Forensic Psychology Ethical Codes and Guidelines - Assignment Example

Forensic Psychology Ethical s and Guidelines Forensic Psychology Ethical s and Guidelines According to Candilis et al (2007), forensic psychology professionals involve themselves with the evaluation of individuals who tend to be showing abnormal human behaviors or disturbing characters. The results generated from the evaluation are supposed to be treated with a high level of confidentiality as there inconsiderate exposure is subject to certain legal repercussions. Every forensic psychologist is expected to meet a high level of ethical standard and adhere to every aspect of the ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Special attention should be paid to issues like confidentiality, elucidation of their roles, the intended use and the recipients of the report ultimately generated from the evaluation. This adherence is crucial as it forms the basis of the forensic psychology professional, incase his or her opinion is challenged. The role of the Ethics Code has always been to provide guidance not only for psychologists, but also offer standards of professional conduct that may be applied in the field. It is worth understanding the fact that the intention of the Ethics Code is not to offer a basis of civil liability and hence to this regard it is worth appreciating the fact that whether a psychologist has violated the Ethics Code standards does not determine whether there is a legal liability on the part of the psychologist in a court action and whether a contract is enforceable or the occurrence of legal consequences. While making decisions regarding professional behavior, it is important that psychologists take into consideration various aspects like the ethics code while also not forgetting the applicable laws and psychology board regulations. The application of the Ethics Code to their professional work requires that psychologists consider the other materials and guidelines previously adopted or endorsed by scientific and professional psychological organization while also dictating their own conscience in addition to also consulting others within the field on sensitive but important matters (American Psychological Association, 2010). Also, in instances where ethics establishes a higher standard of conduct compared to that required by the law, then it is imperative that psychologists meet the higher ethical standard. Consequently, in instances where the ethical responsibilities of the psychologists conflict with the law, the regulations or the other governing legal authority, then it is also imperative that psychologists make known their commitment to the Ethics Coode while also taking steps aimed at resolving the conflict amicably and in a responsible manner that corresponds to the principle of human rights (American Psychological Association, 2010). In this case study, Dr. Jones received a court order to evaluate the competency of detainee Smith to stand trial or whether he was in his rightful state of mind when he killed his girlfriend’s daughter. It occurs that Dr. Jones, as the forensic psychiatrist, arrives at a conclusion that the detainee was appearing to be responding to auditory hallucinations at her initial meeting with him. The American Psychological Association (2010) asserts that it is impudent for a forensic psychologist to draw conclusions about the person being evaluated on the first approach. The fact that the case study has not mentioned any form of clinical interview conducted on the detainee in this first encounter with the forensic professional, it can be concluded that the doctor had not fully complied with the code of conduct of psychologists. However, the case study gives a very crucial part of any psychological evaluation that Dr. Jones observed, that is, explaining the purpose of the evaluation. As the American Psychological Association (2010) puts it, an evaluation report should encompass information from all the parties that the report will apply to. Dr. Jones, in her report on the evaluation of the detainee, violated this rule of unbiased reporting by producing a report based on the case information from the prosecuting attorney and observations of the detainee. The attorney of the detainee had not responded to her calls or phone messages and the case study does not record any attempt by her to engage him in the evaluation process. Thus, the report that she wrote to the court was based partially on one party in the case, and the situation gets a little bit more complicated since the report had to be circulated to all the attorneys in the court. Confidentiality and informed consent is another aspect of forensic evaluation that is depicted in the case study. The order of the evaluation in this situation was by a court order and thus all the information received from the detainee was subject to exposure in the court and to both the attorneys. Dr. Jones overheard the detainee making a statement that he had beat and killed the child because it could not keep quiet. Since this information was very crucial to her report, she felt the urge to report it and this also formed part of the evidence for the prosecuting attorney. It is worth arguing that even though Dr. Jones violated the confidentiality of the statement of the detainee, under informed consent principle, it was also very right for her to include the information in her report as she was working under a court order situation that involves disclosure principle. Finally, the testimony by Dr. Jones when she was subpoenaed by the prosecuting attorney, according to the case study, appears more to have taken sides in the case. From her testimony and the report she wrote, it became extremely evident that the detainee had committed the crime in his pure state of the mind, while in her previous report, she had indicated that he was appearing to be responding to auditory hallucinations. This contradiction in her report could lead to the conclusion that her report was biased and had not been compiled following a prior clinical interview. From the case study, the following guidelines are applicable to the situation described: Identity of the client In a forensic psychology of an individual, like the detainee in this case study, it is normally important to know the client the forensic psychology professional will be dealing with. This is important in determining the right questions that will be asked and the recipient of the information that will be generated. Information of this kind is necessary to be shared with the examinee so that the forensic psychologist is able to gather enough information from the detainee (Knapp & VandeCreek, 2001). In this case study, the client of the forensic psychologist was the court as it is the court that requested Dr. Jones to carry out a forensic evaluation on detainee Smith. The sole reason for the forensic evaluation was to determine the competency of the detainee to stand trial in the court. This information, thus, was enough for the forensic psychologist to obtain enough information from the detainee regarding the reason as to why he had beat to death his girlfriend’s daughter. Even though Dr. Jones assumed the contribution of the defense attorney to her report, it was necessary to include him so that her final report would not appear partial at the end of the evaluation period. Moreover, the detainee could have been in a position to give insufficient information to the forensic psychologist in the absence of his attorney. Informed consent and disclosure Another guideline that applies to this case is the concept of informed consent and disclosure. Informed consent involves the consideration of the personal dignity of the examinee while disclosure involves only seeking the information from the evaluate (Candilis et al, 2007). The case study features a legal case in which the court only requires information concerning the competency of the detainee to stand trial. Thus, Dr. Jones was justified in compiling the detainee’s statement that he killed the child because she could not stop crying. The decision to include this information in her report and testimony, in normal cases, could have appeared a violation of personal dignity of the detainee, but since the situation under the forensic evaluation was legal; her decision was justified to the ethics of her profession. Production of a forensic report without a clinical interview In a number of cases, a clinical interview with the person under evaluation forms an important part of a forensic evaluation. In certain circumstances, the interview may not be possible due to the declination of the person under evaluation. In situations whereby the information from the clinical interview is very necessary for a legal proceeding, the court may halt its trials to wait for the report on that interview. However, if there is enough collateral information for formulating an opinion with enough clinical certainty, the proceedings may be continued without the interview (Candilis et al, 2007). In the case study described above, there is no record of clinical interview that was conducted on the detainee. It can be assumed, therefore, that the psychiatrist, who was involved in this forensic evaluation, found enough information to draw her conclusions without conducting the clinical interview. Professional Competency All mental health professionals are required to be competent in their field of specialization. This is important in determining the right way to approach a forensic evaluation issue like the one depicted in this case study. Competency involves an understanding of the right questions to ask during a forensic analysis and to be able to predict the impact that certain questions will have on the response level of the person under the evaluation (Knapp & Vandecreek, 2001). This principle is relevant to the situation described in the case study as far as the way Dr. Jones handled the detainee is concerned. As a forensic psychiatrist expert in this case, Dr. Jones knew the right approach to handle the detainee. In beginning her role, she started by introducing herself and the reason she was there to assess the detainee. This approach, as indicated above, is crucial in opening a free atmosphere for exchange of information between the two parties as well as ensuring the detainee the detainee do not feel being exploited. Though the detainee was behaving arrogantly and with hate towards Dr. Jones, she was able to get some crucial information for compiling her report. In presenting her information to the court, she clearly followed her professional ethics of not holding back any information; as is evidenced in her testimony concerning the statement made by the detainee about the reason for killing the baby. Conclusions As revealed in the foregoing discussion, it is important for mental health professionals to keep ethical codes in their work. The case study depicts important issues that may affect the full acquisition of information from any suspect in a legal system. It is very important to have all the parties that are involved in a legal issue contributing to the report of the forensic evaluation. In the case study, the information from the defense attorney was not solicited for by the psychiatrist and this could have led to the dire penalty of death on the detainee. As discussed above, the necessary codes and guidelines that were clearly depicted in this case study included: Professional competency; it should be ensured that any mental health expert be conversant with legal and ethical standards and ensure personal competence with the requirements of the profession. Professional competency, as well, can be achieved by engaging in training if one realizes a loophole in his or her ability or by consulting other professionals in one’s field of interest. Clarification of the purpose of the forensic evaluation; as portrayed in this case study, it is important for a mental health expert to state clearly his or her intentions to the examinee for a prior clarity of the purpose of the assessment. As was demonstrated by Dr. Jones this case study, the original confrontation with the examinee is an important part of the forensic analysis as it determines how the two parties will relate for the remaining duration of the evaluation. Neutrality in presenting the report; the mental health expert should be aware of the potential influences of the forensic evaluation report and his or her testimony in court on the examinee. The report should be presented with caution to ensure he or she does not appear to be partial. Finally, the mental health expert, like in this study, Dr. Jones, should be aware of the legal statutes and case laws upon which the psychological questions are based. If one is uncertain, it would be prudent to consult an attorney or the court. References American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychology-Law Society. (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists’. Law and Human Behavior, 15(6), 655-665 Brodsky, S. L., & McKinzey, R. K. (2002). The ethical confrontation of the unethical forensic colleague. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 33(3), 307-309. Candilis, P. J., Weinstock, R., & Martinez, R. (2007). Forensic ethics and the expert witness. New York, NY: Springer. Hagg, A. M. (2006). Ethical dilemmas faced by correctional psychologists in Canada. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(1), 93–109. Knapp, S., & VandeCreek, L. (2001). Ethical issues in personality assessment in forensic psychology. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77(2), 242-254. Nagel, D. M., & Anthony, K. (2009). Forensic mental health & technology: Risk management strategies for the practitioner. Forensic Examiner, 18(1), 62–65. Pedersen, P. (1989). Developing multicultural ethics guidelines for psychology. International Journal of Psychology, 24(5), 643–652. Rogers, R. (1987). Ethical dilemmas in forensic evaluations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 5(2), 149–160. Read More