Difference between Clinical and Forensic Psychology - Research Paper Example

? Difference between clinical and forensic psychology in doing evaluation and treatment Task Difference between clinical and forensic psychology in doing evaluation and treatment Introduction Psychology involves the learning and appraising of human behavior in order to understand their causes and consequences. Clinical and forensic evaluations are psychology disciplines applied in the investigation of human behavior. There are fundamental variations between Clinical therapy and Forensic psychology. Differences emanate from the scope of assessment, the definition of the client, confidentiality and voluntary nature of the process (Plante, 2011). Both psychologists have a role in analyzing the mental credibility of a patient. The clinical psychology entails the traditional system of analyzing human behavior by a professional in an attempt to help people adjust. Clinical psychology is more patient oriented, and its major goal is to treat the patient through focused intervention (Walker 2011). The forensic psychology guides the legal processes by analyzing the psychological aspects of a court victim. It is the meeting point between psychology and law whereby psychologists testify in courts (Edinformatics,1999). This is to assess the mental credibility of the court victims relevant to the case and inform the court’s decision. Their major focus is not to treat but to give the court their psychiatric opinion relevant to a case. However, Clinical psychologists are summoned to give evidence in court whereby they become forensic psychologists. Moreover, forensic psychologist can recommend treatment as part of his conclusions. A forensic psychologist need not be a specialist in forensics; they can be a specialist in any other branch of psychology. They are regarded as expert witnesses whose findings are critical in ruling out the credibility of witnesses and the mental status of the accused. Comparisons and contrast Similarities They are both branches of neuropsychology that assess the association between brain capabilities and behavior. Both psychologists assess issues related to the brain stability and brain damage to analyze human behavior. They evaluate how an individual performs a task and its impacts to the victim and the society. The conclusions are based on the background knowledge on brain functions and specifically the wellbeing of the brain organs and their functions that influence behavior (Plante 2011). Huss (2009) asserts that both Clinical and Forensic therapy apply inferential applications to achieve their means. Any human behavior is associated with a definite fraction of the brain. Inferences are made through testing an individual’s behavior and comparing it with the expected performance. The analysts assess the developmental or acquired challenges or advantages that influence daily behavior. They compare these analyses with expected normalcy and draw inferences (Walker & Shapiro 2011). Additionally, they assess the causes by analyzing the mechanical, socio-cultural and environmental factors likely to inform the behavior. Mechanical factors entail severe brain damages emanating from falls or accidents that impair the brain affecting its functions. Socio -cultural factors entail social issues such as of racism, culture shock and esteem issues that compromise the behavior and reasoning of an individual while the environmental factors involve factors in a person’s surroundings such as disease causing agents and depressing situations. Disease causing agents such as exposure to harmful mould and dangerous chemicals such as lead and mercury may affect the brain functions (Goldstein, 2003). Forensic psychology is focused at providing psychiatric services in legal circles without compromising the intensity and validity of clinical psychology (Edinformatics, 1999). The goal of the forensic psychology is not to treat the patient but may make recommendations on their conclusive remarks that may realize the well-being of a patient. Both professions are qualified by training to diagnose issues related to the brain and the nerves system. They use known stakes to assess the IQ viability, psychotic behavior and paranoia (Fulero & Wrightsman 2009). Moreover, they utilize scientific approaches used in cognitive psychology to assess the mental viability of individuals. They are broad fields of practice that use sensitive psychoanalytic tools to quantify ability, assess difficulty and draw conclusions about mental worthiness of an individual. Both psychological assessments help to serve a major function in informing the society about cognitive and mental problems. Contrasts between Clinical Psychology and Forensic Psychology Forensic evaluation is narrow in scope and focus while the clinical evaluation is broad and professionally inclined. This is because the forensic evaluation is impartial and detached with the clients health needs (Edinformatics, 1999). Moreover, it relies on third parties for information because it focuses on legal expectations and analyses associated with a court client. In Clinical psychology, patients seek help voluntarily hence; the terms and contents of treatment are confidential (Plante 2011). Treatment is more comprehensive and focused as it applies different theoretical approaches unique for individual cases. Moreover, the goal of the therapy is to attain the ultimate wellbeing of the client. In this case, the client is the person suffering from psychological problems. Clinical psychologists ask personal questions that focus on determining the problem triggers and its impacts to the patient with a focus of diagnosing the problem. Furthermore, Clinical evaluators focus on establishing a relationship with their clients that will help them in the treatment process (Walker 2011). Forensic psychology has an intimate association with the law. It is used to analyze the validity of evidence and the motivations behind actions. An attorney has the authority to collect findings in a forensic analysis; however, other interested parties can get the copy on request. Therefore, there is no confidentiality with the handling of information limiting the discretion with the examinee. The attorneys connected to a specific case can request for the analysis results of the examinee. Moreover, the process is not voluntary even with the informed consent by the examinee. This is because it is performed on court request. The client of a forensic evaluator is the attorney or judge who requested for the evaluation (Fulero & Wrightsman 2009). Thus, the evaluator has no interest with the treatment of the client. His interest is to deliver his opinion to his client (Attorney). This is because his diagnostics are for legal information requested by the court. The contrast with clinical evaluation focuses further on therapy of the patient. Consequently, the relationship between the evaluator and the examinee is different. Forensic psychologists are employed to assess civil and criminal cases involving competency, marital problems, parental responsibly, criminal behavior that will guide evidence in a court. Conversely, the clinical psychologists are employed in general hospitals, rehabilitation facilities, schools and chemical dependency facilities (Walker & Shapiro 2011). Clinical psychology employs broad perspectives of analyzing a victim’s personality to determine qualification to therapeutic treatment. Treatment entails forming a relationship to assess the cognitive aptitude of a client. Concurrently, forensic evaluation is focused on meeting attorney’s requests hence it may be biased to give the answers anticipated by the jury. The information in Clinical evaluations is applied at the client’s best interest; hence, issues of validity and confidentiality are certain (Walker 2011). Moreover, the nature of questions asked in legal psychology focus on assessing the competency of victims prior to trial. The questions differ immensely from the questions asked in clinical psychology based on diverse agendas. Clinical psychologists aim at diagnosing and offering comprehensive treatment. Therefore, they ask client centered questions that will lead to the diagnosis of the mental problem experienced. Conversely, forensic psychologists enquire on legal questions relevant to a case at hand. They attest the mental competence of individuals prior to standing for trial and provide referral information used in litigation (Fulero & Wrightsman, 2009). The diagnostics are based on legal statutes that define proper behavior in the legal context. The remarks of the psychologists become the focus of evaluation for the case. Forensic evaluation helps to assess the attitude and validity of claims by assessing the actions, behavior and the mental credibility of the examinee (Goldstein, 2003). Consequently, Clinical therapists rely on their client as the primary source of information; however, the Forensic therapist seeks collaborated information because they cannot trust the word of the examinee. Therefore, they seek consistency of information across multifaceted approaches that involve information from third parties. Unlike the Forensic evaluators, clinical therapists rely on the examinee as the critical source of information and use his diagnostics as the initial information source. It is supportive and impartial to the client’s needs with a broad professional basis. Forensic psychoanalysts are commonly prejudiced in favor of their clients. However, forensic experts are dedicated to a candid and objective reporting to the attorneys. These often breeds conflict of interests hence they may be unethical and biased. They address psycho-legal behaviors that assess the psychodynamics, intelligence and excuses for conduct by court clients (Walker & Shapiro 2011). Cases in criminal and civil cases Psychologist’s participation is necessary in enhancing efficiency when resolving criminal and civil cases. In a courtroom, judicial officers usually base their decision using the findings from forensic psychology. For instance, in criminology clinical psychologists assist in handling patients suffering from mental illnesses. The psychologist in this case focuses on providing the solution to patients suffering from psychological ailments (Huss, 2009). Criminal and civil cases can equally be resolved using clinical psychology apart from relying on forensic psychology. Forensic psychology is different from clinical psychology by focusing on evaluations and consultations in solving legal cases. This makes it easier to resolve criminal cases effectively by forensic techniques because of the investigative nature of forensic psychology (Fulero & Wrightsman, 2009). For instance, forensic psychology assists in resolving heinous acts that cannot be resolved using non-scientific methods of investigation. Clinical psychology facilitates documentation of legal proceedings based on facts. Notably, the processes involved in forensic psychology facilitate the interpretation of information from clinical psychologist. According to Fulero & Wrightsman (2009), forensic psychologist assists legal practitioners in devising laws for delivering justice in the society. As such, the enforcers of law learn of the advanced methods to handling criminal behaviors in the society. It is interesting that both clinical and forensic psychology assists in handling cases of various natures. In most cases, forensic psychology resolves criminal cases. The information is gathered with the intention of conducting a forensic investigation for a criminal case. Moreover, forensic psychology assists in evaluating civil cases such as domestic violence since conducting forensic psychology requires huge amounts of capitals. In both cases, there is an evaluation of information gathered. Thereafter, the information acts as evidence for settling a case in the preceding situations. Generally, forensic psychology assists in solving criminal cases more than civil cases. There is a common goal to be attained in clinical and forensic psychology regardless of the nature of the case being solved. According to Huss (2009), clinical psychologists have the ability of devising strategies for eliminating criminal acts in the society. Using their knowledge on forensic technology, the psychologists are capable of detecting a crime before it advances to catastrophic levels in the society. As a result, the process reduces the burden to the legal system because a sentence passed fairly (Huss, 2009). Moreover, the channels that could have been followed in establishing the truth in a crime are advanced because forensic psychology utilizes scientific approach to coming up with a solution to a given case. The legal systems are able to handle criminal cases using therapeutic approaches taught in clinical psychology. The relationship amid psychology and the legal systems is visible in forensic psychology. It is fundamental to relate cases in coming up with an elaborative forensic psychology (Fulero & Wrightsman, 2009). Judges with the knowledge of psychology have the capability of evaluating crime cases rationally. In cases where the judge is not a psychologist, he will consult a clinical or a forensic psychologist in coming up with an evaluation for investigations. Different from forensic psychology, in clinical psychology, the focus is on analyzing a situation. Interestingly, the findings of forensic psychology are presented to the public while, in clinical evaluation, the findings are confidential to the patient. Ethical issues Forensic psychologist should simplify their responses when answering technical legal questions. Ethically it is wrong to communicate a message to people using technical terms in a court session. A simple language facilitates communication when analyzing a situation (Plante, 2011). Forensic psychology facilitates the assessment of the competency of the accused in resolving a case in a court of law based on forensic psychology. Moreover, forensic psychologists suggest to the judge sentencing from a psychological perspective. Henceforth it is an opportunity for enhancing fairness in settling judgment in a criminal case. It is difficult to establish what is morally right or wrong in forensic science. However, it is interesting that people are able to decide collectively on the ethical practices in forensic science (Plante, 2011). Moreover, a collectivist approach ensures fairness in the society. As such, the offenders’ perspective is considered in analyzing a criminal case. The accused can argue basing on tangible evidence because, in forensic psychology, the person has the right to present his facts for the case. It is difficult to restructure the traditional legal system to conform to the modern systems in forensic sciences, as the process is alien to conducting investigations (Goldstein, 2003). Despite the challenges, forensic psychology is preferred for conducting investigations nowadays. The judges ought to understand the scientific processes of investigation in conducting their activities; instead, the judicial officers should concentrate in administering justice by focusing on the studies of forensic psychology. Reimbursing patients in clinical psychology proves that it is not as commercialized as forensic psychology. There has been an increase in the number of those informed of the psychological well being of the society. However, it is a disappointment that the laws of forensic psychology are now incriminating people instead of coming up with solution to ethical issues affecting the society. Plante (2011) asserts that it is disadvantageous that the benefits of the process can discriminate on an individual in the society. An individual should develop an understanding of the legal process before engaging in forensic psychology. Summarily, similarities exist in the principles of forensic psychology and the principles of justice delivery. According to Huss (2009), it is difficult for people to unravel the causes of crime in the society. That is the reason clinical and forensic psychologists counsel plaintiffs before advancing investigations in a criminal case. Indeed, examining a plaintiff before passing judgment to an incidence has proven to be a success in forensic psychology. Moreso, forensic psychologists have resorted to DNA fingerprinting in evaluating criminal situations. In turn, the psychology has facilitated inventions in criminal science. Nowadays, issues are addressed from a psychological point of view in both psychologies. Forensic psychology can create confusion when solving cases that do not require wider consultations. To avoid confusion, the findings should be clarified when evaluating performance in a clinical setting (Huss, 2009). However, reevaluating an investigation of a crime usually complicates the findings. This means that non-psychologists have a difficulty in interpreting the results of investigations (Goldstein, 2003). The neutrality of a forensic psychologist is questionable in some instances. Subsequently, confining a psychologist to the legal institution should be avoided to provide an individual an opportunity to broaden his perspective on social matters. Ethical standards dictate that a psychologist must maintain confidentiality when conducting forensic investigations. This responsibility ensures that the parties involved in a crime have liaised with forensic psychologist. From a psychologist perspective, accuracy in data collection determines the effectiveness of the approach used in handling a case. For instance, a forensic study is only substantial when the portrayals are factual (Huss 2009). Conclusion Huss (2009) summarizes that forensic and clinical psychology evaluations and treatment are prone to inaccuracies, but they have been helpful in resolving criminal cases. According to Goldstein (2003), training psychologists on the social aspects of the legal system has to be in line with the requirements of the legal process. Importantly, the psychological processes should be aligned to the requirements of the legal processes in a court. This is because a relationship is supposed to exist amid law and forensic psychology for professionalism, since the processes exude differences in the criminal context. Despite the success in unraveling mysteries of human behavior, psychology fails to address the future concerns in distortion of evidence presented in a court of law. References Edinformatics. (1999). Forensic Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.edinformatics.com/forensic/forensic_psychology.htm Fulero, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (2009). Forensic psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Goldstein, A. M. (2003). Handbook of Psychology, Volume 11, Forensic Psychology: Volume 11, Forensic Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Huss, M. T. (2009). Forensic psychology: Research, practice, and applications. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. Plante, T. G. (2011). Contemporary clinical psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Walker, L. E., & Shapiro, D. (2011). Introduction to forensic psychology: Clinical and social psychological perspectives. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Read More