Last month, a Baltimore County judge ordered the Maryland Department of Health to pay more than $600,000 in restitution for failing to address the needs of people in the criminal justice system who are intellectually disabled or severely mentally ill. Although the law requires that they be transferred to an appropriate treatment facility within 10 days of a court order, people with serious needs are left waiting almost six months in jail without any meaningful treatment.
It’s shameful that we haven’t really stopped incarcerating the most vulnerable. We need to find ways to reduce their presence in the criminal justice system. One disproportionately targeted group that we’re overlooking is the intellectually disabled.
The American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities defines intellectual disability as “significant limitations in both intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior that begin before age 22.” Intellectual disability varies from person to person and ranges in severity from severe (typically an IQ below 20) to mild (typically an IQ between 50 and 69). People with intellectual disabilities often struggle with everyday tasks such as holding a job, maintaining personal hygiene, and reading and writing. People with intellectual disabilities may also have other conditions, such as mental illness or physical disabilities, but these are separate entities.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, my colleagues and I represented a client with an intellectual disability seeking compassionate release. Not only did his health condition increase the threat of COVID-19, but he also had unrelated medical issues that he struggled to manage due to working memory deficits. The prison did nothing to help him, resulting in multiple hospitalizations.
As the pandemic subsided, we were able to understand how his intellectual disability significantly impacted his crime, his sentence, and the challenges he faced in prison. With this greater understanding, we were able to defend him in court, and he is now home with his family and living successfully in the community with the right supports. This experience made me reflect on my years of experience as a public defender and realize that I failed to recognize many of my clients who perhaps had intellectual disabilities.
People with intellectual disabilities are more likely than their peers to become involved in the criminal justice system. This is not because people with intellectual disabilities are more likely to engage in criminal behavior, but because of environmental and social factors that make them more likely to be arrested and prosecuted. For example, people with intellectual disabilities may commit acts they do not know are illegal. Furthermore, they may be more likely to falsely confess to crimes because of a desire to please authority figures.
They are worse off after they are incarcerated: They are more likely to remain in prison while awaiting trial, are offered worse plea deals, receive longer sentences, and once incarcerated, are more likely to be abused by inmates and prison staff, and often wait longer before being released on parole due to a lack of adequate programming.
These negative outcomes stem from systemic problems in the criminal justice system.
Due to the overwhelming caseload, even the most dedicated public defenders often cannot identify clients with intellectual disabilities, and even if they do, they may lack the resources to provide them with appropriate support.
On the other hand, judges and prosecutors often misinterpret behaviors related to intellectual disability as signs of indifference or guilt. For example, a person with an intellectual disability may be unable to appear in court due to working memory problems, leading a judge to order pretrial detention.
As a result, people with intellectual disabilities often receive harsher sentences, and some judges impose longer sentences when they know a defendant has an intellectual disability.
This does not enhance public safety and is contrary to the principles of justice: these people are not more likely to commit crimes, but they are less likely to receive appropriate rehabilitation services while incarcerated, and prison sentences are less likely to deter future crimes.
Due to individual and institutional flaws, intellectually disabled people deserve less punishment than other people convicted of similar crimes.
As a first step in addressing these issues, we should require judges to treat intellectual disability as a mitigating factor in all sentencing decisions, meaning they must impose lighter sentences on people with intellectual disabilities.
These changes will make sentencing fairer, facilitate the identification of individuals with intellectual disabilities, reduce stigma against intellectual disabilities, and increase understanding among judges, prosecutors, and other stakeholders of the impact of intellectual disabilities throughout the criminal process.
Our criminal justice system has serious flaws, especially in how it deals with complex social problems, and while the recent ruling against the Maryland Department of Health is a step in the right direction, more thorough reform is needed.
Katie Kronick is an assistant professor of law and director of the Criminal Defense and Advocacy Clinic at the University of Baltimore School of Law. Her research focuses on the intersection of intellectual disability and the criminal justice system.