The Pitchfork Debate

The Parole Board, informed by experts, have decided that Colin Pitchfork should be released because he is no longer considered enough of a risk to be kept in prison. So, the people whose job it is, and carry the blame if it goes wrong, the people who have seen all the reports, the data, met the man, spoken with staff, have all that information, have made that decision.

Being an expert doesn't mean one is never wrong, but it means you know more about something than most other people.

Low risk doesn't mean that nothing bad will happen, but it means that the likelihood is considered to be manageable.

Mr Pitchfork, now known by another name, let's call him David, won't just be released, there will be conditions on him, as that is what happens to lifers, and it's what happens to people who are considered to be sexually motivated. It is not like David will be completely at liberty, with no checks on him, no information coming in.

I don't have an opinion about David's release. That's not because I don't care, but because I haven't seen all of the information, I have never met the man, I don't know the work he has done, if he has changed, if he might be faking good. Some might say that even if I had all of that, that I am not an expert. Ok. 

What I find fascinating is the number of people who equally have no personal knowledge of the man or his circumstances who do have an opinion and feel the need to share it publicly. This is professionals and the public. I understand that the family express a view, but am stunned that the absence of relevant knowledge is not a barrier to statement. 

There is a growing trend to have psychologists appear on TV sharing their views about things. Sometimes it is the behaviour of people on reality TV shows, and a "behavioural psychologist" who is an "expert in body language" gives us insight into what is going on inside someone's head. They are wasted on TV, they should be at government level negotiations. That doesn't matter because no one really cares if Trevor hasn't noticed that Sheila is attracted to him, based on where her toes are pointing. 

Sometimes it's about getting inside the head of the murderer. Sexy. Can you get inside the head of a murderer when the murder happened 10 years ago and you didn't know the murderer then, don't know them now, have no first hand experience of that person? If you can then why not be at government level negotiations or at least at the tables in Vegas? 

It's the same thing, reality TV, murder (in the sense of what the psychologist is doing), but there is a big difference, because in the case of a murder (or something else important, like fraud or sexual offending or arson) people do care and people believe that we can do this kind of thing; that I can find out a bit about a complete stranger and know what motivates them, what they were thinking, how they experience the world. That isn't psychology, that is sorcery. Why is that important? It gives us false credibility and power, which could play out in court, or a parole board, or anywhere that judgements are made by people who don't know psychology but listen to psychologists. The forensically aware offender can make use of this by purposefully behaving in ways that are not linked to them or notions that cannot be generalised - I never point my toes at my love interests so no one knows.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, right?