Psychiatrist criticised for witness statement in murder trial

[Dolphin]

Since becoming ill with M.E., I have become frustrated with the subjectivity of psychiatry (although have never been to one personally - I just mean in their influence, etc.)

I read a little by Thomas Szasz http://www.szasz.com and got interested in how psychiatry can play a part in our justice system e.g. actions can be somewhat "excused" because of somebody's state of mind.

I just found this story of interest and perhaps a few others will especially as Simon Wessely is quoted:


http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=416191&c=1

Senator calls for scholar's head over expert testimony

19 May 2011

By John Elmes

The role of academics as expert witnesses has come under scrutiny after an Australian politician called for a professor to be sacked over his role in a high-profile murder trial.

Graham Burrows, professor of psychiatry at the University of Melbourne, appeared as a defence witness for Arthur Freeman, who threw his four-year-old daughter off the Victorian state capital's West Gate Bridge.

He testified that the accused was mentally ill and did not know what he was doing, but was the only one of six experts to find that the defendant had a mental illness.

Freeman was subsequently found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in jail.

However, in a move that has sparked a heated debate about academic freedom, Julian McGauran, the Liberal senator for Victoria, said Melbourne should sack Professor Burrows for giving "concocted" evidence.

Senator McGauran used parliamentary privilege, which protects politicians from being sued for defamation, to call on Glyn Davis, vice-chancellor of Melbourne, to put aside "excuses like academic freedom or acting outside the university's jurisdiction".

He went on to accuse Professor Burrows of being a "gun for hire" and a "psychiatrist of last resort...who will sing whatever song the defence wants".

A spokesman for Melbourne said witness testimony was a matter for the court, not the university. However, Senator McGauran's intervention has outraged many.

Jeannie Rea, president of the National Tertiary Education Union in Australia, told Times Higher Education that it was "entirely inappropriate" for the senator to call for Professor Burrows' sacking.

"If the university did pursue it, it would be an abuse of academic freedom," she said. "This is a situation where the academic is acting in terms of his professional expertise, as many academics do as witnesses in court proceedings."

Simon Wessely, vice-dean of academic psychiatry at King's College London's Institute of Psychiatry, agreed: "For a politician to call for an expert witness to be sacked is clearly out of order and a blatant attempt to intimidate."

While experts "have a duty not to give incompetent or erroneous evidence...that is a matter for the courts, not for a politician and not for a vice-chancellor", Professor Wessely said.

He added that "it is already permissible for a judge to make unfavourable comments should he or she believe that the expert gave evidence that was unprofessional". "A judge can in effect make it impossible for an expert to appear again," he said.

john.elmes@tsleducation.com

Judge 'not keen' on maligned professor

-
Graham Burrows is a professor of psychiatry with more than 40 years' experience in the field who has appeared numerous times as witness for prosecution and defence teams.

As the sole defence witness in Arthur Freeman's trial, he told the jury that the defendant had suffered a "major depressive disorder" and was in a "severe dissociative state" when he threw his daughter to her death.

Professor Burrows said he had tested Freeman's susceptibility to hypnosis using the Stanford hypnotic clinical scale and had found it to be at the top of the measure.

According to The Age newspaper, Supreme Court Justice Paul Coghlan told the defence counsel in Professor Burrows' presence that he was "not fond" of the witness.

But he added that he "took great care not to let such matters interfere with the way things went in front of the jury".

The Age quoted Justice Coghlan as saying that he had not made any comments in court that he had not directly told Professor Burrows "in various ways over the years".

 

[Dolphin]

Thomas Szasz's Summary Statement and Manifesto

These are extreme positions of course but are thought-provoking I think.

http://www.szasz.com/manifesto.html

Thomas Szasz's Summary Statement and Manifesto

"Myth of mental illness." Mental illness is a metaphor (metaphorical disease). The word "disease" denotes a demonstrable biological process that affects the bodies of living organisms (plants, animals, and humans). The term "mental illness" refers to the undesirable thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of persons. Classifying thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as diseases is a logical and semantic error, like classifying the whale as a fish. As the whale is not a fish, mental illness is not a disease. Individuals with brain diseases (bad brains) or kidney diseases (bad kidneys) are literally sick. Individuals with mental diseases (bad behaviors), like societies with economic diseases (bad fiscal policies), are metaphorically sick. The classification of (mis)behavior as illness provides an ideological justification for state-sponsored social control as medical treatment.

Separation of Psychiatry and the State. If we recognize that "mental illness" is a metaphor for disapproved thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, we are compelled to recognize as well that the primary function of Psychiatry is to control thought, mood, and behavior. Hence, like Church and State, Psychiatry and the State ought to be separated by a "wall." At the same time, the State ought not to interfere with mental health practices between consenting adults. The role of psychiatrists and mental health experts with regard to law, the school system, and other organizations ought to be similar to the role of clergymen in those situations.

Presumption of competence. Because being accused of mental illness is similar to being accused of crime, we ought to presume that psychiatric "defendants" are mentally competent, just as we presume that criminal defendants are legally innocent. Individuals charged with criminal, civil, or interpersonal offenses ought never to be treated as incompetent solely on the basis of the opinion of mental health experts. Incompetence ought to be a judicial determination and the "accused" ought to have access to legal representation and a right to trial by jury.

Abolition of involuntary mental hospitalization. Involuntary mental hospitalization is imprisonment under the guise of treatment; it is a covert form of social control that subverts the rule of law. No one ought to be deprived of liberty except for a criminal offense, after a trial by jury guided by legal rules of evidence. No one ought to be detained against his will in a building called "hospital," or in any other medical institution, or on the basis of expert opinion. Medicine ought to be clearly distinguished and separated from penology, treatment from punishment, the hospital from the prison. No person ought to be detained involuntarily for a purpose other than punishment or in an institution other than one formally defined as a part of the state's criminal justice system.

Abolition of the insanity defense. Insanity is a legal concept involving the courtroom determination that a person is not capable of forming conscious intent and, therefore, cannot be held responsible for an otherwise criminal act. The opinions of experts about the "mental state" of defendants ought to be inadmissible in court, exactly as the opinions of experts about the "religious state" of defendants are inadmissible. No one ought to be excused of lawbreaking or any other offense on the basis of so-called expert opinion rendered by psychiatric or mental health experts. Excusing a person of responsibility for an otherwise criminal act on the basis of inability to form conscious intent is an act of legal mercy masquerading as an act of medical science. Being merciful or merciless toward lawbreakers is a moral and legal matter, unrelated to the actual or alleged expertise of medical and mental health professionals.

In 1798, Americans were confronted with the task of abolishing slavery, peacefully and without violating the rights of others. They refused to face that daunting task and we are still paying the price of their refusal. In 1998, we Americans are faced with the task of abolishing psychiatric slavery, peacefully and without violating the rights of others. We accept that task and are committed to working for its successful resolution. As Americans before us have eventually replaced involuntary servitude (chattel slavery) with contractual relations between employers and employees, we seek to replace involuntary psychiatry (psychiatric slavery) with contractual relations between care givers and clients.

Thomas Szasz March 1998

 

[Sean]

Szasz is a very interesting and thought provoking commentator, and for that alone he is worth knowing about. But I am not entirely convinced of how realistic or humane some of his stuff is. He seems to be prepared to tolerate an awful lot of (relatively easily avoidable) collateral damage that would certainly arise out of implementing his prescription.


Also, Julian McGauran is a pretty nasty right wing thug, and not that smart either, the sort of person that is probably not a big asset for our side. I seriously doubt he will specifically stand up for ME/CFS patients. Don't be fooled by the 'Liberal' tag, in Oz that means the conservatives (comprising a long standing alliance between the Liberal & National parties, often called the Coalition). It is a bit confusing to the uninitiated, and as a former Labor Prime Minister said, the Liberal party should be sued for false advertising.

While it always helps to have the subjective nonsense of psychiatry being called out at high levels of power, and as much as it pains to me to agree with Wessely, he does have a point about academics needing to be free of inappropriate political interference, (providing the academics do their job properly, of course).


A mixed bag then.

 

[Tulip]

I was very angry about what Graham Burrows did, he blatantly lied and ignored all prior evidence that Arthur Freeman was in fact a very nasty piece of work and had been making threats to his kids lives prior to killing his daughter, had major anger problems and couldn't handle his kids being independant people - he is quite clearly a sociopath. I agree that Graham Burrows should be sacked, he almost swayed the entire jury, which could have seen the monster Arthur Freeman let loose, only to have access to his other kids. Who on this earth could take the side of a "dad" that threw his own daughter off a very high bridge to her death, on her first day of school?.

In this particular case politicians should have a voice and should be listened to. Personally I think psychiatry is a joke.

 

[Sean]

Just to be clear, I am not on Burrows side, he is a serious problem. Just generally opposed to political interference in these matters, especially by somebody like McGauran, who could easily make things a lot worse for us.

This is a matter for the courts to decide, in conjunction with the profession itself (for what that is worth).

The Australian legal system did a good job knocking Munchausen's-by-proxy on the head, in a case of forced removal of a child with ME/CFS, that went all the way to a state supreme court. There was also a famous case here a few years back (in NSW, I think) of a psych who refused to accept almost anybody was disabled, and he got torn to shreds by the court rarely seen such language in a judicial summing up and it was reported in the media. And this time the court (judge & jury) did basically ignore and discredit Burrows in reaching its verdict of guilty. These all set serious precedents and limits that psychs have to take careful heed of when diagnosing and treating, and especially when offering expert medico-legal advice. So the psych profession does not rule unchallenged in the Oz courts, something clearly to the benefit of ME/CFS patients here. Whatever its failings, when the law decides you are in the right it can be a very powerful ally indeed.

 

[Enid]

I think their (psychiatrists) whole position is base on subjectivity Dolphin and as such impossible to measure in any scientific way. Sort of their "professional" opinion very often against plain common sense/facts - even medical findings in the case of ME/CFS (error of thinking/perception of illness). Very unsound basis opinion only with nothing to "measure". A guessing game.

 

[Tulip]

Just to be clear, I am not on Burrows side, he is a serious problem. Just generally opposed to political interference in these matters, especially by somebody like McGauran, who could easily make things a lot worse for us.

This is a matter for the courts to decide, in conjunction with the profession itself (for what that is worth).

And this time the court (judge & jury) did basically ignore and discredit Burrows in reaching its verdict of guilty. These all set serious precedents and limits that psychs have to take careful heed of when diagnosing and treating, and especially when offering expert medico-legal advice. So the psych profession does not rule unchallenged in the Oz courts, something clearly to the benefit of ME/CFS patients here. Whatever its failings, when the law decides you are in the right it can be a very powerful ally indeed.

I followed the Arthur Freeman case closely, the jury could not reach a unanimous decision and went to the magistrate telling him so and asking him how they should proceed in this instance, this was on the 4th day of deliberations. On the 5th day it was reported in the news. Many jurors had been swayed by Burrows blatant lies. This is why there is so much anger regarding Burrows.

 

[Sean]

I followed the Arthur Freeman case closely, the jury could not reach a unanimous decision and went to the magistrate telling him so and asking him how they should proceed in this instance, this was on the 4th day of deliberations. On the 5th day it was reported in the news. Many jurors had been swayed by Burrows blatant lies. This is why there is so much anger regarding Burrows.

And it is justified.

But Freeman was convicted and (effectively) sentenced to life, and Burrow's credibility has taken a serious hit. No win there for either of them. Darcy gained some measure of justice. The real failing of the system, of society, that we did not prevent it happening in the first place.

 

[Tulip]

And it is justified.
The real failing of the system, of society, that we did not prevent it happening in the first place.

Unfortunately that will never change and it will continue, even with the proposed changes to the family law legislation. The Howard gov has a lot to answer for in regards to a spike of these types of events!.

 

[taniaaust1]

IF he was a socipath .. in a way they are mentally ill. They actually dont feel emotions like you or I. To be a socipath isnt something they asked to be.

Psychology IS a guessing game where one could go to different psychriastrists and end up with a heap of different diagnoses given. A con may get out of a court case or a schizophrenic may be missed as so much just relies on what the psychristrists "thinks" the issue is.

One thing I really disagree about courts is that often they wont allow mental health people who is familiar with a person and their mental health to testify while they get their so called psychriastrists to do a 45 min assessment who then becomes an authority on that person.

That happened to me when I went to court due to arson when I went to commit suicide by setting myself alight.. my own psychologist I'd been seeing way before i did the so called crime and still was seeing wasnt allowed to report my mental state.. while a stranger psych gave an assessment on me after less then an hr (while he also was dealing with phone calls over other people). To which he then reported that I would of been fine when the crime almost got committed and ignored completely that Ive had hallunications at times if I become very stressed .. a fact Ive previously was distressed over and my psychologist knew about before the near suicide. The whole court situation assessments are bullshit..

When I refused bail and went to jail (due to feeling like I was unable to cope at home so I wanted to go to jail to be looked after.. shrugs easier then being home cause in jail at least you can get nice meals when you are too sick to cook so what would to most be unrational becomes rational choices)... I met many there who shouldnt have been in jail at all... very obviously mentally ill people or with obvious issues with their brains.

The girl in the room next to me who also had a diagnosed personality disorder was having uncontrolled grand mal seizures several times daily in her cell which medication wasnt controlling and was worsening with time.. I think when I left she was having 12 seizures per day if not more ..and was like dr jeckle and mr hyde.. while another who had been in home care all her life, had been diagnosed as having the brain of an 8yr old but still went to jail for biting someone.. while another I could see was autistic but it obviously had gone undiagnosed).

Our poor mental health system is causing some to end up in jail who wouldnt be there otherwise. It is basically the dumping ground for those the medical system isnt helping and is ignoring. If they improve the mental health system, there would be less crime.

Here's another case in Australia from today.. which is quite typical of our mental health system (Ive been hung up on by them when I was suicidal and also at times told just to go take a bath) .. people are dying due to it http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8252600/killer-told-to-relax-and-take-a-shower