Autism no excuse for beating up partners, judge says

[AGXStarseed]

(Not written by me)

Jan Justin Cawdron, violent partner


A VIOLENT thug who beat up three women has been told by a judge that autism is not an excuse for his offences.

Jan Justin Cawdron, 38, head-butted the latest victim so badly she couldn’t tell a nurse what had happened, and her doctor signed her off work for a month, Adam Walker, prosecuting, told York Crown Court.

Cawdron had stopped her using a land line to get help, smashed her mobile phone and pushed her over the back of a sofa before the head-butt.

He was angry over some spilt Prosecco and attacked her despite her efforts to calm the situation.

After she fled the house with a dog in her arms, he led police on a chase along the A64 in her car, during which he swerved between lanes and cut aggressively across another car at the Copmanthorpe exit before being arrested on Manor Heath.

The court heard that he was found to be twice the drink drive limit and had two previous convictions for assaulting partners.

For him, Victoria Smith-Swain said his behaviour was linked to his autism, aggravated by drinking, and he wanted help.

Recorder Gurdial Singh told him: “You have a habit of letting your fists do the talking when angry.

"Autism is not a defence, it is not an excuse.

“It is simply not good enough to say ‘It is my autism, I seek help’.

"If you were serious about it, you would have sought help a long time ago.”

He jailed Cawdron for two years, banned him from driving for three years, ordered him to take an extended driving test before driving alone again and made a restraining order banning him from contacting his latest victim for five years.

Cawdron, now of Blackburn Road, Accrington, pleaded guilty to actual bodily harm, dangerous driving and drink driving.

Ms Smith-Swain said he had formed a new partnership with a woman suffering from cancer, who was in court supporting him.

She would suffer if he went to prison because he had been caring for her children while she underwent chemotherapy.


Source: Violent thug jailed after attacks

 

[Fridgemagnetman]

They've even taken that from us

Seems you can't punch anyone these days without accepting the consequences of your actions.

But it can be an excuse for other things? The judge stated it just applies to partners...
Not too bad then.
Our life of excuses is far from over....

 

[Mary Anne]

They've even taken that from us

Seems you can't punch anyone these days without accepting the consequences of your actions.

But it can be an excuse for other things? The judge stated it just applies to partners...
Not too bad then.
Our life of excuses is far from over....

Good grief, You had me believing you for a few seconds. Honestly....your humor gets the best of me sometimes.

 

[Mary Anne]

This story is very upsetting. I am always reading how we should be so accepting of children that have violent tendencies and not use discipline for upsetting them further (there are other threads on this). But what can happen is that these children can grow up to have melt downs, and or use their violence against others.

I am so glad I made the decision to not have kids. I do think that children are way too spoiled nowadays, and protected from basic life and living skills.

 

[the_tortoise]

I don't know why it's news that neurological conditions (even ones that impair self-control and rational thinking) don't make it acceptable to hurt others....hurting others is never acceptable.

I also don't see people saying that you shouldn't discipline children who act violent during meltdowns.

I see people saying you shouldn't punish them (I would say you shouldn't punish them, actually) but not punishing/shaming them (lack of punitive discipline) is not the same as not disciplining them at all (to discipline is to teach, not necessarily to punish).

A child can still be held to account and face reasonable/natural consequences for their behavior (such as repairing damaged property, making amends to people, facing consequences aimed at preventing future meltdowns) while being shown compassion for the fact that they truly did not have control -- they can be taught that they are responsible for what they do whether they have control or not and helped to learn strategies to prevent losing control in future -- and all of this can be done without punishment.

I do see a lot of people (myself included) saying you shouldn't attempt to discipline a child during a meltdown, which is a far cry from saying you shouldn't discipline them at all -- the reason that any discipline (punitive or otherwise) should wait until the meltdown is over and the child has recovered is pragmatic; It's about de-escalating rather than escalating the situation -- it's about preventing further harm to everyone involved in the situation, and about waiting until the child has actually regained enough self-control and mental equilibrium to understand/benefit from whatever discipline is being imposed.

And if people choose to impose no discipline at all? Well, maybe they're choosing to work on preventing the meltdowns and teach their child coping strategies to prevent the meltdowns instead and don't see any point to discipline for meltdowns. And for some children (those who feel deeply guilty and ashamed and try to make amends on their own without anybody needing to tell them their behavior is unacceptable, for example), that's just fine.

Also, for all anybody knows this person was never allowed to be violent as a child, but was beaten for any misbehavior.

I'm sick of seeing all the terrible behavior of adults blamed on permissive parenting. Yeah, permissive parenting could be the cause of a person growing up and doing terrible things and/or thinking that having difficulties means they can do whatever they want, but so could a lot of other things -- some of them not even related to parenting. Parenting has a huge impact on people but it doesn't guarantee they will turn out a certain way.

 

[kay]

There is a difference between a meltdown and angry, violent, abusive behavior. This sounds like any controlling, mean guy, nothing to do with his autism. Lots of people out there act that way, pretty common.

 

[Judge]

I don't know why it's news that neurological conditions (even ones that impair self-control and rational thinking) don't make it acceptable to hurt others....hurting others is never acceptable.

I don't see such trials as seeking any sense of social acceptability or contrition so much as an attempt to mitigate sentencing.

In the US there are have been numerous trials involving capital offenses involving everything from postpartum depression to excessive consumption of junk food. Where such a defense didn't cause their client to be set free, however it did influence a judge to mitigate their sentence.

These types of controversial scenarios do seem to attract the media more than other trials.

 

[the_tortoise]

I don't see such trials as seeking any sense of social acceptability or contrition so much as an attempt to mitigate sentencing.

In the US there are have been numerous trials involving capital offenses involving everything from postpartum depression to excessive consumption of junk food. Where such a defense didn't cause their client to be set free, however it did influence a judge to mitigate their sentence.

These types of controversial scenarios do seem to attract the media more than other trials.

I don't think that during the trial anyone is arguing that it should be accepted that autistics will sometimes be violent (discussion then ends)....it's just the way the media seems to portray these things ignores all the nuances of what happens when judges consider mitigating factors; It just fans the flames of ridiculous ideas about people with one condition or another having a "free pass" to do whatever they want without consequences. It's never about giving people such a free pass, it's about acknowledging the reality that justice and fairness are not black and white.

To say autism is an "excuse" implies to me that the behavior is something to be tolerated/accepted.

 

[Mary Anne]

I don't think that during the trial anyone is arguing that it should be accepted that autistics will sometimes be violent (discussion then ends)....it's just the way the media seems to portray these things ignores all the nuances of what happens when judges consider mitigating factors; It just fans the flames of ridiculous ideas about people with one condition or another having a "free pass" to do whatever they want without consequences. It's never about giving people such a free pass, it's about acknowledging the reality that justice and fairness are not black and white.

When a defensive is made in court,” yeah but he is autistic,” it it used as a means for lessened sentencing. It’s not the media contivement, but the legal system trying to co-op true justice.

Add to that with all the videos showing children having extreme melt downs, and yes, it causes stereotyping. People are scared. People get angry to see disability contrived to allow foe bad behavior. When there are more positive stories of autism, then the media will have opportunities for more balanced journalism.

 

[Judge]

I don't think that during the trial anyone is arguing that it should be accepted that autistics will sometimes be violent (discussion then ends)....it's just the way the media seems to portray these things ignores all the nuances of what happens when judges consider mitigating factors; It just fans the flames of ridiculous ideas about people with one condition or another having a "free pass" to do whatever they want without consequences. It's never about giving people such a free pass, it's about acknowledging the reality that justice and fairness are not black and white.

To say autism is an "excuse" implies to me that the behavior is something to be tolerated/accepted.

True, but then consider the evolution of the news media in general. Which has gone from attempting to inform the public to grabbing them by the lapels and shaking them.

If media had a middle name, it would be sensationalism.

 

[Mary Anne]

True, but then consider the evolution of the news media in general. Which has gone from attempting to inform the public to grabbing them by the lapels and shaking them.

If media had a middle name, it would be sensationalism.

Of course. Which is why I read no tabloids, and watch no tv. I do listen to NOR daily, and that includes the news from the BBC. Pretty straightforward news reporting.

 

[the_tortoise]

When a defensive is made in court,” yeah but he is autistic,” it it used as a means for lessened sentencing. It’s not the media contivement, but the legal system trying to co-op true justice.

I think sometimes it is purely media sensationalism, and sometimes it is both media sensationalism and ethically questionable defense strategy for the accused.

I also think that there are situations where lessened/different sentencing based on the person having a neurological condition that legitimately reduces their ability to make rational decisions and control their behavior is justified. In my opinion, to not take those mitigating factors into account would not be "true justice". (However, in that case, sentencing should probably also involve actions to account for that reduced ability -- e.g. losing certain freedoms and/or receiving mandatory care/treatment/supervision).

 

[Mary Anne]

I do see a lot of people (myself included) saying you shouldn't attempt to discipline a child during a meltdown,

Might I ask (because I truly have no clue), what is a person supposed to do during the violent, harming meltdown then? If the child is hurting themselves, or others, or property? I have worked around autistic children occasionally with absolutely no training or awareness, but have been injured by them, or seen them do massive damage.

[/QUOTE]And if people choose to impose no discipline at all? Well, maybe they're choosing to work on preventing the meltdowns and teach their child coping strategies to prevent the meltdowns instead and don't see any point to discipline for meltdowns. And for some children (those who feel deeply guilty and ashamed and try to make amends on their own without anybody needing to tell them their behavior is unacceptable, for example), that's just fine. [/QUOTE]

But it’s not fine to the observer, witness, school worker, or bus driver, shopper, etc who sees the parent doing nothing. Which then creates even more societal negativity around people with autism. It gives in to more negative stereotypes. I think it’s pretty normal for passersbys, observers, etc to think, “Why is that parent allowing their child to do that? What is wrong with them????”

I was absolutely never allowed to have any “meltdowns.” (Probably why I started self harming in third grade). Temple Grandin was not allowed either. So I understand that parenting techniques have changed and loosened up over time. But not everyone knows the difference between punishing, discipling, shaming, or the option of teaching instead.

I assume that you raise children with autism? It’s a tough conversation, but I am not trying to cause argument, but more of a conversation with parents of children with autistism.

 

[the_tortoise]

Might I ask (because I truly have no clue), what is a person supposed to do during the violent, harming meltdown then? If the child is hurting themselves, or others, or property?

Sometimes all you can do is stand by, try to keep the child and others safe, and wait until it's over...which means:

You stay close.

You get them away from other people/get other people away from them.

You move fragile and potentially dangerous objects out of the child's reach.

If the child is at risk of injury from self-harm you try to estrain them or you try to redirect their aggression (e.g. old phone books to rip and claw at, punching bag or pillows or foam safety mats to hit and kick and smack your head against).*

You wait for the child to calm down.

Some children can be calmed during meltdowns (e.g. with restraining bear hugs or being wrapped tightly in a blanket, and/or hearing a calm/soothing voice). For others, this is either impossible (they are too strong/too big) or would simply escalate their feelings of panic and rage, prolonging the meltdown and/or worsening behavior over the long-term via traumatizing them. (I suppose that calming like this technically does, from a developmental perspective, have the potential to teach self-soothing, but I doubt this is what you mean by "discipline").

What would you do? Tell them to stop? Threaten consequences? Try to reason with them? Hit them? My parents did all that during meltdowns and all they ever accomplished was to make those meltdowns worse, and actually to make future meltdowns worse because I would instinctively expect to be hurt during meltdowns.

A child having a meltdown (at least what I define as a meltdown) is not able to think rationally -- you can't reason with them. Some people lose language processing abilities under stress (and a meltdown involves the most extreme levels of stress a person can experience), which complicates things even more. Many can't even remember most of what happens during meltdowns -- how are you supposed to learn from something you can't even remember?

A child having a meltdown is operating on basic instinct, in a state of extreme fight or flight where any attempt to intervene may be registered as an extreme threat -- the same level of fear as if the intervening person was an axe-weiling maniac attempting to chop off their head. The more aggressive the intervention (angry voice, shouting, physical discipline, threats) the more likely the child's out-of-control emotions and behavior will escalate and that they will simply be traumatized rather than learning anything.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Thinking about this, redirecting aggression counts as discipline, as it would hopefully (over time) become automatic/instinct.

 

[the_tortoise]

But it’s not fine to the observer, witness, school worker, or bus driver, shopper, etc who sees the parent doing nothing. Which then creates even more societal negativity around people with autism. It gives in to more negative stereotypes. I think it’s pretty normal for passersbys, observers, etc to think, “Why is that parent allowing their child to do that? What is wrong with them????”

It is not the fault of the parent nor of the child having the meltdown, if others judge them negatively.

Parents of children who have extremely loud/distructive/violent meltdowns often try everything short of abusing their child (and sadly many do go as far as abusing their child, out of desperation) to get them to stop the meltdown behaviors.

When you see a parent doing nothing to stop the meltdown, it is probably because there is literally nothing that anyone can do to stop the meltdown once it has started.....probably because the quickest way to get the meltdown to end without escalation is to just let it run it's course.

 

[Mary Terry]

I don't see such trials as seeking any sense of social acceptability or contrition so much as an attempt to mitigate sentencing.

In the US there are have been numerous trials involving capital offenses involving everything from postpartum depression to excessive consumption of junk food. Where such a defense didn't cause their client to be set free, however it did influence a judge to mitigate their sentence.

These types of controversial scenarios do seem to attract the media more than other trials.

That reminds me of years ago when I told my husband that the UK had recently recognized premenstrual syndrome (PMS) as a defense in a murder trial (which I don't think has ever been allowed in the US). He laughed and said "good" so when he kills me for having PMS, he will have a legal defense. I explained that the WOMAN raises the defense, not the man. LOL.

One of the worst defenses I've seen lately in the US is the so-called "affluenza" defense asserted for the POS kid from Texas who killed people while DUI, and his mommy (total nut jobber herself) took him to Mexico to evade trial. Poor little POS was so affluent that he allegedly did not know right from wrong, per his attorneys. Yeah, right. And I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell.....

 

[Judge]

One of the worst defenses I've seen lately in the US is the so-called "affluenza" defense asserted for the POS kid from Texas who killed people while DUI, and his mommy (total nut jobber herself) took him to Mexico to evade trial. Poor little POS was so affluent that he allegedly did not know right from wrong, per his attorneys. Yeah, right. And I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell.....

The one defense I found quite offensive didn't get the defendant off the hook, but it did allow for the judge to mitigate his sentence.

Dan White, the San Francisco Supervisor who murdered Mayor George Moscone. Claiming his addiction to junk food altered his behavior. The infamous "Twinkie Defense". He served only five years of a paltry seven year sentence. Two years later he committed suicide.

 

[Mary Terry]

The one defense I found quite offensive didn't get the defendant off the hook, but it did allow for the judge to mitigate his sentence.

Dan White, the San Francisco Supervisor who murdered Mayor George Moscone. Claiming his addiction to junk food altered his behavior. The infamous "Twinkie Defense". He served only five years of a paltry seven year sentence. Two years later he committed suicide.

Good grief. It sounds like, ironically, he ultimately imposed his own judgment and sentence when the court failed to do it for him and the rest of society. Punishment should be commensurate with the crime and defenses to mitigate sentencing should at least pass the smell test for common sense.

 

[Tom]

The defendant went along with it but his Counsel probably came up with the defense strategy.

 

[Judge]

Good grief. It sounds like, ironically, he ultimately imposed his own judgment and sentence when the court failed to do it for him and the rest of society. Punishment should be commensurate with the crime and defenses to mitigate sentencing should at least pass the smell test for common sense.

I forgot to add that at the time, Dan White also murdered Supervisor Harvey Milk. Perhaps the most famous openly gay politician at the time- late 1978. While some regarded these murders as crimes of passion, others considered them outright political assassinations.

As I recall, at the time Dan White was the sole SF Supervisor who was a proclaimed conservative while the others were either moderates like Dianne Feinstein or liberals like Mayor George Moscone and Harvey Milk. White actually walked right past Feinstein only moments after both murders. Clearly a moment in which she feared for her own life as well.

Murders committed because Dan White resigned his office as Supervisor with great remorse and shortly afterwards sought to get it back with Mayor Moscone refusing for political reasons. Unbelievable, but it actually happened.