Bob Green
2006-Jul-23 06:39 UTC
[R] constructing a dataframe from a database of newspaper articles
I am hoping for some assistance with formatting a large text file which
consists of a series of individual records. Each record includes specific
labels/field names (a sample of 1 record (one of the longest ones) is
below - at end of post. What I want to do is reformat the data, so that
each individual record becomes a row (some cells will have a lot of text).
For example, the column variables I want are (a) HD in one column
(b) BY in one column (c) WC data in one column, (d) PD data in one
column, (e) SC data in one column (f) PG data in one column & g) LP and TD
text in one column - this column can contain quite a lot of text, e.g 1900
words. The other fields are unwanted
If there were 150 individual records, when formatted this would be a 7
column by 150 row dataset.
I was advised to:
1. read in the file using readLines giving a character vector one element
per input line.
2. convert that to lines of the form:
id op text
where each such line is a field and multiline fields have been collapsed
into a single line of text. This step involves
detailed processing and you could do it in a loop or you could try a
vectorized approach. A vectorized approach
will likely involve using
3. the lines created above could be converted to a data frame with three
columns and
4. reshape used to create a "wide" data frame.
5. then write it out using write.csv.
I have got as far as being able to read the text into R - I am unsure if
the warning is a problem. I am however, not at all sure what I need to do next.
Any assistance is much appreciated,
Bob
(A) syntax
mht <- scan(what="c:\\cm-mht1.txt").
readLines("c:\\cm-mht1.txt",n = -1)
[8376] "?? 2006 Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading as
Factiva). All "
[8377] "rights reserved.
"
Warning message:
incomplete final line found by readLines on 'c:\cm-mht1.txt'
(B) sample data
HD Was Charles Manson temporarily insane when he led a wild killing
rampage in the US in 1969?
BY By Deborah Cassrels.
WC 1834 words
PD 23 June 2001
SN Courier Mail
SC COUMAI
PG 30
LA English
CY (c) 2001 Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd
LP Was Charles Manson temporarily insane when he led a wild killing
rampage in the US in 1969? Clearly he was mad and bad. But would
Queensland have placed him before its Mental Health Tribunal, found
him of
unsound mind at the time of his crimes, institutionalised him and
"treated" his illness? WHY is Queensland the only jurisdiction
in the
Commonwealth with a Mental Health Tribunal which establishes if an
accused
is fit to face trial or of unsound mind at the time of an alleged
offence?
Why is mental incompetence not determined in an adversarial court by a
jury? Under the Mental Health Act 1974, the tribunal, a statutory body
operating since 1985, comprises three-yearly appointments of a Supreme
Court judge and two assisting psychiatrists, whose advice does not
have to
be accepted. The judge alone constitutes the tribunal, an inquisitorial
process conducted in the Supreme Court in Brisbane.
TD Victims or family are not notified of hearings or allowed to submit
victim impact statements. They are prohibited from talking to the media
until 28 days after the decision. And when patients return to the
community there is no requirement for neighbours or victims to be
notified. Is this legislation enlightened or are we just suckers,
falling
for time and money-saving strategies? The tribunal has earned a
reputation
as progressive, humane and economical among some judges who have
presided
over it. The inaugural chair, former Supreme Court judge Angelo
Vasta QC,
thinks the tribunal system is "enlightened" and "it saves
an enormous
amount of expenditure". He points to the humane side of treating the
ill
in a secure hospital rather than punishing them for offences but is
uncomfortable with borderline cases. "Whether people are mad or bad
ought
to be established by a very thorough investigation.
The associated Patient Review Tribunals (of which there are five)
consist
of three to six members, including the chair who is a legal officer, a
medical practitioner and a mental health professional. A
psychiatrist is
not required. The other three have no specific qualifications and can
include former patients. The tribunals operate in closed hearings and
patients of unsound mind or unfit for trial are reviewed every 12
months.
Leave is granted either by the Mental Health Tribunal or the Patient
Review Tribunal, which determine when a restricted patient is
discharged
into the community. Says the Director of Mental Health, Dr Peggy Brown:
"In the case of serious offences you can be assured the period of
monitoring is quite lengthy." Under the Mental Health Act 2000 to be
implemented late this year, the tribunal will be replaced by a Mental
Health Court and the Patient Review Tribunal by the Mental Health
Review
Tribunal. Queensland Health Minister Wendy Edmond says the name change
reflects transparency, with proceedings under oath and
cross-examination
of witnesses. The legislation represents "real change to the rights
of
victims of crime". But there is still an embargo on publishing
decisions
in the media.
Dr Brown says when patients are granted leave, victims or families can
apply to be notified but decisions will be made on individual cases.
"The
(new) tribunal has to establish that there are reasonable grounds
for the
notification order to be made ... and it's also an appealable
decision,"
returning to the Mental Health Court.
Brown says there are efficiencies in the new legislation but
"it's not
about saving money". The main advantages were that victims could
make
submissions to both bodies. Concerns still might not be addressed but
reasons were expected to be provided. The court's composition and
sole
power of the judge will be retained. Victims or relatives can be
notified
of hearings and decisions about the patient. If not, reasons must be
provided. The Patient Review Tribunals will be replaced by one tribunal
with hearings still closed. It will comprise up to five members
including
a president (a lawyer of at least seven years' standing),
psychiatrist or
medical practitioner and community members and it will be chaired by a
legal officer. Leave will be approved by the corresponding previous
bodies. Chief Justice Paul de Jersey who presided over the 1995 case of
Ross Farrah, a paranoid schizophrenic, who after murdering his
girlfriend,
Christine Nash, was allowed out of the John Oxley Centre to play
sport and
see movies, says the proposed legislative changes to the Mental
Health Act
appear to be "refinements". Two weeks ago, Nash's teenage
son Wade
committed suicide after suffering years of torment following his
mother's
murder. In May 1996, a letter was sent to the tribunal by now former
director of secure care services at John Oxley Dr Peter Fama. It said:
"Should Ross be committed to the Tribunal for trial on a charge of
manslaughter or murder, I have to report that he is now fit to be
placed
in corrective custody ... There is no clinical need for further
detention
of Ross in hospital." De Jersey has been involved in the process of
amendments in the new Act and believes the "adjustments" are
satisfactory:
"It's probably a question of how they're implemented. I
thought the
changes were more concerned with image than effecting substantial
change
to the system, calling it a court rather than a tribunal. There is some
attempt to enhance the openness of the procedures such as the advice
given
by the existing psychiatrists being revealed in open court to the judge
but they're aspects of streamlining rather than substantive
change." He
says many people are irked by a perceived disproportion between the
treatment of mentally ill offenders and their victims. "As a
community we
need much more positively to address the situation of victims." De
Jersey
points to the James Bulger murder in the UK eight years ago when two
10-year-old boys abducted and battered James, two, to death. The
killers
are expected to be freed soon. Says de Jersey: "Whatever one thinks
of
future plans for the young offenders it is extraordinary, if reportedly
correct, that so little help has been given to the bereft mother of the
murdered toddler. "Similarly, here, it is generally indefensible
where
victims or the families of victims are not informed of details of the
likely release of their offenders, and even before that where they
are not
given a proper explanation as to the process and counselling to help
them
comprehend that process and as well the consequences of the crime.
We are
as a community moving towards a greater focus on the position of
victims
but a lot more needs to be done. "The anguish of victims and the
families
of victims that insane offenders appear to escape punishment is
understandable. The issue is whether the community is prepared to
accept
that insane offenders primarily need treatment." The Mental Health
Tribunal worked on two assumptions, that offenders of unsound mind
should,
in the interests of the community, be treated rather than punished, and
that a determination whether an offender was of unsound mind could
responsibly be made by a Supreme Court judge with expert psychiatric
assistance. "I have wondered whether with the ultimately serious
crimes
such as murder the community may not reasonably demand that in the
interests of reassurance that the determination be made by a jury."
He
believes the community's longer term interests would best be served
by
medically treating insane offenders in a hospital rather than a prison,
where if rehabilitated, they could contribute to the community. "I
accept,
however, that in many cases there will be serious residual concern, for
example, can the offender be trusted, if left unsupervised, to
continue to
take the relevant medication?"
De Jersey admits problems have arisen when offenders, granted leave,
stopped taking medication but says if they can be relied upon to
maintain
stability through medication it would be inhumane to keep them
locked up.
Continued medical monitoring was necessary. If conditions were breached
the person should be returned to restricted custody at the psychiatric
hospital. While the most vulnerable in society deserve compassion it
does
not surprise there is public concern about lack of proper scrutiny, the
capacity to re-offend and misuse of the legal process by using
insanity as
a defence. IN the general quest to improve treatment provisions for
patients the 2000 Act says: "The new legislation provides for
involuntary
treatment in the community as an alternative to being an in-patient
in a
mental health service which reflects contemporary clinical practice and
the principle of reform that involuntary treatment must be in the least
restrictive form."
Perhaps the overwhelming feeling is patients' rights have priority
over
victims' rights. Ted Flack, spokesman for the Queensland Homicide
Victims
Support Group says the new Act provides a better environment for
victims'
participation, but there are serious flaws. The rights of homicide
victims
were not guaranteed and this caused an inordinate amount of distress.
"There's still considerable discretion in the hands of the
Mental
Health
Court and the Mental Health Review Tribunal as to whether they would
admit
any evidence from the victims. The new Act is framed in such a way
as to
provide guaranteed rights to the person who's suffering from a mental
illness and those rights come appropriately from the international
conventions, but there are similar international conventions for
victims
and they are being completely ignored in the Act." Flack says the
primary
purpose of the Mental Health Tribunal is to save money and to safeguard
the rights of the mentally disabled person. He believes the criminally
insane can be catered for properly in jail. "The imprecise science
of
psychiatry is not an appropriate set of guidelines for the release into
the community of dangerous killers," he says.
NS
GCAT : Political/General News | GCRIM : Crime/Courts | GHEA : Health |
GHOME : Law Enforcement
RE
AUSNZ : Australia and New Zealand | AUSTR : Australia
AN
Document coumai0020010710dx6n005vl
jim holtman
2006-Jul-23 17:17 UTC
[R] constructing a dataframe from a database of newspaper articles
I was going to suggest the you use PERL, but here is my attempt at keeping
it in R. This reads in each line, tried to determine if it has one of the
'separator' words at the beginning of the line and then constructs the
output.
mySeps <- c("HD", "BY", "WC", "PD",
"SC", "PG", "LP", "TD" ,
"SN", "LA", "CY") # section separators
myInc <- 0 # record number
foundHD <- FALSE
myFile <- file('c:/datafile.txt', 'r')
myRec <- list() # contains the data from each record
myOutput <- list() # list with each record
while(length(x <- readLines(myFile, n=1)) > 0){
first <- gsub("^\\s*(\\w <file://w/>+).*", "\\1
<file://0.0.0.1/>", x)
# get the first word
if (!foundHD){ # skip till HD found (assumes this is the start of the
article
if (first == "HD") foundHD <- TRUE
else next
}
if (first == "NS"){ # skip to next HD (assumes ND ignores the rest
foundHD <- FALSE
myOutput[[myInc <- myInc + 1]] <- myRec
myRec <- list()
next
}
if (first %in% mySeps){
myKey <- first # use at key to myRec
x <- sub(first, '', x)
}
myRec[[myKey]] <- paste(myRec[[myKey]], x) # collect data from each
mySep
}
# convert the list to 'long' dataframe for reshape
myResult <- NULL
for (i in 1:length(myOutput)){
.x <- cbind(i, names(myOutput[[i]]),
unlist(myOutput[[i]][names(myOutput[[i]])]))
myResult <- rbind(myResult, .x)
}
myDF <- as.data.frame(myResult)
myWide <- reshape(myDF, timevar="V2", idvar='i',
direction='wide')
On 7/23/06, Bob Green <bgreen@dyson.brisnet.org.au>
wrote:>
>
>
> I am hoping for some assistance with formatting a large text file which
> consists of a series of individual records. Each record includes specific
> labels/field names (a sample of 1 record (one of the longest ones) is
> below - at end of post. What I want to do is reformat the data, so that
> each individual record becomes a row (some cells will have a lot of text).
> For example, the column variables I want are (a) HD in one column
> (b) BY in one column (c) WC data in one column, (d) PD data in one
> column, (e) SC data in one column (f) PG data in one column & g) LP
and
> TD
> text in one column - this column can contain quite a lot of text, e.g1900
> words. The other fields are unwanted
>
> If there were 150 individual records, when formatted this would be a 7
> column by 150 row dataset.
>
> I was advised to:
>
> 1. read in the file using readLines giving a character vector one element
> per input line.
> 2. convert that to lines of the form:
> id op text
> where each such line is a field and multiline fields have been collapsed
> into a single line of text. This step involves
> detailed processing and you could do it in a loop or you could try a
> vectorized approach. A vectorized approach
> will likely involve using
> 3. the lines created above could be converted to a data frame with three
> columns and
> 4. reshape used to create a "wide" data frame.
> 5. then write it out using write.csv.
>
> I have got as far as being able to read the text into R - I am unsure if
> the warning is a problem. I am however, not at all sure what I need to do
> next.
>
> Any assistance is much appreciated,
>
>
> Bob
>
> (A) syntax
>
> mht <- scan(what="c:\\cm-mht1.txt").
> readLines("c:\\cm-mht1.txt",n = -1)
>
> [8376] "(c) 2006 Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading
as
> Factiva). All "
> [8377] "rights reserved.
> "
> Warning message:
> incomplete final line found by readLines on 'c:\cm-mht1.txt'
>
> (B) sample data
>
> HD Was Charles Manson temporarily insane when he led a wild killing
> rampage in the US in 1969?
> BY By Deborah Cassrels.
> WC 1834 words
> PD 23 June 2001
> SN Courier Mail
> SC COUMAI
> PG 30
> LA English
> CY (c) 2001 Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd
>
> LP Was Charles Manson temporarily insane when he led a wild killing
> rampage in the US in 1969? Clearly he was mad and bad. But would
> Queensland have placed him before its Mental Health Tribunal, found
> him of
> unsound mind at the time of his crimes, institutionalised him and
> "treated" his illness? WHY is Queensland the only
jurisdiction in
> the
> Commonwealth with a Mental Health Tribunal which establishes if an
> accused
> is fit to face trial or of unsound mind at the time of an alleged
> offence?
> Why is mental incompetence not determined in an adversarial court by
> a
> jury? Under the Mental Health Act 1974, the tribunal, a statutory
> body
> operating since 1985, comprises three-yearly appointments of a
> Supreme
> Court judge and two assisting psychiatrists, whose advice does not
> have to
> be accepted. The judge alone constitutes the tribunal, an
> inquisitorial
> process conducted in the Supreme Court in Brisbane.
>
> TD Victims or family are not notified of hearings or allowed to
> submit
> victim impact statements. They are prohibited from talking to the
> media
> until 28 days after the decision. And when patients return to the
> community there is no requirement for neighbours or victims to be
> notified. Is this legislation enlightened or are we just suckers,
> falling
> for time and money-saving strategies? The tribunal has earned a
> reputation
> as progressive, humane and economical among some judges who have
> presided
> over it. The inaugural chair, former Supreme Court judge Angelo
> Vasta QC,
> thinks the tribunal system is "enlightened" and "it
saves an
> enormous
> amount of expenditure". He points to the humane side of treating
the
> ill
> in a secure hospital rather than punishing them for offences but is
> uncomfortable with borderline cases. "Whether people are mad or
bad
> ought
> to be established by a very thorough investigation.
> The associated Patient Review Tribunals (of which there are five)
> consist
> of three to six members, including the chair who is a legal officer,
> a
> medical practitioner and a mental health professional. A
> psychiatrist is
> not required. The other three have no specific qualifications and
> can
> include former patients. The tribunals operate in closed hearings
> and
> patients of unsound mind or unfit for trial are reviewed every 12
> months.
> Leave is granted either by the Mental Health Tribunal or the Patient
> Review Tribunal, which determine when a restricted patient is
> discharged
> into the community. Says the Director of Mental Health, Dr Peggy
> Brown:
> "In the case of serious offences you can be assured the period
of
> monitoring is quite lengthy." Under the Mental Health Act 2000
to be
> implemented late this year, the tribunal will be replaced by a
> Mental
> Health Court and the Patient Review Tribunal by the Mental Health
> Review
> Tribunal. Queensland Health Minister Wendy Edmond says the name
> change
> reflects transparency, with proceedings under oath and
> cross-examination
> of witnesses. The legislation represents "real change to the
rights
> of
> victims of crime". But there is still an embargo on publishing
> decisions
> in the media.
> Dr Brown says when patients are granted leave, victims or families
> can
> apply to be notified but decisions will be made on individual cases.
> "The
> (new) tribunal has to establish that there are reasonable grounds
> for the
> notification order to be made ... and it's also an appealable
> decision,"
> returning to the Mental Health Court.
> Brown says there are efficiencies in the new legislation but
"it's
> not
> about saving money". The main advantages were that victims could
> make
> submissions to both bodies. Concerns still might not be addressed
> but
> reasons were expected to be provided. The court's composition and
> sole
> power of the judge will be retained. Victims or relatives can be
> notified
> of hearings and decisions about the patient. If not, reasons must be
> provided. The Patient Review Tribunals will be replaced by one
> tribunal
> with hearings still closed. It will comprise up to five members
> including
> a president (a lawyer of at least seven years' standing),
> psychiatrist or
> medical practitioner and community members and it will be chaired by
> a
> legal officer. Leave will be approved by the corresponding previous
> bodies. Chief Justice Paul de Jersey who presided over the 1995 case
> of
> Ross Farrah, a paranoid schizophrenic, who after murdering his
> girlfriend,
> Christine Nash, was allowed out of the John Oxley Centre to play
> sport and
> see movies, says the proposed legislative changes to the Mental
> Health Act
> appear to be "refinements". Two weeks ago, Nash's
teenage son Wade
> committed suicide after suffering years of torment following his
> mother's
> murder. In May 1996, a letter was sent to the tribunal by now former
> director of secure care services at John Oxley Dr Peter Fama. It
> said:
> "Should Ross be committed to the Tribunal for trial on a charge
of
> manslaughter or murder, I have to report that he is now fit to be
> placed
> in corrective custody ... There is no clinical need for further
> detention
> of Ross in hospital." De Jersey has been involved in the process
of
> amendments in the new Act and believes the "adjustments"
are
> satisfactory:
> "It's probably a question of how they're implemented. I
thought the
> changes were more concerned with image than effecting substantial
> change
> to the system, calling it a court rather than a tribunal. There is
> some
> attempt to enhance the openness of the procedures such as the advice
> given
> by the existing psychiatrists being revealed in open court to the
> judge
> but they're aspects of streamlining rather than substantive
change."
> He
> says many people are irked by a perceived disproportion between the
> treatment of mentally ill offenders and their victims. "As a
> community we
> need much more positively to address the situation of victims."
De
> Jersey
> points to the James Bulger murder in the UK eight years ago when two
> 10-year-old boys abducted and battered James, two, to death. The
> killers
> are expected to be freed soon. Says de Jersey: "Whatever one
thinks
> of
> future plans for the young offenders it is extraordinary, if
> reportedly
> correct, that so little help has been given to the bereft mother of
> the
> murdered toddler. "Similarly, here, it is generally indefensible
> where
> victims or the families of victims are not informed of details of
> the
> likely release of their offenders, and even before that where they
> are not
> given a proper explanation as to the process and counselling to help
> them
> comprehend that process and as well the consequences of the crime.
> We are
> as a community moving towards a greater focus on the position of
> victims
> but a lot more needs to be done. "The anguish of victims and the
> families
> of victims that insane offenders appear to escape punishment is
> understandable. The issue is whether the community is prepared to
> accept
> that insane offenders primarily need treatment." The Mental
Health
> Tribunal worked on two assumptions, that offenders of unsound mind
> should,
> in the interests of the community, be treated rather than punished,
> and
> that a determination whether an offender was of unsound mind could
> responsibly be made by a Supreme Court judge with expert psychiatric
> assistance. "I have wondered whether with the ultimately serious
> crimes
> such as murder the community may not reasonably demand that in the
> interests of reassurance that the determination be made by a
jury."
> He
> believes the community's longer term interests would best be
served
> by
> medically treating insane offenders in a hospital rather than a
> prison,
> where if rehabilitated, they could contribute to the community.
"I
> accept,
> however, that in many cases there will be serious residual concern,
> for
> example, can the offender be trusted, if left unsupervised, to
> continue to
> take the relevant medication?"
> De Jersey admits problems have arisen when offenders, granted leave,
> stopped taking medication but says if they can be relied upon to
> maintain
> stability through medication it would be inhumane to keep them
> locked up.
> Continued medical monitoring was necessary. If conditions were
> breached
> the person should be returned to restricted custody at the
> psychiatric
> hospital. While the most vulnerable in society deserve compassion it
> does
> not surprise there is public concern about lack of proper scrutiny,
> the
> capacity to re-offend and misuse of the legal process by using
> insanity as
> a defence. IN the general quest to improve treatment provisions for
> patients the 2000 Act says: "The new legislation provides for
> involuntary
> treatment in the community as an alternative to being an in-patient
> in a
> mental health service which reflects contemporary clinical practice
> and
> the principle of reform that involuntary treatment must be in the
> least
> restrictive form."
> Perhaps the overwhelming feeling is patients' rights have
priority
> over
> victims' rights. Ted Flack, spokesman for the Queensland Homicide
> Victims
> Support Group says the new Act provides a better environment for
> victims'
> participation, but there are serious flaws. The rights of homicide
> victims
> were not guaranteed and this caused an inordinate amount of
> distress.
> "There's still considerable discretion in the hands of the
Mental
> Health
> Court and the Mental Health Review Tribunal as to whether they would
> admit
> any evidence from the victims. The new Act is framed in such a way
> as to
> provide guaranteed rights to the person who's suffering from a
> mental
> illness and those rights come appropriately from the international
> conventions, but there are similar international conventions for
> victims
> and they are being completely ignored in the Act." Flack says
the
> primary
> purpose of the Mental Health Tribunal is to save money and to
> safeguard
> the rights of the mentally disabled person. He believes the
> criminally
> insane can be catered for properly in jail. "The imprecise
science
> of
> psychiatry is not an appropriate set of guidelines for the release
> into
> the community of dangerous killers," he says.
>
> NS
> GCAT : Political/General News | GCRIM : Crime/Courts | GHEA : Health
> |
> GHOME : Law Enforcement
>
> RE
> AUSNZ : Australia and New Zealand | AUSTR : Australia
>
> AN
> Document coumai0020010710dx6n005vl
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide
> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>
--
Jim Holtman
Cincinnati, OH
+1 513 646 9390
What is the problem you are trying to solve?
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
jim holtman
2006-Jul-23 18:51 UTC
[R] constructing a dataframe from a database of newspaper articles
Gabor indicated that a line was corrupted. Here is what it should be:
Here is the line again:
first <- gsub("^\\s*(\\w+).*", "\\1", x) # get the first
word
It as suppose to be '\\w+' and '\\1'
For some reason, my browser must have substituted the extreneous references.
On 7/23/06, Bob Green <bgreen@dyson.brisnet.org.au>
wrote:>
>
>
> I am hoping for some assistance with formatting a large text file which
> consists of a series of individual records. Each record includes specific
> labels/field names (a sample of 1 record (one of the longest ones) is
> below - at end of post. What I want to do is reformat the data, so that
> each individual record becomes a row (some cells will have a lot of text).
> For example, the column variables I want are (a) HD in one column
> (b) BY in one column (c) WC data in one column, (d) PD data in one
> column, (e) SC data in one column (f) PG data in one column & g) LP
and
> TD
> text in one column - this column can contain quite a lot of text, e.g1900
> words. The other fields are unwanted
>
> If there were 150 individual records, when formatted this would be a 7
> column by 150 row dataset.
>
> I was advised to:
>
> 1. read in the file using readLines giving a character vector one element
> per input line.
> 2. convert that to lines of the form:
> id op text
> where each such line is a field and multiline fields have been collapsed
> into a single line of text. This step involves
> detailed processing and you could do it in a loop or you could try a
> vectorized approach. A vectorized approach
> will likely involve using
> 3. the lines created above could be converted to a data frame with three
> columns and
> 4. reshape used to create a "wide" data frame.
> 5. then write it out using write.csv.
>
> I have got as far as being able to read the text into R - I am unsure if
> the warning is a problem. I am however, not at all sure what I need to do
> next.
>
> Any assistance is much appreciated,
>
>
> Bob
>
> (A) syntax
>
> mht <- scan(what="c:\\cm-mht1.txt").
> readLines("c:\\cm-mht1.txt",n = -1)
>
> [8376] "(c) 2006 Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading
as
> Factiva). All "
> [8377] "rights reserved.
> "
> Warning message:
> incomplete final line found by readLines on 'c:\cm-mht1.txt'
>
> (B) sample data
>
> HD Was Charles Manson temporarily insane when he led a wild killing
> rampage in the US in 1969?
> BY By Deborah Cassrels.
> WC 1834 words
> PD 23 June 2001
> SN Courier Mail
> SC COUMAI
> PG 30
> LA English
> CY (c) 2001 Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd
>
> LP Was Charles Manson temporarily insane when he led a wild killing
> rampage in the US in 1969? Clearly he was mad and bad. But would
> Queensland have placed him before its Mental Health Tribunal, found
> him of
> unsound mind at the time of his crimes, institutionalised him and
> "treated" his illness? WHY is Queensland the only
jurisdiction in
> the
> Commonwealth with a Mental Health Tribunal which establishes if an
> accused
> is fit to face trial or of unsound mind at the time of an alleged
> offence?
> Why is mental incompetence not determined in an adversarial court by
> a
> jury? Under the Mental Health Act 1974, the tribunal, a statutory
> body
> operating since 1985, comprises three-yearly appointments of a
> Supreme
> Court judge and two assisting psychiatrists, whose advice does not
> have to
> be accepted. The judge alone constitutes the tribunal, an
> inquisitorial
> process conducted in the Supreme Court in Brisbane.
>
> TD Victims or family are not notified of hearings or allowed to
> submit
> victim impact statements. They are prohibited from talking to the
> media
> until 28 days after the decision. And when patients return to the
> community there is no requirement for neighbours or victims to be
> notified. Is this legislation enlightened or are we just suckers,
> falling
> for time and money-saving strategies? The tribunal has earned a
> reputation
> as progressive, humane and economical among some judges who have
> presided
> over it. The inaugural chair, former Supreme Court judge Angelo
> Vasta QC,
> thinks the tribunal system is "enlightened" and "it
saves an
> enormous
> amount of expenditure". He points to the humane side of treating
the
> ill
> in a secure hospital rather than punishing them for offences but is
> uncomfortable with borderline cases. "Whether people are mad or
bad
> ought
> to be established by a very thorough investigation.
> The associated Patient Review Tribunals (of which there are five)
> consist
> of three to six members, including the chair who is a legal officer,
> a
> medical practitioner and a mental health professional. A
> psychiatrist is
> not required. The other three have no specific qualifications and
> can
> include former patients. The tribunals operate in closed hearings
> and
> patients of unsound mind or unfit for trial are reviewed every 12
> months.
> Leave is granted either by the Mental Health Tribunal or the Patient
> Review Tribunal, which determine when a restricted patient is
> discharged
> into the community. Says the Director of Mental Health, Dr Peggy
> Brown:
> "In the case of serious offences you can be assured the period
of
> monitoring is quite lengthy." Under the Mental Health Act 2000
to be
> implemented late this year, the tribunal will be replaced by a
> Mental
> Health Court and the Patient Review Tribunal by the Mental Health
> Review
> Tribunal. Queensland Health Minister Wendy Edmond says the name
> change
> reflects transparency, with proceedings under oath and
> cross-examination
> of witnesses. The legislation represents "real change to the
rights
> of
> victims of crime". But there is still an embargo on publishing
> decisions
> in the media.
> Dr Brown says when patients are granted leave, victims or families
> can
> apply to be notified but decisions will be made on individual cases.
> "The
> (new) tribunal has to establish that there are reasonable grounds
> for the
> notification order to be made ... and it's also an appealable
> decision,"
> returning to the Mental Health Court.
> Brown says there are efficiencies in the new legislation but
"it's
> not
> about saving money". The main advantages were that victims could
> make
> submissions to both bodies. Concerns still might not be addressed
> but
> reasons were expected to be provided. The court's composition and
> sole
> power of the judge will be retained. Victims or relatives can be
> notified
> of hearings and decisions about the patient. If not, reasons must be
> provided. The Patient Review Tribunals will be replaced by one
> tribunal
> with hearings still closed. It will comprise up to five members
> including
> a president (a lawyer of at least seven years' standing),
> psychiatrist or
> medical practitioner and community members and it will be chaired by
> a
> legal officer. Leave will be approved by the corresponding previous
> bodies. Chief Justice Paul de Jersey who presided over the 1995 case
> of
> Ross Farrah, a paranoid schizophrenic, who after murdering his
> girlfriend,
> Christine Nash, was allowed out of the John Oxley Centre to play
> sport and
> see movies, says the proposed legislative changes to the Mental
> Health Act
> appear to be "refinements". Two weeks ago, Nash's
teenage son Wade
> committed suicide after suffering years of torment following his
> mother's
> murder. In May 1996, a letter was sent to the tribunal by now former
> director of secure care services at John Oxley Dr Peter Fama. It
> said:
> "Should Ross be committed to the Tribunal for trial on a charge
of
> manslaughter or murder, I have to report that he is now fit to be
> placed
> in corrective custody ... There is no clinical need for further
> detention
> of Ross in hospital." De Jersey has been involved in the process
of
> amendments in the new Act and believes the "adjustments"
are
> satisfactory:
> "It's probably a question of how they're implemented. I
thought the
> changes were more concerned with image than effecting substantial
> change
> to the system, calling it a court rather than a tribunal. There is
> some
> attempt to enhance the openness of the procedures such as the advice
> given
> by the existing psychiatrists being revealed in open court to the
> judge
> but they're aspects of streamlining rather than substantive
change."
> He
> says many people are irked by a perceived disproportion between the
> treatment of mentally ill offenders and their victims. "As a
> community we
> need much more positively to address the situation of victims."
De
> Jersey
> points to the James Bulger murder in the UK eight years ago when two
> 10-year-old boys abducted and battered James, two, to death. The
> killers
> are expected to be freed soon. Says de Jersey: "Whatever one
thinks
> of
> future plans for the young offenders it is extraordinary, if
> reportedly
> correct, that so little help has been given to the bereft mother of
> the
> murdered toddler. "Similarly, here, it is generally indefensible
> where
> victims or the families of victims are not informed of details of
> the
> likely release of their offenders, and even before that where they
> are not
> given a proper explanation as to the process and counselling to help
> them
> comprehend that process and as well the consequences of the crime.
> We are
> as a community moving towards a greater focus on the position of
> victims
> but a lot more needs to be done. "The anguish of victims and the
> families
> of victims that insane offenders appear to escape punishment is
> understandable. The issue is whether the community is prepared to
> accept
> that insane offenders primarily need treatment." The Mental
Health
> Tribunal worked on two assumptions, that offenders of unsound mind
> should,
> in the interests of the community, be treated rather than punished,
> and
> that a determination whether an offender was of unsound mind could
> responsibly be made by a Supreme Court judge with expert psychiatric
> assistance. "I have wondered whether with the ultimately serious
> crimes
> such as murder the community may not reasonably demand that in the
> interests of reassurance that the determination be made by a
jury."
> He
> believes the community's longer term interests would best be
served
> by
> medically treating insane offenders in a hospital rather than a
> prison,
> where if rehabilitated, they could contribute to the community.
"I
> accept,
> however, that in many cases there will be serious residual concern,
> for
> example, can the offender be trusted, if left unsupervised, to
> continue to
> take the relevant medication?"
> De Jersey admits problems have arisen when offenders, granted leave,
> stopped taking medication but says if they can be relied upon to
> maintain
> stability through medication it would be inhumane to keep them
> locked up.
> Continued medical monitoring was necessary. If conditions were
> breached
> the person should be returned to restricted custody at the
> psychiatric
> hospital. While the most vulnerable in society deserve compassion it
> does
> not surprise there is public concern about lack of proper scrutiny,
> the
> capacity to re-offend and misuse of the legal process by using
> insanity as
> a defence. IN the general quest to improve treatment provisions for
> patients the 2000 Act says: "The new legislation provides for
> involuntary
> treatment in the community as an alternative to being an in-patient
> in a
> mental health service which reflects contemporary clinical practice
> and
> the principle of reform that involuntary treatment must be in the
> least
> restrictive form."
> Perhaps the overwhelming feeling is patients' rights have
priority
> over
> victims' rights. Ted Flack, spokesman for the Queensland Homicide
> Victims
> Support Group says the new Act provides a better environment for
> victims'
> participation, but there are serious flaws. The rights of homicide
> victims
> were not guaranteed and this caused an inordinate amount of
> distress.
> "There's still considerable discretion in the hands of the
Mental
> Health
> Court and the Mental Health Review Tribunal as to whether they would
> admit
> any evidence from the victims. The new Act is framed in such a way
> as to
> provide guaranteed rights to the person who's suffering from a
> mental
> illness and those rights come appropriately from the international
> conventions, but there are similar international conventions for
> victims
> and they are being completely ignored in the Act." Flack says
the
> primary
> purpose of the Mental Health Tribunal is to save money and to
> safeguard
> the rights of the mentally disabled person. He believes the
> criminally
> insane can be catered for properly in jail. "The imprecise
science
> of
> psychiatry is not an appropriate set of guidelines for the release
> into
> the community of dangerous killers," he says.
>
> NS
> GCAT : Political/General News | GCRIM : Crime/Courts | GHEA : Health
> |
> GHOME : Law Enforcement
>
> RE
> AUSNZ : Australia and New Zealand | AUSTR : Australia
>
> AN
> Document coumai0020010710dx6n005vl
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide
> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>
--
Jim Holtman
Cincinnati, OH
+1 513 646 9390
What is the problem you are trying to solve?
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]