This weekend the news was dominated by the tragic revelation that a woman committed suicide part-way through a trial over whether she had been indecently assaulted and raped. Unaware of her death, the jury convicted Michael Brewer of five indecent assaults and acquitted him of three similar charges and rape; he awaits his sentence. Commentators fell over themselves as they rushed to condemn the manner in which rape trials are conducted and, in particular, the way barristers do their jobs. The fact that the Brewer’s victim, Frances Andrade, chose to be cross-examined in open court and not via a CCTV screen, has largely been ignored. Her decision was inconvenient for their chosen polemics.
We are told that complainants feel like they are being raped all over again in trials. Undoubtedly, that is true in many cases. Let’s be absolutely clear about this. There can be no doubt whatsoever that having to recount in public the manner in which you have been raped is as traumatic as the rape itself. We are driven to this conclusion by reams of therapeutic evidence and by everything we ever hear from rape victims who go through trials.
However, it cannot be true in those cases where the complainant is lying. Some people tell lies in court. As a society, there is a very great taboo in discussing the fact that some women lie when making rape allegations. By and large, the media and our politicians are not interested in the facts of life about rape trials. For example, the established media endlessly repeats the myth that the conviction rate in rape cases is tiny. Actually the rape conviction rate is higher than it is for the average conviction rate for other reportable crimes. Unfortunately, those who pretend to inform us, tend to mislead us. Neither the established media nor our established political parties give a damn about the facts. All they seem to care about is a sudden surge in popularity.
How can we conduct these trials and still maintain a fair trial system? How can we provide emotional protection for the women making rape allegations and still allow a defence lawyer to test those allegations with detailed questioning? These are very difficult questions to answer. Cross-examination is at the heart of every trial. Without it, there cannot be a fair trial. If anyone tells you otherwise, suggest they go and observe a trial in a country where it isn’t allowed or is restricted. In Brewer’s case, the trial judge declared that the cross-examination was fair. Excepting the people who were uninvolved in the trial and watched the cross-examination in person and all the rest of the trial, no-one can usefully comment on that judicial opinion. We have to take it as it is. Clearly, the jury believed some of the victim’s allegations but were not sure beyond reasonable doubt about all of them. Therefore, the cross-examination was partially successful.
Of all the world’s legal systems, none has yet bettered the method we use: allowing detailed questioning of each witness. The entire point of such questioning is to draw out inconsistencies, discrepancies, contradictions and so on, so as to be able to claim that a witness’s evidence is less credible than another’s. That’s how every trial works, criminal or civil, in this country. The same techniques are applied to a simple cash claim following a road traffic accident, a multi-handed conspiracy to defraud or a rape trial.
Incidentally, we use much the same approach when assessing politicians. However, when they meet a challenge they cannot deal with, they just go quiet. In a court of law, that is not much of an option. Juries can be expected to draw their own conclusions.
There are two important differences with most rape trials. Firstly, the only witnesses are usually the alleged victim and the alleged defendant. That means that it isn’t possible to highlight differences between the witnesses on one side of the case. Secondly, the questions will inevitably be of an intimate nature. It just isn’t possible to ask questions about someone’s underwear, vagina or penis, without crossing the normal social boundary of acceptability. The normal rules have of social etiquette have to be suspended, in the interests of a fair trial.
No-one likes being accused of lying, even liars. No-one likes being shown up as unreliable, especially the unreliable. No-one enjoys being cross-examined. In other criminal trials, a great deal of emotional distress is caused during cross-examinations. Such is life with criminal trials. They are not clean, clinical exercises with everything conducted as you might expect in a scientific lab. Real people present real problems.
There are obvious problems with the manner in which the justice system treats victims of crime. They are not cared for particularly well. We could spend much more money on treating them with the care and decency they deserve. For example, they could have much lengthier and frequent meetings with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Although they should not be allowed to dictate the decision on whether to prosecute, they could be properly involved in the process.
All our mainstream political parties are calling for cuts to public services. None of them are calling for more money to be spent in this area. Our politicians are casting allegations of bullying against barristers, despite not having witnessed the trials they are talking about, not having any meaningful proposals for how to change the rules of evidence and not understanding how difficult rape trials are for the sometimes innocent defendants.
A friend of mine has been charged with rape. In reference to him, I wrote a post called what to do if a friend is charged with rape. His case is due for trial later this year. He’s maintained his innocence. For legal reasons, I prefer not to comment on his case now. However, his pre-trial experience is commonplace: he has been on bail awaiting his trial for well over a year! If he loses his trial, he loses everything: contact with his children, a harmonious relationship with his ex-wife, his girlfriend, his reputation, his home, his liberty. Over the last year plus a few months he has faced the prospect of his fate hanging in the hands of an eventual twelve strangers. His experience is commonplace. A substantial number of the men accused of rape are innocent.
The justice system visits enormous stresses on innocent people. In many of these cases, including my friend’s, there is no justification for having to wait in torment for so long for a trial. The reason for the delay lies with the incompetence of the Crown Prosecution Service and/or the money we choose to spend on the justice system. This is unacceptable but we don’t hear politicians calling for more money to be spent, to save innocent men from this incredible stress overload. Clearly, our politicians are not terribly interested in fair trials. If they were, they would call for justice to be dispensed faster. My friend feels like he is being punished now, despite being, according to law, presumed innocent.
Much more money must be spent on the justice system. We need sex cases to come to trial much quicker, so that those men who are falsely accused, do not have their lives ruined by the delay. We need rape victims to get proper care and attention by the prosecuting authorities. One fifteen minute chat with the CPS prior to trial is not only inadequate, it is grossly offensive. All this extra care and attention will cost money. The next time you hear a politician proposing reform of the legal system, ask them how much money they propose we spend to clear up these two issues. If they can’t answer, be their jury and draw your own conclusions.
However, there is another problem. For some time, therapists have been of the opinion that rape victims should not get treatment before a trial in case the defence barrister somehow uses those therapeutic conversations against them in court. It’s inevitable that a defence barrister will consider the option of scrutinising everything an accuser says about the alleged crime. Clearly, those calling for such areas to be off-limits to cross-examination have no clue at all about justice. It’s notable that in Hove, a local Tory councillor who used to be a senior police officer has made that call. Our police care about convictions, not justice. Sad, but true. Here he is, the Tory (Graham Cox), in a quick exchange with a local Labour Party candidate in Brighton (Emma Daniel) on twitter, on this very topic.
Click to enlarge.
It’s only one example. Yet it typifies the whole problem with the way politicians tackle these problems. Here we have two people, both official representatives of their respective parties, spouting crap about how to improve justice in rape trials. There isn’t a shred of evidence that inquisitorial systems produce better justice for rape victims. I asked Emma Daniel to produce it but she declined. I asked the lawyers on twitter too; my request was retweeted by Carl Gardner, who has thousands of followers. No-one came forward with any evidence for this claim. None whatsoever. Ms Daniel’s second claim is that we can have a court system which doesn’t “further degrade and humiliate victims“. I asked her how many rape trials she has watched? She declined to answer that too. The fact is, as explained above, that it isn’t possible to cross-examine someone in a rape trial without going over all the details and calling them a liar. No-one wants anyone to be degraded or humiliated but all the evidence says that recounting these intimate details and being called a liar does risk humiliating the genuine victim. Thorough therapy could go a long way towards obviating that humiliation. That’s Mr Cox’s point. However, his tweet seems to suggest that somehow barristers should be prevented from asking questions which mention the therapy! The police would love barristers to be banned from asking some questions. How very convenient that would be, unless you care about fair trials.
Both of these two politicians are members of parties which support cuts to public services. Clearly, both of them are politically unable to address the main issues without a conflict with their party leadership. Caring for victims and speeding up justice will cost money which they are unable to promise. Instead we get these glib proposals which can’t be justified. It’s remarkable that Ms Daniel is happy to fire off a tweet about this, get challenged, not produce any evidence or links but doesn’t delete the tweet when she must have realised her error. There are no remaining political solutions to the problem of how to scrutinise allegations about private lives.
The therapeutic community could revisit its opinion on the merit of pre-trial treatment but obviously I’m not qualified to have a proper opinion on that, since I am not a therapist. The current thinking is that therapy involves conversations which can properly be a subject matter for cross-examination and thus may possibly interfere with a trial. Consequently, therapy is usually suspended until after a trial. Obviously, that frequently leads to a situation where traumatised people have to face further challenges in court, some of which will in themselves be traumatic. As a layman, I can’t help thinking that it would be better to give people therapy, to reduce their trauma and then let them go to trial. Sure, the barristers are going to ask those difficult questions but wouldn’t the genuine rape victim be better placed to deal with them after therapy than before? This is a question which can only be properly answered by experienced therapists who have also sat through rape trials.
Beware of politicians proposing solutions on this subject. It’s too easy for them to make wild claims. Beware of politicians who attack lawyers too. Everyone hates lawyers, until they need one.
It’s not the judgment of the ‘therapeutic community’ that therapy should not take place before, during or after a trial. I don’t know how you’ve come to that view.
It’s the sometimes expressed view of the police (Surrey force in this case) and CPS that witnesses should not undergo therapy before or during a trial. Their view is based on the willingness of judges to admit barristers’ arguments that therapy contaminates evidence or that the need for it makes her a bad (mad) witness and the willingness of juries to be swayed by these sorts of arguments. If judges disallowed such arguments except where the case for their specific relevance could be made (in the same way that arguments based on a woman’s sexual history are disallowed in general, with exceptions being made where the defence makes a case for their relevance) then it would not enter into the considerations of the police and CPS when considering how to make the best possible case.
My view was based on information received from a senior member of the therapeutic community.
‘information received’? Can you be more specific? Cite a published source? Because I can’t think of a single professional body to which a therapist or councillor might be affiliated that would condone the view you outline (basically to put the needs of the CPS in presenting the ‘best possible witness’ above the needs of the individual client). See, for example, the ethical principles of BACP http://www.bacp.co.uk/ethical_framework/ethics.php and equivalent statements from the acronym soup of organisations to which therapists might belong. If your ‘senior member of the therapeutic community’ believes that he or she should put the needs of the CPS above the needs of an individual in emotional distress, I suggest you ask them to consult their professional body about the ethics of this stance.
In any case, it is irrelevant to the Frances Andrade case since (according to family statements) her GP *did* offer referral for therapeutic help (presumably from a therapist who disagrees with your ‘senior member of the community’) and this was declined by Andrade on the basis of her understanding of police advice. If you listen to what Kevin Hurley, Police and Crime Commissioner of Surrey Police (relevant because this was the local force to Frances Andrade and involved, along with GMP, in ‘supporting’ her) stated on BBC Radio 2 that “[police] will not and should not refer a victim for counselling until after they have given their evidence.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qjb0g at 1:01:52 or thereabouts it would seem that her understanding of the police advice would seem to have been accurate.
It seems a little odd to maintain that “therapists have been of the opinion that rape victims should not get treatment before a trial in case the defence barrister somehow uses those therapeutic conversations against them in court” on the basis of private information inconsistent with every ethical principle publicly espoused by the professional bodies to which therapists affiliate and at the same time ignore the public statements of the police on this question.
Sorry, my source asked to stay confidential. I couldn’t see anything at your first link which specifically referred to the issue of whether therapy before trial was appropriate or not. As I said in the post, I don’t pretend to be an expert in this area. I don’t know. If there is something authoritative on the web which says that therapy should be given or, at least, started prior to trial, I’d very much like to see it.
If your source (n=1) asked to stay confidential and there is no published evidence of what they suggest (that “therapists have been of the opinion that rape victims should not get treatment before a trial”) then it can’t really be used in argument about the reasons why Frances Andrade did not receive therapy. People might think you a liar and a fantasist, making up a fictitious “senior member of the therapeutic community” to support your argument without allowing your readers to know that person’s credentials or the part of the ‘therapeutic community’ to which they belong. We might wish to know, since his or her view does not accord with ethical principles of professional bodies of therapists and counsellors. There does not need to be specific mention that the interests of the client or prospective client are held in greater regard than the interests of securing a conviction – it’s a direct extrapolation from the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. You cannot expect broad ethical principles to deal with every possible contravention, but clearly in a denial of therapy to Frances Andrade would have been neither neither beneficent nor non-maleficent. On the same basis (beneficence, non-maleficence) the psychiatrists who would have seen Frances Andrade following the failed suicide attempts for which she was briefly admitted to hospital would be in contravention of their GMC code if they had *refused* her needed treatment.
Moreover, people who have suffered sexual abuse and rape receive various forms of therapy and counselling every day of the week without their assailants having been tried. (You may add the ‘claim to’ and ‘alleged’ if you wish). Given that the vast majority of sexual abuse and rape is not reported let alone tried (according to British Crime Survey and other sources), and given that there is always the option of someone making a complaint subsequent to him or her having received therapy, I don’t see how it could be otherwise. Whole sections of the therapeutic community exist (Rape Crisis Centres for example) to provide therapeutic services to those who have been raped and sexually assaulted, irrespective of the stage of legal proceedings or lack of legal proceedings.
I would rather take the observable reality, including the existence of established therapeutic services for ‘pre-trial’ rape victims and the stated ethical principles of professional bodies’ of therapists, above the your claim to have information from a ‘senior member of the therapeutic community’ who insists on confidentiality. (Confidentiality is usually required to protect someone from something – what is your informant seeking protection from exactly? i.e. how would it harm him or her to have this view publicly attributable?).
As it goes, anyone who has read the accounts of Andrade family members (do you dispute them?), would see that she was not *denied* therapy on the basis of the view of therapists – as you imply – rather she declined it on the basis of police advice. The view of Surrey Police Commissioner Kevin Hurley is on public record. It is relevant to this case as Surrey is the one of the forces involved.
My post doesn’t discuss the reasons why Andrade didn’t receive therapy. From the second paragraph onwards it doesn’t mention her at all. Your last comment reads as if my entire post is only about her case, when in fact I was talking about the relationship of the public politicians to rape trials and so on.
Of course people can think that anonymous conversations are invented, if they wish. This one wasn’t. I don’t know whether there are any published articles on this subject or not. No-one has shown me any. As I have said, I’m no expert.
You’ve made some very interesting points. Thanks for your comment.
The reference to the absence of available therapy has been one of the most discussed aspects of the Andrade case with which you introduce your post (indeed it is the prompt for Cox’s comment, no?) even if that case is not explicitly mentioned beyond the second paragraph. Your post asserts a general situation (that lack of therapy for witnesses is the result of the attitude of the therapeutic community) which is diametrically opposed to what happened in the only actual case you cite. Does this not give you pause? Moreover your description of the general situation is contradicted by the stated ethical standards of professional bodies (which prioritise the interests of the client or prospective client) and the actually existing provision of services based on an conversation with someone who is not prepared to be named (n=1).
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/pretrial adult.html gives the official line of the CPS, which acknowledges the possible complications arising out of witnesses having had therapy, whilst also stating “It should be understood that those involved in the prosecution of an alleged offender have no authority to prevent an adult vulnerable or intimidated witness from receiving therapy.”
They also say that “Priority must be given to the best interests of the vulnerable or intimidated witness. The impact of any therapy upon the conduct of the criminal case should also be fully discussed and this discussion should include the witness, if not previously consulted on this issue.” Surrey Police Commissioner Kevin Hurley, whose force advised at least one witness we know about, interprets this as meaning that witnesses should be advised not to have therapy before the end of a trial. His opinion is in the public domain.
Your claim, on the other hand, that “For some time [how long?], therapists [any that are prepared to be named?] have been of the opinion that rape victims should not get treatment before a trial in case the defence barrister somehow uses those therapeutic conversations against them in court” is utter fantasy and a pack of lies.
Okay, you’ve made the point of calling me a liar. I was stating my honestly held opinion based on conversations I’ve had. You haven’t pointed me to any documentation from the therapeutic community which says otherwise. You may be right. I don’t know. As I said before, I’m not an expert. Are you? Perhaps, if you wish to continue this conversation, you could state your professional expertise. Thanks for your comments.
Being curious as to whether Lilith Morris was a professional therapist, I googled her. I found that she leaves very little trace on the web. However, I did find a comment on another blog, which repeats the mistaken view that conviction rates are very low for rape cases. Here’s the comment I’m talking about and, again, here’s the link to an article which pretty much establishes that the conviction rates for rape charges are actually higher than for other crimes. This topic arouses very strong emotions, which often get in the way of the facts.
For the record, I cannot emphasise enough that I would like to see an authoritative statement from the therapeutic community on pre-trial therapy.
I have no professional expertise and have never claimed any. I offer nothing other than logically-derived arguments based on evidence entirely in the public domain (CPS publications, Kevin Hurley’s statement, ethical principles of BACP, existence of therapeutic communities that do treat pre-trial witnesses, the statements of Frances Andrade’s family etc…)
You on the other hand, base your assertion on the claims to expertise of a senior member of the therapeutic community who declines to be named.
If my language in another comment on an entirely separate blog is technically incorrect I apologise. My meaning was that the number of convictions for the crimes of sexual assault and rape are small when set against the incidence of those crimes (as reported to surveys such as BCS). Do you disagree?
Does what you have gleaned from my comment elsewhere have anything to do with the issue of whether absence of therapy for witnesses is a consequence of the attitude of the therapeutic community (as you maintain on the basis of a conversation with an unnamed expert) or conversely the attitude of the police (as I maintain has happened in at least one actual case on the basis of evidence in the public domain)? Or is it just that it’s easier to play the man, not the ball?
It’s not a “technical” inaccuracy. It’s just wrong. It’s a false comparison because no-one has the data for other crimes.
As for the rest of your questions: (i) no, (ii) no and (iii) no.
No one has data about incidence for other crimes? Are you serious?
How about declared drug use? The BCS is here -> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1211/hosb1211?view=Binary [Scrapper Duncan's warning: this is a PDF download, not a regular link]
Bicycle thefts? “the British crime Survey reports that more than half a million bicycles are stolen each year. ” in this helpful government pdf http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_184462.pdf
In fact, the very same survey that is used to estimate the prevalence of sexual assault and rape also is used to estimate the prevalence of a wide range of crimes against people and property and against neither.
How do you not know that?
I think we’re possibly talking at cross purposes. I understood that we don’t record data about initial reports to the police about crime nationally, as we do about rape. Unfortunately, right now I’m on a phone, in a bus, so I can’t read your links but it looks like they are, as you describe them, “estimates”, not hard data. As explained at that link I have posted twice now (once in the post, once in this comment thread), we don’t automatically collate reportage statistics for all crimes but we do for rape. I’ll look at your links later.
Whilst you’re very welcome to keep commenting here, I thought I might suggest that you do publish your thoughts on this subject in a blog of your own, as you said elsewhere you wanted to. Just a thought.
Thanks for the welcome. I don’t have a blog of my own and don’t want one.
Looking at this issue of attrition vs. conviction (not to mention reporting) rates now, I don’t think it changes substantially what I would have said on someone else’s blog almost two years ago. I used a technical term (conviction rate, i.e. conviction: prosecution) when I meant something that I think most normal people also care about (conviction: incidence) and which you may do too (since you don’t disagree with me that this latter rate is low).
You also agree that mistake has no bearing on the point we were discussing (where responsibility for therapy not being provided to witnesses may lie), it’s hard to understand why you would link to that old comment – except by way of a ‘gotcha – you also made a mistake’ (playing the man, not the ball) but I accept this was not intentional. Perhaps you’ll address yourself to the substantive issue, rather than repeatedly requesting I provide the unambiguous published declaration on this precise from the therapeutic community. Perhaps your anonymous friend can write one? In the meantime, a view extrapolated from the ethical principles of professional organisations will do for me.
Okay, let’s define the terms. All along, I’ve been using the phrase “conviction rates” to mean “the proportion who are convicted by a jury”. That’s the generally used definition. Everyone knows that defendants in criminal trials wish to avoid being “convicted” or getting a “conviction”.
You insist on calling this a technical term and, in a sense, I suppose it is. However, that word (“technical”) is generally used to mean “only really a distinction that experts can see but not really understood in the real world” or something like that. I disagree. I think that, until your last comment, anyone reading this thread would assume that the words “conviction rate” had the meaning I have used. You ascribe two other meanings to it, which I’ve never heard before. Although your IP address geolocates in exactly the same place as our local Brighton CPS office, I am desperately hoping that you are not actually working for the CPS. That would be really scary because this last part of your commentary is complete guff.
I’m not sure that I did “agree that mistake has no bearing on the point we were discussing“. You have inferred that. I’m not sure that I have agreed anything.
Regarding, linking to your old comment, yeah, I can see that my reasons for that are hard for you to accept. Sorry about that. I tend to see the web as one big old place where we needn’t make a distinction between one site and another.
Let me be absolutely clear, I’m not requesting you do anything at all. I have addressed myself to the substantive issue, as you well know. That’s why you’re commenting here. Thanks again for your comments.
You answered an explicit ‘no’ to each of the following questions.
Me: “Do you disagree?” [that the rate of convictions is low in relation to the incidence of sexual assault and rape] You: “(i) no”
Me: “Does what you have gleaned from my comment elsewhere have anything to do with the issue of whether absence of therapy for witnesses is a consequence of the attitude of the therapeutic community…” You: (ii) no
Me “is it just that it’s easier to play the man, not the ball?” You: (iii) no
These are the questions to which your nos refer, aren’t they? In which case perhaps you have subsequently revised your second no, and wish to explain the relevance of the comment of mine you introduce for the argument at hand, concerning the absence of therapy for witnesses and the responsibility for it (i.e. whether it lies with the therapeutic community or elsewhere).
You’ve never addressed yourself to my substantive points and the evidence in the public domain that I’ve used to support them.
1. ‘Therapeutic communities’ have ethical guidelines (codes, standards, principles – different organisations may call them different things, I linked to one) from which can be read that the stated position of the therapeutic community places the well-being of individual clients/prospective clients at the centre of their work (according standard principles we all know from medical ethics of beneficence and non-maleficence etc…) and from that can be extrapolated that the well-being of the client should, in the opinion of therapeutic communities, be placed above the interests of the CPS in cases such as you outline. [Example given, ethical principles of BACP http://www.bacp.co.uk/ethical_framework/ethics.php ] Do you disagree?
2. In at least one actual case we know about, and we know about precious few others in detail, the GP was happy to refer for therapy/counselling, which indicates that therapy is available in such circumstances. She declined on the basis of (her understanding of) police advice. [Source: statements of Andrade's husband and son published in the media, google them]. Do you disagree?
3. The view of the Police Commissioner of Surrey Police, Kevin Hurley, is that witnesses should not have therapy prior to the end of a trial. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qjb0g at 1:01:52 or thereabouts. This is indicative that the view you attribute to therapeutic communities is actually held by at least one important part of the criminal justice community. Do you disagree?
You responded by dismissing item 1, because it doesn’t have a Section 7.b.iii along the lines of “Pre-trial witnesses must not be denied therapy on account of considerations that have nothing to do with their well-being”. When I introduced argument 1 it was clear that I was extrapolating that the principles held by therapeutic professional bodies would place the interests of the person who would benefit from therapy above other extrinsic considerations. I have never claimed that there is in existence an “Item 7.b.iii Pre-trial witnesses must not be denied therapy from which they could benefit on account of extrinsic considerations”, though you repeatedly ask me to provide one. You have chosen to read my argument that way, despite my initial argument not being framed that way and then my clarification that the treatment of the particular case can be inferred from the general principles. Do you disagree that general principles of medical ethics (therapeutic ethics) can be applied in particular cases?
I then add:
4. Obligations of psychiatrists under the GMC (similar ethical principles as for BACP). Relevant in any case where the witness is admitted to hospital for attempted suicide and would have psychiatric review prior to discharge. If the psychiatric review has, as a consideration in recommending possible treatment, the needs of the CPS above the needs of the patient, the psychiatrist is in contravention of their GMC code. Same argument as 1, except perhaps more easy to understand because we are more familiar with the application of general ethical principles to specific cases in relation to the GMC.
5. The existence of a sector of the therapeutic community that routinely serves people who are pre-trial.
I ask why your authority is not willing for their view to be attributable.
Again, you don’t respond to substantive points regarding the responsibility for pre-trial witnesses not receiving therapy, instead saying “It’s not about the Andrade case” (as if information in the public domain relating to the only actual case cited in the whole discussion is irrelevant, and upon which you hang your post) and back to asking to be shown the non-existent “Section 7.b.iii” which I have never claimed existed, another appeal to authority and simultaneously (nice sleight of hand) “I’m not an expert” (i.e. I’m not responsible for my opinions, but here’s the view of an expert whose opinons I believe, by the way my expert doesn’t want to be identified). All the while not engaging with the substantive points.
In an effort to elicit that engagement I again restate my argument, and add the CPS guidelines on exactly the question you raise. It’s not the mythical Section 7.b.iii you seem to require, but relevant in showing the views and considerations of the CPS – both that pre-trial witnesses may receive therapy (so, presumably there are members of the therapeutic community willing to provide it, otherwise a non-issue that does not require guidelines?) but that this may damage cases.
No engagement, simply asking my authority since your arguments proceed by appeal to authority. Since my argument has never relied on any professional expertise I tell you I have none. Nonetheless you trawl the internet to find a two year old comment on another blog that shows I once made a mistake in my use of the term ‘conviction rates’ which you later agree is not relevant to the discussion in hand, if I read your “(ii) no” correctly?
So, I do not return because you have engaged with the substantive points. You have repeatedly failed to do so. I return because someone is wrong on the internet. http://xkcd.com/386/
I am not in the CPS office in Brighton. In fact, not in Brighton or the vicinity at all, so not sure how my IP address comes from there – perhaps you are not as good at your internet sleuthing as you think you are? Nor have I tried to disguise my IP address, I wouldn’t know how. But you seem very fixated on this sort of sniffing out who I am. Another example of trying to play the man, instead of the ball. Why not just address yourself to the arguments?
Soon after I started this blog, I found that some people would leave comments which were so long that their commentary was longer than the original post. This damages my SEO. So I introduced a comment length limiter. Recently, that broke down because it no longer showed people how many characters they had remaining (Greg’s Comment Length Limiter). So I removed it. Since you’ve chosen to comment at such length I suggested you put your thoughts in another blog. You could easily put your thoughts in a free WordPress blog post and link to this post, which would result in your link appearing in this comment thread. That would mean you could say as much as you wanted, without having to wait for me to moderate your writing, and not disrupt my SEO. After this reply, I’m going to close this comment thread and reintroduce a comment length limiter.
You say:
No, sorry, you’ve muddled up my responses. The first, truncated, question quoted above I did disagree with. I said it was “just wrong” (in this comment.
The questions I answered “no” to were as follows. (1) Does what you have gleaned from my comment elsewhere have anything to do with the issue of whether absence of therapy for witnesses is a consequence of the attitude of the therapeutic community? (2) … or conversely the attitude of the police (as I maintain has happened in at least one actual case on the basis of evidence in the public domain)? (3) Or is it just that it’s easier to play the man, not the ball?
No, I haven’t, for the reasons explained above.
The comment you left elsewhere in the blogosphere was used to emphasise one of the main points of my post, which is that people often get the facts wrong with regard to this subject. That other comment of yours was largely predicated on a popular myth.
These guidelines do not say that therapeutic work should be placed above the interests of the prosecution of crime. You have, as you say, “extrapolated” that view. So, yes, I disagree with you here. I understand that this is your view but it isn’t explicitly set out in the documentation you have presented. Other people could draw other inferences.
I haven’t stated a view on this question. You may well be right. At this point, I’d like to respectfully point out that you are commenting on my post and I am replying, briefly, to your comments, but not actually entering into a detailed debate with you because referring to isolated cases does not reveal general trends. My post wasn’t about any one case in particular, as I have already explained.
Whether Police and Crime Commissioners can properly be described as part of the “criminal justice community” is an interesting point. Many of us would regard them as part of the “political community” because they were elected to office. However, for the sake of your argument, yes, okay. I don’t see what difference that makes. For example, let’s say that Captain Pugwash also holds that view. What difference does that make to whether the therapeutic community holds that view or not? None.
It might have been clear to you but it wasn’t clear to me. Very often people present me with links and documentation which doesn’t say what they claim it says. I just pointed that out. I haven’t repeatedly asked you to provide anything. In fact, all I have said is that I haven’t seen any authorative documentation.
This is one of those questions to which everyone has to agree. However, it doesn’t get us any further into discovering whether there are any authorative documents from the therapeutic community which explicitly answer the specific issue we are discussing. I appreciate that you think that I have made a ‘choice’ to read your comments in a particular way but, in fact, I just read them according to ordinary and natural meaning of the words.
As you say, this is the same argument as you’ve already employed. Therefore, I’ve already answered it.
I don’t believe I have made any comment about this point. As I’ve repeatedly said, I’m not an expert in this field. Neither are you. Had you claimed expertise, your views on this would have been particularly interesting but since you don’t have any expertise, this is just your personal opinion.
I’m not going to tell you because to do so could possibly contribute to people being able to work out who I spoke to, by jigsaw identification. Reportage of off-the-record conversations is fairly common, y’know.
I’ve replied to the points I felt able to respond to. To be honest, I pretty much set out my views in the post itself. You disagreed but haven’t provided any actual proof to justify your disagreement. You say neither have I. That’s a fair point.
I found this passage hard to follow but suffice it to say that yes, you have restated your argument, which I understood the first time around.
Yes, my arguments do proceed by appeal to authority. I think this is a subject which people shouldn’t pronounce opinions on unless they have some expertise. I wrote about the aspects of it which I have some expertise in and spoke to another expert for the bits I do not.
I’m sorry that you don’t think I’ve engaged with you. I’ve published all your comments so far. I’ve responded as best as I am able to. I’ve disagreed with bits of what you’ve said. In fact, I’ve never replied to anyone so much on this blog. If all of this isn’t engagement, I don’t what is. It does sound like you are muddling up engagement with agreement.
Great cartoon. Love it.
All comments posted to a WordPress blog reveal to the blog owner the IP address of the commentator.
It’s just an old habit of mine. I look people up. Find out what they have been saying elsewhere. In your case, I spent about a minute on it. Don’t take it personally.
Finally, then, as I have said, I have responded to your arguments but I don’t agree with them. Now, before I close this comment thread and reintroduce a comment length limiter let me say again, thanks for your comments and I’m going to give you the final say: I’ll let you have one more comment if you want but please restrict yourself to 250 words. Fair enough?
Your blog, your rules. You’re still wrong though (and probably do know it). If you don’t understand why by now, another 250 words and no amount of evidence is going to convince you.
But, for any readers who might think you’ve got a leg stand on, here in lieu of expertise is my ability to google an example of the real world therapy of the sort I mentioned (item 5) http://www.lifecentre.uk.com/policies/lead_policies.html – going ahead an therapising pre-trial witnesses within the CPS guidelines and against the views of your expert informant. And here’s a book for therapists on this subject that also shows your expert informant to be in error. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fr6vy-No-0AC& Explaining how would take me over the word limit, and, well, you can take a donkey to water and all that….