victimization, legal-process experiences, barriers, supports, and research gaps. Method: Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Anadolu University Library discovery service (inc. Scopus and PubMed) searches were conducted between February and 5 March 2026 for peer-reviewed sources published from 1 January 2016–5 March 2026. Eligible quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods primary studies and reviews were charted. The results were summarized using descriptive numerical analysis and inductive basic qualitative content analysis. Sixteen sources were included: 12 primary research reports and four reviews. Results: The findings clustered into five categories: victimization patterns, prevalence, and risk factors; communication and procedural barriers in police, forensic interview, and court processes; difficulties in recognizing, disclosing, and reporting abuse; need for expert support, staff training, and interdisciplinary collaboration; and structural gaps in the legal system and accessible justice. Across studies, victimization was associated not only with elevated exposure to violence, but also with communication mismatches, limited accommodations, diagnostic overshadowing, credibility bias, and low professional preparedness. Three defendant- or custody-focused sources were retained as contextual evidence concerning systemic preparedness and structural accessibility; they were not interpreted as direct evidence of victim experiences. Conclusions: The evidence indicates recurring communication, professional-knowledge, and accessibility barriers, but the literature is heterogeneous and relies heavily on adult, professional, caregiver, mixed-role, and contextual evidence. Victim-focused research evaluating accommodations and support practices, particularly for children and adolescents, remains limited.