Professional Dilemma 2

There comes a time one day when during an interview with a client they are going to tell you with some conviction that they 'didn't do it 'and were 'fitted up by the police'. Like any other member of the public, I've heard of this sort of thing on the news, I've watched a few cop shows and am aware of the 'few rotten apples' theory about the police and the temptation to help convict an obviously guilty party with a little bit more evidence. As a probation officer who interviews people all the time, you also get an instinctive feel when what you're being told is almost certainly true. When this conflicts either with the evidential statements or with a finding of guilt, the probation officer finds themself in a potentially difficult situation.

I can think of two cases in recent years that will serve to illustrate the point and from extreme ends of a broad spectrum. In the first instance I remember a young man, very well known to me, protesting his innocence vociferously and at some length about a dwelling house burglary. He was giving me chapter and verse about how he had been 'fitted up' and that the police statements were obviously works of fiction. He had already been on remand for some weeks  and clearly wanted to recruit me to the cause of campaigning for his innocence. In response I reminded him of the blindingly obvious that he could plead not guilty, but also highlighted that conviction was almost a foregone conclusion given the statements.

The interview could have gone in circles for quite a bit longer until on impulse I changed tack and asked him if he'd ever committed offences of burglary before and got away with them? He stopped for a moment and agreed that indeed that was true. I suggested that one way of resolving his anger and sense of moral indignation was to view the current situation differently. This could be an opportunity for him to view any punishment he had coming for a burglary he says he didn't commit, as a way of making amends for all the others. He thought for one moment and said 'ok'. I have no way of knowing whether he'd been 'fitted up' or not and it could be said that my intervention just helped reinforce this young mans negative views of the criminal justice system. On the other hand it gave him a moral to ponder on. That in the end it could be said we reap what we sow. 

The other case that springs to mind is rather more serious and involves a man serving life for an appalling murder. From day one he protested his innocence and was adamant that evidence had been fabricated. For obvious reasons I shall not go into any details, but the nature of the crime dictated that in my view the perpetrator was likely to be suffering from a psychopathic personality disorder. The nature of the injuries, which have never been made fully public, surely could not have been committed by someone of completely sound mind? As his Home Probation Officer involved from the start, I had to ask myself repeatedly 'is the person in front of me really a dangerous psychopathic killer?' Privately I kept coming to the conclusion that he was not and therefore the second question kept on nagging away, 'has he been wrongly convicted as a result of fabricated evidence?'        

For years, as he proceeded through the appeal process, I had to keep those thoughts to myself as in my view it would have been highly unprofessional to do otherwise. Unfortunately he chose to take my neutral stance very negatively and eventually refused to see me, or answer letters. In such a situation there comes a time to admit defeat and in his best interests to transfer the case to another officer. I still have a nagging doubt that he didn't do it, but as each year goes by and no similar murder has been committed, maybe my gut feeling and instinct failed me on this occasion.