Autism defence raises advocates’ indignation
Groups concerned case will lead people to falsely link disorder, violence
There is a lot about Alek Minassian his father didn’t know, Crown prosecutor Cynthia Valarezo established Tuesday.
Vahe Minassian didn’t know that his son told the doctors assessing him that he asked out three women while at Seneca College in 2012; that he was lonely before the 2018 attack and had “extreme anxiety” and feared failing at his new job; that he had suicidal thoughts in high school; and that in high school he was fascinated by mass murderers and fantasized about becoming a mass shooter.
“You had no idea that his interest in the incel movement, according to what he told (the doctors), began when he was in high school when he would read and periodically look up articles about the incel movement,” Valarezo said. “He never told you that?” “No,” Vahe said. Vahe pointed out that he doesn’t know if everything his son said to the doctors was true and said he still thought it was impossible that he was capable of asking out a woman in a random location.
If someone had told him on April 22, 2018, that his son would rent a van the next day and drive into pedestrians on Yonge Street, trying to kill as many as possible, Valarezo said he would have said that was impossible, too. Vahe agreed. Minassian, 28, has pleaded not guilty to 10 counts of first-degree murder and 16 counts of attempted murder. He has admitted that he killed or intended to kill all 26 people on April 23, 2018, and that his actions were planned and deliberate, making his state of mind the focus of his trial.
He will be arguing that he is not criminally responsible — that his autism spectrum disorder rendered him unable to understand that his actions were morally wrong. Relying solely on autism spectrum disorder for a not criminally responsible defence is extremely rare, so much so that a forensic psychiatrist retained by the defence said he was not aware of it being done before, court heard Tuesday.
The evidence presented so far at the trial has prompted Autism Canada and Autism Ontario to release statements expressing concern that the defence will lead to negative stereotypes about autism, or cause people to wrongly associate autism with violence.
The statements specifically object to the opinion by one defence psychiatrist that Minassian’s “autistic way of thinking was severely distorted in a way similar to psychosis.” That doctor has not yet testified and the full report has not yet been presented in court.
“Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by social impairments and difficulty inferring the thoughts, feelings, and emotions of others. It is not characterized by violence or lack of a moral compass,” said the statement from Autism Ontario.
“In reality, people on the autism spectrum and with other disabilities are much more likely to be victims of crime, rather than the perpetrators … Much too often when a person is diagnosed as autistic, their actions are examined exclusively through that lens without considering the broader picture of other influencing factors on the whole person. This is demeaning to everyone.”
In her cross-examination, Valarezo repeatedly suggested Vahe was changing his evidence or tailoring it to support his son’s defence by making him seem more incapable of showing or experiencing emotions that he really is.
Vahe said he was shocked that his son would ask if there had been any impact on his family, and that he would not be aware of the suffering he’d caused. Vahe also said his son told him he was looking forward to the trial because “everybody will see I haven’t done anything wrong” and that he’d be coming home soon.
Minassian told doctors something very different, Valarezo said.
“He said he knew you’d be disappointed, and might cry and would likely miss him,” she said. “He told Dr. Woodside he said he felt guilty after seeing you on TV and seeing how upset you were.
Minassian also told doctors he knew the crime would be devastating to his father, Valarezo said. Vahe said his son told him none of those things and that he was surprised to hear them.
Vahe said he was also not aware his son had repeatedly described what he did as wrong to the doctors.
“He told Dr. Woodside that at the time of his offences that most people in public would view mass shootings and his own actions as morally wrong and unjustifiable,” Valarezo said.
He told Dr. Westphal that “I knew myself it’s wrong. I knew my whole life killing is wrong,” she said.
The defence position is that Minassian only understood the wrongfulness of his actions at the “intellectual level” and not in a way that he could make rational decisions.
The Crown also challenged Vahe on why he changed his mind about thinking his son was crying in the police interview he gave hours after his arrest.
Vahe said he initially told a defence psychiatrist that he thought his son was crying when the detective left the room, but testified Monday that he changed his mind after rewatching the segment. He told the court he had never seen his son cry.
Valarezo suggested Vahe now insists his son isn’t crying because he knows Minassian’s ability to show and feel emotion and remorse is important for his defence.
Vahe denied this and said he didn’t know the relevance of the information he provided. He also said he could not recall the test for criminal responsibility explained to him by a defence psychiatrist, or that the defence would likely rest on whether Minassian understood the moral wrongfulness of what he did.
The trial continues Wednesday.