I don't know about other officers, but right from the start John's measured, calm and ice-cold delivery certainly got my undivided attention and particularly upon learning he'd served 43 years and had not been subject of a whole life tariff. Anyone in our line of work would know immediately that you have to work particularly hard at things in order to serve that length of time, and so it later transpired, but already several bells were ringing labelled 'psycopath' and 'danger'.
Over my career as a Probation Officer my working hypothesis has been that, in the absence of compelling contradictory and expert evidence, we are all the product of behaviour that results from an equal combination of genetic makeup and environment, the age-old conundrum of nature or nurture? This tv series seeks to apply all that modern science can muster in order to search for physical, neural evidence of a predisposition towards a particular behaviour, namely that of murder and from evidence gained via extensive brain scans and genetic analysis.
I don't think I found much that was hugely surprising in this first episode, apart that is of the alarming notion that particular genes that control certain behaviour can be triggered by life experiences such as John's enforced separation from his mother at the age of three. But this coupled with evidence from the extensive brain scans that highlighted the reduction in size of critical areas of the brain responsible for feelings associated with reward and risk-taking begin to open up the whole pandora's box of the degree to which individuals can be held responsible for their actions.
It is of course a moot point as to whether the scientific avenues being explored in this tv series would have had any significant effect regarding John's conviction, sentencing, and passage through the criminal justice system, had they been available at an earlier stage, or would it just prove a further lucrative work stream for the legal and medical profession and endless argument?
It's surely an alarming avenue for society to be heading down if this kind of medical research gains traction because it must surely open up the prospect of preventative treatment or incarceration even? One thing it did confirm to me though was the vital importance of cases like this being supervised by skillful and well-trained Probation Officers and the provision of extensive and thorough reports post sentence, for sentence planning and Parole application.
Over my career as a Probation Officer my working hypothesis has been that, in the absence of compelling contradictory and expert evidence, we are all the product of behaviour that results from an equal combination of genetic makeup and environment, the age-old conundrum of nature or nurture? This tv series seeks to apply all that modern science can muster in order to search for physical, neural evidence of a predisposition towards a particular behaviour, namely that of murder and from evidence gained via extensive brain scans and genetic analysis.
I don't think I found much that was hugely surprising in this first episode, apart that is of the alarming notion that particular genes that control certain behaviour can be triggered by life experiences such as John's enforced separation from his mother at the age of three. But this coupled with evidence from the extensive brain scans that highlighted the reduction in size of critical areas of the brain responsible for feelings associated with reward and risk-taking begin to open up the whole pandora's box of the degree to which individuals can be held responsible for their actions.
It is of course a moot point as to whether the scientific avenues being explored in this tv series would have had any significant effect regarding John's conviction, sentencing, and passage through the criminal justice system, had they been available at an earlier stage, or would it just prove a further lucrative work stream for the legal and medical profession and endless argument?
It's surely an alarming avenue for society to be heading down if this kind of medical research gains traction because it must surely open up the prospect of preventative treatment or incarceration even? One thing it did confirm to me though was the vital importance of cases like this being supervised by skillful and well-trained Probation Officers and the provision of extensive and thorough reports post sentence, for sentence planning and Parole application.
I have not seen it - but your views accord with mine.
ReplyDeleteOne thought - we now know more about how addiction works - not the actual substance or behaviour that causes the compulsion but the impact on brain chemistry - I am sure I am being over simplistic but I wonder if there may be some connection with violent/dangerous behaviour?
In social media parlance - just saying - like!
A woman in a domestic violence situation managed to call 911 without the perpetrator realising, by pretending to order a pizza. The unnamed woman told local media her mum was being attacked at the time.
ReplyDeleteWhat did the caller say? Here's a transcript of the conversation.
Mr Teneyck: Oregon 911
Caller: I would like to order a pizza at [address redacted].
Mr Teneyck: You called 911 to order a pizza?
Caller: Uh, yeah. Apartment [redacted].
Mr Teneyck: This is the wrong number to call for a pizza...
Caller: No, no, no. You're not understanding.
Mr Teneyck: I'm getting you now.
Later in the call, the woman found creative ways to answer Mr Teneyck's yes or no questions about how much danger she and her mother were in, and what services they needed.
Mr Teneyck: Is the other guy still there?
Caller: Yep, I need a large pizza.
Mr Teneyck: All right. How about medical, do you need medical?
Caller: No. With pepperoni.
I have to admit I wasn't aware of the following:
What can people in the UK do?
People who need to make a discreet call to 999 - the UK's emergency services number - can do so using the British police's "silent solution" system.
A 999 caller can remain silent if they are unable to speak. Then, when prompted, should key in the number 55 to silently inform officers that they are experiencing a genuine emergency.
If the situation is violent, callers can also call 999 and leave the phone off the hook so that operators can hear what is going on. In most cases, dispatchers will be able to trace the location of the incident from the call itself.
The 'inevitability' of someone committing a serious crime is something I've pondered long & hard after leaving. I have no answers but in just over 25 years' service as a PO, of the (far too many) cases I supervised who had been convicted of killing, I would suggest that just two men presented as 'a killing waiting to happen'. I also felt that one rapist fell into the category of 'inevitable perpetrator'.
ReplyDeleteSo that's three men out of hundreds who were convicted of serious offences over 25 years & who, in their own view, were behaviourally & emotionally capable of raping and/or killing another human being for as long as they could remember. The 'trigger' seemed to be situational opportunity rather than a behavioural shift.
I found all three cases intensely disturbing to work with and, after discussion with my supportive & enlightened SPO, I was fortunate to be granted specialist external supervision.
The vast majority of perpetrators of serious offences offered the widest range of excuses/motivations/explanations/complaints/denials/etc as to why they had or hadn't committed the offence.
I can't imagine much has changed except, perhaps, that the numbers of those convicted of committing serious offences may have increased while probation service provision has reduced in both quantity and quality.
I wonder how many current POs in 2019 have access to a Consultant Forensic Psychologist for one-to-one supervision?
"I wonder how many current POs in 2019 have access to a Consultant Forensic Psychologist for one-to-one supervision?" That was indeed an enlightened decision, typical of the freedom the old Service's had available to them and now sadly long gone under increasing civil service command and control. When part of a small team delivering bespoke in-house SOTP groups and individual work, we were granted regular access and support from a Consultant Forensic Psychologist, but I suspect was a rare facility even back in the day.
DeleteFrom Twitter:-
Delete"Similar experience. Similar view. Which does question current obsession with “risk prediction”. There seems worrying illusion that by filling in risk forms/OASys that can stop SFOs. All can do is try minimise the factors that might cause to occur and maximise protective factors."
Yes the serious offenders team at Bethnal Green in the early- mid nineteen nineties had access the Home Office Regional Forensic Psychiatrist who ran the Interim Secure Unit in North East London.
DeleteI do not remember the precise administrative set up there - I do not think fees changed hands it was just the sort of consultations that went on as we shared experiences and information.
I was particularly fortunate as starting as a student in a Home Office Probation Training Unit in the former Liverpool PS - we had access to various pilot schemes and so I came to expect such contacts - I think the North West Home Office Regional Forensic Psychiatrist in the mid 1970s had a consultant position in the Home Office Pilot Day Training Centre in Liverpool.
As either a student - or first year officer ( I stayed at the office attached to the Training Unit) I was allocated a case of a local client who was doing a Pbn Order with a DTC condition - so that Forensic Psychiatrist - almost routinely in his work with the DTC became involved with "my" client & that involvement continued after he completed his 90 days at the DTC.
The young man had an excessively traumatic childhood - as a new born he had been thrown out of a fourth or fifth story flat by his mother who had delivered alone and had significant - what now would be a termed Learning Disability.
The story was that his life had been saved because he landed in soft snow!
Anyway he did not have good foster-care experiences and found himself as a 17 year old with a sentence that was longer than qualified him for Borstal training & so following release - before I became involved - as still aged only about twenty-one/two he unsurprisingly committed more significant offences - it was for folk such as he the DTC was designed for.
The young man truly believed he was seriously psychologically damaged - which the forensic psychiatrist's examinations suggested was not the case - so I oversaw a series of appointments with this man - some joint - that were aimed at convincing the client that he was mentally "normal" if deprived in just about every other way.
Thus it became almost routine for me to seek advice from a forensic psychiatrist - in later professional placements & I was not averse to stressing to courts the importance of commissioning such reports & consequently usually had access to a forensic psychiatrist - to at least ask - might such a referral in this or that case be worth a court delaying and paying a fee.
I suspect that such action may not be so easy to arrange nowadays - but hopefully someone will reply and say such consulations informal and formal are still happening.