Tuesday, 7 May 2013

How To Create Targets

There's been a segment on Channel 4 News about crimes against Autistics, citing the case of Adrian Palmer who was allegedly raped and later killed in a separate incident. His case is said to be extreme but all cases are extreme when allowed to run to their inevitable conclusion. Before it gets to that, it's a constant unending stream of 'low level' abuse that doesn't seem to warrant reporting and that is what the police say when they are called.

One of the infuriating aspects is the reason given by the CPS for why they did not take the rape allegation seriously: ""He was not a credible witness due to his mental health issues".
There is nothing to suggest Adrian was ever diagnosed with any mental health condition. His diagnoses was Asperger's Syndrome, which is no more a mental health condition than Diabetes is an eating disorder. The same applies to other conditions he had- ADHD, Dyspraxia and Raynaud's Syndrome. There doesn't appear to be any ethical of professional obligation on the part of the CPS to explain their reasons for making the extraordinary conclusions about Adrian that they do. Given that both the CPS and the IPCC couldn't even be bothered to check the correct spelling of Raynaud's sometimes, I'm presuming a lack of rigour even after the fact. Having been handed a flawed case file, I'm not criticising them for their decision not to prosecute- that seems to be correct. But in that decision they include unsupported claims about Adrian.

A further read of the IPCC report reveals that the CPS cited the ruling that Adrian was unfit to enter a plea in court when being prosecuted for vehicle theft, which was based on a psychologist's report. The IPCC notes:
The investigation into West Mercia Police’s investigation into
Adrian’s allegation began by obtaining a copy of the file submitted to
the Crown Prosecution Service. The file contained a number of
documents:
It then lists the documents. They do not include the psychologist's report. An attempt was made, but they did not see it. They made generalisations about someone's health and mental faculties without ever reading a clinical opinion on it, only a legal opinion based on one.

Throughout, a familiar theme is presented- an Autistic is someone who does random things at random times and for no reason that can be communicated and understood. In a report which is supposed to be one of those 'learning lessons' exercises, it makes damn well sure to unethically represent an Autistic person(and by proxy all Autistic people) in a light that makes them not only a target, but seemingly a justifiable target.

No comments:

Post a Comment