An exploration of Criminal Justice

I was going to wait until the final part of Criminal Justice before I scribbled down my own review. But the gloves are off accompanied by a war of words that has started between Peter Moffat (writer of Criminal Justice) and Timothy Dutton QC (Chair of the Bar Council).

My own take on the 5 parter shown each night is from a lay-person’s understanding of the criminal justice system. The story revolves around Ben Coulter, a young man driving around in his dad’s black cab when a young woman called Melanie, preoccupied with her own thoughts, wanders into his cab in the mistake that it is for hire. They end up driving to the seaside, eating ice cream in the dead of night and getting to know each other. They end up back at her place, where they drink, take drugs and have sex.

Ben wakes up in another room of the flat, staggers into the bedroom to get his things together and say goodbye to Melanie. Yet Melanie is dead, a single stab wound, her lifeless body stretched out on the bed. The beginning of Ben’s Kafkaesque journey into hell.

We see Ben being arrested with the murder weapon concealed on him which inevitably brings the criminal justice into his life at full throttle. A array of legal eagles from the legal aid solicitor who tells him to say “no comment” in the initial police interview to the barrister who gives a false defence in court. 

The paternal middle-aged cop running the case who takes evidence from the crime scene, the old lag who takes Ben under his wing, the head honcho of the wing, the bullying prisoner, the ambivalent screws, cynical legal aid solicitor, rookie barrister and so on. And that’s the main problem with this drama, the stereotypes. The script has been described as realistic and powerful but I can’t get beyond “Porridge meets Shawshank” and maybe that’s unfair.

It is not that the characters wouldn’t exist in real life but I don’t understand why Moffat had to reduce them to mere stereotypes that are rendered one-dimensional. It is shame that Moffat couldn’t have crafted more nuanced believable characters. But in saying that Ben Whishaw stands out as Ben Coulter. His depiction of a man who life turns upside down in a short time is believable.

The other slight problem I have with the storyline is why Moffat has to add a whodunit twist. I understand this is part of the plot device as Ben can’t remember what happened that night hence all the trials and tribulations shown by his various defence team in how to plea. Ben becomes visibly frustrated as he believes he isn’t allowed to tell his side of the story and that his defence team put words into his mouth.

Yet Ben’s truth is complicated and not straightforward as he can’t recall what happened after he had sex with Melanie. Is he a rapist murderer as the prosecution argue or an innocent man who was in the wrong place at the wrong time?

It is interesting how the cops hone in on Ben and because, from their point of view, he is carrying the murder weapon. Case closed, no need to extend any further investigation (and this has obvious echoes in real life) including anyone else who had reason to harm Melanie such as a violent ex partner.

And that leads me to the character of Melanie, peripheral but central, their ill fated meeting underpins the whole story and the dramatic tension (and again the viewer gets only a fleeting glimpse of Melanie…who is she?).

Back to the arguments between Moffat and Dutton, there’s a very good article written by Eric Allison who, rightly, points out that miscarriages of justices don’t just arise out of corrupt and dishonest cops and prejudiced judiciary but an incompetent defence team as well. And like in all professions, there are good dedicated solictors who fight for their clients corner and there’s the inept, unethical and exploitative ones.

Why couldn’t Moffat have created a simple story of some young man/woman who gets caught up in the criminal justice system and witnessing their lives spiralling downwards. Someone who gets in too deep (and it doesn’t have to murder/manslaughter… petty crime) who may already be vulnerable, who ends up banged up. Where we see the overcrowding, distress, self-harming and so on. In other words, exposing the squalid and brutal nature of the criminal justice system that uses prisons as social dustbins for the vulnerable and f*cked up.

A storyline that replicates the current situation without the twisty turning whodunit. A storyline that also highlights the authoritarian ideology of NL that has created a climate of ASBOisation and criminalisation along with cuts in criminal legal aid that will inevitably lead to miscarriages of justice.

HFE Bill: further amendments

 

Just got word that there is a provisional date (14th July) for the remaining stages of the HFE Bill. Three amendments have been tabled:

Pro-choice amendment (new Clause 1) tabled by Evan Harris and Chris McCafferty – Removal of two doctors requirment

Pro-choice amendment (new Clause 2) tabled by Evan Harris and Frank Dobson – Allowing nurses and midwives to administer early abortions.

Anti-choice amendment (new Clause 3) tabled by Nadine Dorries – Reducing abortion time limits to 20 weeks.

And now to lobby your MP…..

Depressing news, in the past week, from the States where a ruling will force doctors in South Dakota to tell women seeking an abortion that it will, “terminate the life of a whole, separate, distinct, living human being.” The attacks on women’s reproductive rights are unrelenting.

As the article states this has to serve as a wake up call for pro-choice activists as the anti-abortionists will not stop.

The double-standards and minimisation of rape

Two posts I have read today regarding sexual violence. Louise at the F Word highlights the perception of sexual violence is minimised, while riddled with sexist double standards and moral judgements.

While Unity at Liberal Conspiracy looks at the stats on rape, reporting, criminal justice system and the cuts in service provision for women who have been raped (argues that there is a possibility of using the impending Equalities Bill and anti-discrimination legislation in getting councils and the government to provide and prioritise these services).

I found both posts very interesting and useful because they highlight the ever present double-standards prevalent in this society and also that sexual violence is still semi hidden. That majority of sexual assaults are committed by someone the woman knows and trusts i.e. a partner.

While reading the book Rape: a history from 1860 to the present by Joanna Bourke, I was constantly struck by the similarity of the myths connected to rape.

We may have moved on historically and made political gains but the myths surrounding rape still exist and pervade this society. As Bourke reiterates, only 5% of rapes ever end in conviction. Do we even know the true figure of how many women experience sexual violence?

But this does impact on a woman by internalising the feelings of self-doubt, self-loathing, and disbelief perpetuated by the myths and perception that exist. At the very core, “it was all my fault”.  I know, I have experienced it myself and for many years tried to push it at the back of my mind yet it persisted, gnawed away at my own very being and eventually found a voice and the courage that could articulate that brutal and violent experience of rape.

And yet…and yet with societal pressures and conditioning, even with my political insight and feminism it seemed so contradictorily and hard to admit to a crime done against me and to state the simple fact: “It was not my fault”. Now I just feel angry and that’s more powerful, for me, as opposed to the silence and self-blame. But that’s just me and my own experience.

Unity mentions 3 members of the Welsh assembly admitting in a questionnaire that they had been raped but didn’t report it. Why? It is still an uphill struggle for women to report rape and sexual assaults. There are numerous obstacles from the idea of “grey rape” where a woman is in a situation where she never intended to have sex but wound-up being forced into it, “because until that point, they’d been a willing participant” to “sexual familiarity”, where the woman knows the attacker, is treated with more leniency and is used in mitigation. And up until 1994 there was the misogynist Corrobation Rule where a judge would warn a jury in a rape case of a woman’s dishonesty and that she may have a tendency to lie. Research was carried regarding this rule and it was shown that juries were annoyed by being told this and the judge’s warning actually backfired.

There is a major problem with reporting, evidence gathering and conviction rates for rape. We are seeing an increase in blaming the woman ‘cos she was drunk, ‘cos she had been a willing participant, and so on.

And rape crisis centres are disappearing due to lack of funding and other support centres that deal with sexual violence are being starved of funding. There are, shamefully, 50% less rape crisis centres now than in 1985! These centres are a lifeline for many women to get practical help and support. And a safe place where a woman is listened to.

The excuses piled onto women who have experienced sexual violence, reflects dominant sexist ideology that women still “ask for it”. It also creates ambiguities that aren’t there and de-politicises rape as well. We need to move beyond this and stop this incessant “woman blaming”.