METHODOLOGY > ETHICS > Page 9

  I chose these particular men in the control group because I knew them well in prison and, having become friends, continued to see them 'outside'. This gave me the advantage of being able to check their accounts against what I had myself observed about them.     

  There are six biographical accounts of a sample group of 'miscarriage of justice' victims. They are based on unstructured interviews I conducted with them as well as on other information I had gleaned over the years. I chose them carefully. Usually, 'prison-wise' prisoners, plugged into the 'grapevine', come to know those who are truly innocent.

  I was well aware that all of these men had suffered terribly at the hands of the State, so I approached each interview with extreme caution. They would be naturally antagonistic to anything that smacked of 'officialdom'. This is why I excluded both questionnaires and a highly structured approach.

  I was aided by the fact that some of the men I knew personally, others were friends of friends, all had read one or more of my books, or had seen or heard media performances where I had talked about criminal justice issues. Further, for many years I, too, had fought the prison system. The point I am making is that I was not viewed as a threat by these men, as some kind of agent of the State that had harmed them so much already. There was a high degree of trust.

  Finally, in view of the fact that I had shared many of their experiences myself, I was able to judge the degree of accuracy of their accounts.

  I chose anonymization in the cases of the three men in the control group, using imaginary first names. Their sentences long behind them, they could be embarrassed by public disclosure now. This was not the case with the sample group. All had had recent, widespread publicity in the media. Many were active in publicising their own cases or those of 'miscarriage of justice' victims still in prison. Anonymity was not an issue for them.

 ETHICS

Any research investigating psychological trauma in men who have suffered the rigours of long term imprisonment, whether innocent or guilty, would be extremely negligent to ignore the possible harm such investigation could do. Having suffered similar trauma myself, I was well aware of areas that could be problematic. At all times the welfare of my fellow ex-prisoners was at the forefront of my research. In each case I took special precautions.

  With regard to Paddy Hill for instance, I had known him in prison; we had several friends in common and I had attended several functions involving the 'Miscarriage of Justice Organization' (MOJO) with him. Not only was he a founding member of MOJO, he regularly spoke publicly about his own experience of wrongful imprisonment. Even so, following my interviews with him I informed another member of MOJO in order that she could check that he was alright. In every case, following an interview, I would get some mutual friend to check that the interviewee was okay.

  All of the interviewees were enthusiastic about assisting my research, feeling that it was their duty to bring the plight of 'miscarriage of justice' victims to the attention of the public. Some were quite evangelical in their zeal to promote such knowledge themselves. In every case I was confident that their consent to participate was informed consent.