INTRODUCTION > Page 1

  In recent years there have been increasing numbers of high profile 'miscarriage of justice' cases reported in the media. Almost inevitably, the media has concentrated on the legal aspects of the individual's fight for justice.

  This paper focuses on the humanitarian aspects of this fight. How, for example, would an individual cope with being hauled off the street, charged, and subsequently convicted of a very serious offence he/she was innocent of? How would they motivate themselves to carry on when they don't even have the dubious consolation other prisoners have of having committed their offence? And in the cases where they are doing a life sentence, how would they deal with the fact that they will never be released whilst they are in denial?

  Further, and the main thrust of this paper, what is the emerging evidence that, unlike 'normal', guilty prisoners, the trauma of the experience of their imprisonment remains with 'miscarriage of justice' victims long after release.

  I will set out to investigate the link between man and his environment. I will explore the psychological impact of prison on guilty inmates to determine whether it is inevitable that they will deteriorate over time, to be finally released with lasting, irreversible, damage.If this were to be so, then there would be nothing unique in any lasting damage done to 'miscarriage of justice' victims. Finally, I will examine the evidence concerning enduring, psychological damage experienced by many 'miscarriage of justice' victims.

  There is an extensive literature concerning the legal aspects of the fight to free various innocent people, the petitions, the campaigns and the appeals. This is all largely irrelevant to my subject.

  In the 'literature review' section I review an extensive literature of both a psychological and sociological nature concerning men in prison who are guilty as charged. There is very little on the 'convicted innocent', apart from a recent report by Dr Adrian Grounds and one by the Home Office, both of which I review. My research extends and refines the conclusions reached in both these reports.

  In the 'methodology' section I outline my orienting theory of 'interpretive biography', the basis on which I conducted my research. I explain how I selected the members of both the control and sample groups and the special problems that arose in dealing with such people.

  There were clear ethical problems in dealing with men who had been through the traumatic experience of long term imprisonment. I address these issues in the 'ethics' section.

  The 'data analysis' section deals firstly wth the biographical summaries of interviews with three men who served long sentences, but were guilty as charged. It also includes my own autobiographical account of my 24 years in prison. We serve as a control group for comparison with the sample group.

  The biographical summaries of the interviews with the six men in the sample group are longer and more detailed. As with the data on the control group it was distilled from much longer interviews and other data gathered over many years of friendship and acquaintanceship.

  The 'analysis' is a final distillation of a process of selection and analysis inherent in my summarising process.

  The 'conclusion' details the pathology of four of the sample group's journey to serious mental breakdown. It establishes the dynamic link between man and his environment, yet argues that the prison environment causes little enduring damage to 'normal', guilty prisoners.. It lists several contributory  factors to breakdown inherent in the life-style the four forced themselves into in prison. Finally, the research unexpectedly reveals the 'trigger' which tipped them over the edge into enduring psychological trauma.