00:00:06 Sana: truth most people don't want to sit with. a quiet In fact, myself as well. Listeners, the justice system, it isn't built for nuance. It is built for decisions. Fast ones. binary ones. Guilty or not, credible or not, safe or not. But then this is something that I think listeners, we, we humans are not binary. Especially when someone's brain processes the world differently. Today on this episode of the Mindful Living podcast, we are talking about a difficult, often misunderstood intersection. What happens when someone accused of a crime, maybe on the spectrum, or has traits that shape communication, eye contact, sensory overwhelm, emotional expression, and how they respond under pressure? Listeners, let me tell you, this is not an episode about excusing harm. It is not an episode about demonizing neurodivergent people either. It is about clarity, about what's fair, what's missed, and what defense work actually looks like when the person in the chair doesn't, quote unquote, perform the way people expect.

00:01:35 Sana: I am Sana, and this is the mindful living where we try to hold complexity without turning it into a slogan or a mere hashtag. Listeners. Today's guest is Saul Bienenfeld, a veteran New York criminal defense attorney with more than thirty five years of courtroom experience. He's also a former prosecutor, which means which means he has seen the system from both the sides. And listeners, let me tell you, Saul is known for telling people what they need to hear, not not what they want to hear. So with that, let's begin. And Saul, welcome to the show. And I'm really thankful you are bringing up this topic, this discussion for all of us.

00:02:24 Saul Bienenfeld: Thank you so much. It's really a pleasure to be here today. Um, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this. Um, it's actually a topic that, uh, makes people quite frankly, uncomfortable. And I think it makes people uncomfortable because it lives at the, um, the intersection of criminal offences, criminal responsibility and neurodiversity. So I've represented people on the autism spectrum who were charged with some pretty serious crimes. Um, and, uh, let me just say something clearly at the outset. Autism does not excuse criminal behavior. Uh, being on the spectrum does not give someone a free pass. Uh, victims matter and harm matters, but the justice system also has to understand intent, cognition, and communication differences. And when those differences are ignored, justice can become blunt instead of precise. And we need to explore what happens when neurodivergence meets criminal law, especially in sex cases.

00:03:26 Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah.

00:03:28 Sana: one hundred percent. And I'm really thankful that he shared that. Um, and really sets the right intention from the beginning itself. But before even diving deeper into the topic, um, salt just as, as a person, and this is not about any specific, um, country or any specific justice system, um, the, the line when I, when I was, you know, kind of, uh, narrating the intro in there, um, the justice system isn't built for nuance. Okay, fine. I do understand and we humans are not binary. We, we are nuanced. We are complex. Um, every human being is different. Their lives, the people they interact with, the events, the occurrence, the. The way they behave, they react. Everything is different. So when justice system. And this is once again a question as a human, I'm asking here. Saul just kind of, you know, rationally trying to think about it. If justice system is built something by human, why it isn't nuanced, why it just sees the black and white, the zero one, the binary in there.

00:04:40 Saul Bienenfeld: I think the reason is because it's trying to create equality among everyone. Um, and we're not making excuses for anyone. Um, everyone can have an excuse. The, the law actually gives you excuses in certain cases. For example, there's something called self-defense, right? Now, we all know you're not allowed to kill somebody, right? But if the person is coming to kill you, you could use what's called self-defense and kill the person. And you know, and hopefully you won't even be charged with the crime, right? So when it comes to certain defenses, we allow people to have certain defenses, but we don't allow people to use, um, uh, autism as a defense. Addiction as a defense that all relates to sentencing that, that relates to like, you know, if you're going to have to go to jail, how much time are you going to go to jail? You know, we could explain why this happened, but we can't excuse why it happened, whereas self-defense is a perfectly good, legitimate excuse, why something happened and you would not be charged with a crime. And that's where the nuance. And then that's where everything comes up in terms of, you know, how the law handles your question. And it's an excellent question, by the way. You know, and and when people hear the word autism, you know, they really have a very narrow presentation of it. But autism spectrum is very broad. You know, some, some individuals can struggle with social cues. Some of them interpret language literally. Um, some are mis implied meanings. Some people have rigid thinking patterns. Some people might fixate intensity on certain interests and most struggle with boundaries. And that's where and that's where the problem lies when it comes to crime, you know? So, you know, imagine that in the context of online communications where, uh, you know, one person is thinking, you know, I'm just, I'm just communicating regularly to somebody, but the person, um, who they're having a communication with may be on the spectrum and reading it totally different than what, you know, what another person would read it. Um, and that doesn't mean that the person lacks responsibility, but it does mean that their cognitive processing is different than the criminal law depends heavily on intent usually. And we need to examine what the intent of the person both sending the message and receiving the message, uh, is, you know, and that's the bottom line. So, I mean, I mean, you know, criminal law, like you mentioned, uh, isn't about only what happened, you know, it's about what someone meant to do. So in many cases, the prosecution has to prove knowledge has to prove intent, awareness, purposeful conduct. And for someone on the spectrum, they can be real issues around, you know, literal belief in what someone says. They might have difficulty in detecting deception. Um, they might be obsessive, you know, conversational patterns, uh, poor, poor impulse regulation, failure to appreciate how messages might be interpreted. But again, that that never negates a criminal statute, but it can change how we evaluate culpability. You know, that's the bottom line is how we evaluate it. Um, you know, the law is supposed to distinguish between a calculating predator and a socially impaired individual who misread a situation. Uh, those definitely are not the same thing. And, you know, justice does require nuances, but we have to measure, you know. Taper that with the with the proper measurements and see the difference between justice and nuance and how it comes to play each time in each case. Individually.

00:08:22 Sana: Exactly. Individually. That's the word right in there. Yeah. And there are exceptions. There are rarest of the rare cases in there. But then one once again, you know, one third. And that's this is connected to specifically what you mentioned that, um, sometimes, you know, unfortunately, uh, not sure about the neurodivergent aspect here, but, uh, overall at an Uber level, uh, what I'm trying to say is, yes, we cannot, um, negotiate on what the action has been done. If the person has, has, uh, committed a crime, which is proven. Yes. But then, you know, sometimes the, the mental health aspect is kind of considered as a bypass to avoid accountability, to avoid. I mean, we see in the popular media as well, we see in some of the cases out there. So that kind of unfortunately, I what I think I believe, Saul, is it kind of snatches away the importance of spreading even the awareness around mental health or Neurodivergence people can say, okay, even if you're neurodivergent, you're on the spectrum or maybe you're having some mental health challenges. No, it's not considered. You cannot be excused. And then if there's a genuine, genuine case in there still, also, there is a lot of hesitation in considering even that, you know, um, maybe it's not what you see.

00:09:57 Saul Bienenfeld: Right? And the question is accountability and compassion. Could they coexist? And you know, here's, here's something important. You could believe in accountability and still believe in clinical evaluation. You could acknowledge him and still argue for treatment focused sentencing. So you could say, you know, this behavior crossed a legal line. And you could also say this person's cognitive profile matters. And many judges are receptive to neuropsychological evaluations. You know, I could I could hire an expert. The expert could explain social comprehension deficits. The expert can explain literal interpretation bias. The expert could explain something called executive functioning weaknesses, um, impulse control limitations, uh, susceptibility to manipulation. And when it comes to sentencing, you know, sentencing outcomes can change dramatically when a court understands all these factors. So the law does allow for mitigation, but mitigation requires a lot of education. Um, one of the biggest problems that, uh, in many individuals on the spectrum, when they reach adulthood without adequate social coaching or boundaries. Um, families tend to avoid the topic. Schools avoid the topic, communities avoid the topic. But avoidance doesn't eliminate the problem. It just leaves people unprepared. When someone lacks age appropriate social skills or healthy outlets, or a clear understanding of what consent is and what the consent norms are or structured guidance, they sometimes stumble into legal territory without fully grasping the consequences. And that's why prevention requires a lot of education, not silence. And that's why it's so great to be talking about it now on this podcast, because we are educating the public and we need to educate the public, and we need to let judges know this also. You know, it's very interesting when I speak to families who have a loved one who are on this spectrum, I say this, I say be proactive. You know, don't assume innocence protects against risk. Have direct conversations about age boundaries, have direct conversations about online communications, about explicit content, about legal consequences, about digital permanence. You know, we have to put guardrails in place early because once the system gets involved, the options shrink very quickly. Yeah.

00:12:26 Sana: Absolutely one hundred percent. I totally, totally agree with you. And one of the and that's exactly I was actually about to come to that. The systems, the other pillars out there, the education, um, the social, uh, systems and all of these are kind of involved into it. And another thing that I think it's not only applicable in for this topic or conversation, but for every, every one, everywhere out there is avoiding the problem doesn't eliminate it, you know, you're just not dealing with the consequences immediately in the short in the short term, but in the long term, you have to. That is something that I have learned. I've. I'm still learning it. So. Yeah.

00:13:11 Saul Bienenfeld: Definitely. Definitely. You know, people, people like to be like, you know, you put your head in the ground and no one, no one sees it. But the avoidance is definitely not protection. Um, there's a dangerous myth in families and schools and even in religious communities that if we don't talk about it, it won't happen. Um, that is not how human behavior works. Uh, you know, for example, in sexual development, it doesn't disappear because adults are uncomfortable to talk about it. You know, curiosity doesn't vanish because we refuse to name it. Uh, impulse doesn't dissolve because we pretend it's not there. Avoidance is not prevention. Avoidance is incubation, quite frankly. You know, when a young person, especially someone who's socially vulnerable, who's on the spectrum, doesn't receive clear, direct guidance about boundaries, about sexuality and the law, they don't become less sexual, they become uninformed and uninformed. Plus curious plus. Isolated plus. Online is a huge risk. You know, in many families, conversations about sex happens one of three ways. Either never. Either wait too late or vague and moralistic. So for example, saying be careful or don't do anything inappropriate or stay away from trouble. That really doesn't help. Especially it doesn't help somebody on the spectrum. Uh, teenagers need to understand that, you know, certain actions have consequences, and sometimes those consequences can be even criminal. Um, teaching, teaching somebody on the spectrum what consent is, is so important to understand how to receive consent when consent is clearly and unequivocally given. Um, and people who are neurodivergent, especially liberal thinkers, they interpret things differently, you know? Um, it's a huge problem.

00:15:07 Speaker 5: It is.

00:15:08 Sana: And there can be really some dire consequences out of that, especially, uh, when you, when you ask as a person, as a child, you are in your most sensitive and very formative years. Um, yeah. Um, so, uh, one more kind of question comes to my mind here is, um, you know, especially connected with system. Now system often treats difference like deception and you can, you can correct me if I'm wrong, like, and if someone doesn't present normally, like there is no eye contact or there's just flat tone, um, delayed answers like people would normally term them as, you know, you are weird or you're crazy, you are different. Um, it can get framed as suspicious as well. So let me press here. How do you separate? This is neurodivergence from this is someone trying to manipulate, you know, because juries will ask that even if they don't say it out loud. Right?

00:16:17 Saul Bienenfeld: Right. Um, you know, people, people could be trained in behavioral cues. Um, I wish more police and, uh, and, uh, federal agents are trained in behavioral cues. You know, it should be formally, but often what we're doing is we're training culturally and we're looking for signs such as eye contact, delayed responses, a flat affect, you know, what we call nervous body language, repetitive phrasing, uh, inconsistent narrative structure, unusual tone. But the problem is there's also common characteristics of individuals on the autism spectrum. You know, that, that, that, that happens with, you know, so the differences get interpreted as dishonesty. And that's the problem. You know, let's take eye contact. For example, in neurotypical culture, we equate eye contact with sincerity. Look at me when you're talking. Right? That's where we're all. You can't look me in the eye. You're hiding something. We're told that, right? But for many individuals on the spectrum, eye contact is uncomfortable. It's real. It's physically uncomfortable, and it could feel overwhelming. It could feel distracting. It could even feel painful. So they look away, not because they're lying, but because they're trying to regulate sensory input.

00:17:33 Speaker 6: You know?

00:17:34 Saul Bienenfeld: So you put a neurodivergent person in an interrogation room and that's catastrophic. And also writes in the report, you know, subjects avoiding eye contact, you know. And then a jury later sees that, oh, he must be hiding something they think, you know, but what they're really seeing is his neurology. They're not seeing his his honesty. You know, another, uh, another, uh, thing that we look for is always delayed answers. You know, Many neurodivergent individuals process information slowly, especially under stress, so they pause before answering. They ask for clarification over and over again. They ask to be rephrased the question out loud, you know, and they take time to construct a precise answer. So to an untrained observer, that looks like fabrication. You know, it looks like someone's lying to me. But in reality, it's cognitive processing. Stress compounds this tremendously. So an interrogation room is designed to induce stress, right? A confined space. The authority is there. The presence of a police officer, the accusatory tone, silence is always used strategically in the interrogation room, and under pressure processing slows even further for the neurodivergent person. And of course, all of a sudden becomes suspicious and silence becomes incriminating. But really, the person is just, you know, on the spectrum. So we like to say or we say, Um, you know, law enforcement could, could question people on the spectrum and try to trap them. You know, they give them hypotheticals. They, they, they, there's minimization tactics. You know, they say things like, we already know what happened. Or they, you suggest the phrasing. And for someone who interprets language literally, these tactics are very confusing. So if an officer of a police officer says to someone who's divergent, we know you were just curious. So a neurotypical subject might hear, they're trying to get me to admit something and a literal thing right here. They already determined curiosity is an issue, you know? And what, what? And the response within the timing is sometimes not deception. It's just the way the cognitive style of the person is, you know? So all these things, you have to be examined, especially, you know, when dealing with someone on, on the spectrum. And many times you don't even know that the person's on the spectrum, right? You don't have a diagnosis in front of you when you're questioning a suspect. You know, and that's a dangerous combination.

00:20:05 Speaker 5: It is.

00:20:07 Saul Bienenfeld: Yeah.

00:20:08 Speaker 5: It is. So.

00:20:10 Sana: And coming to the police interrogations and encounters. Um. Um. Yeah, I mean, it is it is a high risk zone in here. Like in your experience, all where, where do neurodivergent defendants face the biggest risk early on? You know, like the street encounter or maybe, you know, remarks or questions like you are not from the neighborhood. You don't look familiar in here. Um, or maybe the interrogation room or the first appearance.

00:20:41 Saul Bienenfeld: You know, it sometimes it's when they first meet the attorney, quite frankly, you know, because, you know, it's where where the most vulnerable part is, but the greatest risk where the most vulnerable, you know, on the street in the interrogation. The answer is so layered, but the greatest risk. It tends to occur when rapid social interpretation is required under pressure. Right? And that usually is in two places the street and the interrogation room. You know, with street encounters, there's this split second misreadings. You know, street encounters are dangerous because they rely heavily on quick behavioural interpretation. So an officer approaches, they're trained to assess body language, eye contact, tone, response, speed, compliance cues. But many people on the spectrum avoid eye contact, fail to respond immediately, freeze, speak in a monotone overexplain appear anxious or agitated. They fail to modulate their tone, you know, and to the police officer scanning for a threat indicator, it could look like, uh, evasion. It could look like defiance. It looks like suspicious behavior. Intoxication. Sometimes, even sometimes they interpret it as a hostility, you know, especially if sensory overload is happening. So for example, there might be flashing lights, there might be sirens, there might be shouting commands. You know, the regulation may deteriorate quickly, right. And can escalate to a routine, uh, interaction unnecessarily. So yes, street encounters carry real risk because they rely on behavioural shorthand, as I like to call it now. And then the second place is the interrogation room, obviously, where highest cognitive risk. You know, if I had to identify the single most legally dangerous environment, it's the interrogation room. But if the interrogation room for everyone, whether you're on the spectrum or not on the spectrum, because interrogation rooms, the on psychological pressure, it's used. It's strategic silence. Sometimes it's suggestive framing, it's it's implied evidence. It's social inferences, it's emotional reading. And many autistic individuals struggle precisely in those domains. You know, the risk factors in interrogation include literal interpretation of minimization tactics, right? Difficulty detecting sarcasm, difficulty detecting lies, manipulation. And of course, there's always a desire to please authority figures. Now, both, you know, whether you're on the spectrum, not on the spectrum, there's a tremendous desire to to placate the authority figure. Uh, and of course, there's confusion under rapid questioning, everyone. There's stress induced compliance, there's difficulty asserting your own right to remain silent. Because I was taught I'm supposed to speak to people, right? And even though you told me I have the right to remain silent, I don't really understand what that means if I'm on the spectrum. Uh, by the way, that happens with people not on the spectrum, you know? That's why they have confessions. Um, some individuals may agree with an incorrect premise just to reduce the tension. They say Yes, they say yes reflexively. Right. Just like you did. Yes. Reflexively. Oh, let me just say yes. But let him get to his next sentence. Let me move on. Right. Some people try to guess what the correct answer, what the person wants to hear. Um, and of course, there's always the over explainers. You know, the people who want to, you know, tell a story and continue telling the story, you know? And by overexplaining you might create inconsistencies. Uh, you know, interrogation rooms are designed to create cognitive overload. And for somebody prone or already prone to that overload that can produce unreliable statements. And the statements are powerful evidence. So in terms of legal consequences, interrogation on somebody on the spectrum is the highest risk the person can have.

00:24:41 Speaker 5: Oh. Well, um.

00:24:44 Sana: And, uh, I think this is where it's, it's kind of, you know, it really is, it is scary, you know, because people, people think that truth is just what someone says. I mean, your confession is is the truth. But then under pressure, as you explained perfectly in their solid under pressure, people say things just to get out of that pressurized situation. It feels like this pressurized tank. They just want to get out of there.

00:25:13 Saul Bienenfeld: Right? Yeah. People, people give answers because they just want to leave. What answers get me out of this situation. And people don't think that the answer might give, might just make it a lot worse and keep you in the situation.

00:25:27 Speaker 5: Um.

00:25:29 Sana: And so have you seen cases where, um, a client's odd behavior during questioning became the centerpiece of the prosecution's story?

00:25:42 Saul Bienenfeld: Always it's whenever there's a confession involve the behavior is sometimes more important than what was said. It, you know, the officer describing the behavior or now we have video, of course. You know, watching the shifting of the chair, watching the uncomfortableness of the person being questioned. That behavior is more evidence of, of, of, of a, of an issue of a problem hiding something, what actually was said because sometimes what was said is I'm innocent. I didn't do it right. But the prosecutor wants to get that video in. You know, a defense attorney thinks, oh, well, you know, I have nothing to worry about because he didn't confess to doing it. He actually said he didn't do it. But then the video comes in and the body language is is like, I don't believe this person. And the reason they want to get the video in and the statement is because the body language was very, very, you know, hurtful to the individual.

00:26:37 Sana: MM. Yeah. And before we wrap up in here, um, so I think this was such a, a very unique kind of conversation on a podcast like the Mindful Living because, uh, yes, uh, admit it or not, the defense, legal judiciary, they're all, they're all very, very fundamental parts of our lives, you know, whether, um, it's about being on the spectrum or not very, very fundamental part. So is there any, any message that you would like to leave before we wrap up, especially for the families, you know, uh, who, who, who, who have kids or maybe who have children who are on the spectrum.

00:27:24 Saul Bienenfeld: Well, always advocate for your child, always advocate for any person on the spectrum, adult or child. And one of the greatest ways you can advocate for themselves for them is to get them professional, uh, legal advice before it becomes too late. So if the police want to talk to somebody on the spectrum, that's very nice, but you don't have to speak to them. You can actually have an attorney, uh, speak on your behalf, but you need to call an attorney, and I suggest that people. When the police come to question them, that they say, you know what? I do want to talk to you, but I want to talk to my attorney first and have an attorney deal with it, because the attorney can get to the heart of the matter and understand the legal nuances that are going on in terms of the questioning and the interrogation, a lot better than people think. They could always talk themselves out of their problems. They can't. If the police are coming to talk to you, there's a reason for it. They didn't just pick you out of the phone book and say, okay, you know, I'm going to talk to Sana today. There's a reason that they came to talk to you. Um, and you everyone thinks, oh, I can handle this. I'm smart. Some people even think that they're smarter than the police.

00:28:29 Speaker 6: Well, unfortunately you're not.

00:28:31 Saul Bienenfeld: They're very smart, and they know things that you probably don't even realize that they know. So you need professional help. Call an attorney. That's the best advice. Anyone?

00:28:42 Sana: Amazing. Thank you once again so much. So thank you. And also if if listeners, they would like to reach out to you, what would be the easiest way?

00:28:51 Saul Bienenfeld: Definitely. So I have a website, it's w w w dot Bienenfeld law. It's my last name, B I e n e n F e l d l o w dot com. You can always find me on Facebook. You can find me on Instagram as well as YouTube at Bienenfeld law. And you can send me an email at Saul s a u l at law dot com. I'd love to hear from you listeners.

00:29:17 Sana: So listeners, I'll mention all the details to make it easier for you to reach out to Saul. And, um, if this episode, you know, it stirs something within you, maybe it's fear, anger, confusion, or even relief. Please know that is normal. It's okay. It's fine. Because these conversations, they live in the messy middle. And that's where mindful living actually happens. And Saul, thank you so much. I really, really appreciate for for you, appreciate you bringing clarity to a topic that's often treated more like a debate rather than a real life crisis.

00:29:57 Saul Bienenfeld: Pleasure. Thank you.

00:29:59 Sana: And listeners, I think here's what I hope you take with you. Neurodivergence can change how behavior is interpreted, especially under stress. Justice requires process that can handle human complexity without turning it into an excuse or a weapon. And the earlier a situation gets thoughtful legal guidance, the less likely it becomes a tragedy shaped by misunderstanding. So if you want more conversations like this, follow the mindful living. Share this episode with someone who thinks the legal system is straightforward. It isn't. And that's exactly why these conversations matter. Until next time, I'm Sana and I'll catch you in the next episode. Take care.