I personally don't consider it worthwhile to discuss whether people with AS understand right and wrong, and whether we are to be seen as competent and responsible for our own decisions. To me, this is so self-evidently true that I am not particularly inclined to discuss it with those who disagree--those who would infantalize us. But amidst all this talk about Asperger's and the "AS defense," a few more basic points are being lost. Namely, regardless of McKinnon's disability, he is a victim of stupid and draconian laws which are unjust for everyone of any neurotype.
I understand that Americans are concerned--sometimes to the point of absurdity and myopia--about "terrorists." Okay, sure. But a law which dictates that any individual who commits a particular crime must be extradited and must face a minimum sentance of 60 years is just a stupid law not befitting a free, democratic country. Now, far be it from me to defend actual terrorists who hack with the intentions (or effects) of harming people. In those cases, by all means lock them up for a really long time, after a fair trial and conviction. But the assumption that anyone who commits a particular crime is a "terrorist" is absurd. Courts should be permitted to exercise discretion based on individual circumstances, to differentiate between sci-fi geeks and members of al-Quaeda.
And I would say the same for any non-autistic person accussed of committing the same crime under the same circumstances.* In this instance, we need to stop making this discussion about autism, and start discussing civil liberties more generally. One need not think that autistic people are incompetent or incapable of standing trial for their crimes to object to the way in which this particular case is being handled. Dwelling on the autism issue only obscures the wider injustices, in addition to potentially having some very disturbing consequences for autistic people.**
*Some might say that a non-autistic person wouldn't do what McKinnon did, but I'm not entirely sure I agree. There is no one characteristic of autism that no non-autistic people share. The diagnosis is typically made because of a pattern of traits. In any case, whether a non-autistic person would do this isn't that relevant to my argument that we should focus on motives, not neurology.
**I have to say that I sort of understand why McKinnon's family is pursuing this tactic. If someone I loved were facing this situation, I might do whatever I could to save them from it. No doubt the McKinnons have legal counsel telling them that pursuing the Asperger's angle is a good idea. The rest of us--including those autistic groups which are standing up for McKinnon--don't really have that excuse, however.
Posts
5 comments:
I think the Americans are just more interested in making a point, with as much publicity as possible.
There are enough good arguments against his extradition without invoking Asperger's.
And I still can't help but think that the people responsible for leaving these computers in such a vulnerable state are far more deserving of 70 years in a Super Max.
I thoroughly agree with you.
But I think both sides of the pond (America with its computer sniffing programs, Britain with its cameras everywhere) are falling far short when it comes to respecting individual civil liberties.
Common sense is dead, and no one cares as long as they themselves are "safe".
Joe
YES. This (post, that is). I haven't followed McKinnon's case that closely but you have definitely touched on the thing that's most been missing from the commentary. Obviously merely being autistic doesn't mean someone has no concept of right and wrong (and I agree with you that this isn't even a point worthy of debate). But it is equally obvious that some laws and ways of responding to people's actions are just, well, stupid and not likely to lead to anything good or useful for anyone involved.
Yeah, I agree. Prosecuting him as a "terrorist" is over-reacting just as much as ... as attacking Iraq in retaliation to 9/11.
A good and well reasoned point of view, but I think there are some points that should be stressed here.
McKinnon's defence wasn't just that his Asperger's might have hampered his understanding of right and wrong; it was also to do with how he might struggle to deal with the upheaval of being transferred to a tough prison regime in a foreign country. It was a plea on humanitarian grounds as well as diminished responsibility.
Bear in mind, too, that he committed the offences before he was diagnosed with Asperger's, so his understanding of his own motivations was essentially different. As I understand it, nobody's contending that having Asperger's prevented him from differentiating right and wrong at a fundamental level. What it meant was that he had difficulty in understanding the effect his actions had on others. Once diagnosed and given access to help, he was able to understand his obsessive behaviour and deal with it.
There are other arguments to oppose his extradition, but from a legal perspective the Asperger's case is the clearest cut and, I would say, most likely to succeed. The coverage has focused on his condition because the defence case has. However, that's not to negate the valid points you raise about the whole judicial process.
Post a Comment