Criminal Profiling: The Public Face of Forensic Psychology - Term Paper Example

CRIMINAL PROFILING: THE PUBLIC FACE OF FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY Table of contents 3 Introduction 3 Literature review 4 Discussion 6 Personal interest in the topic 9 References 9 Abstract The utilisation of psychological concepts has been extended in many fields in seeking to enhance understanding of human behaviours. Forensic psychology is one of the various psychological filed which have developed out of the necessity to apply psychology in different fields. This article discusses the element of forensic psychology in relation to the various issues arising within the field. A discussion of the various issues highlights ethical aspects as the main causes of many challenges faced in the field. The complexity of the setting under which the psychological practice is conducted makes the topic become one of the interesting psychological segments that can be studied. Introduction Forensic psychology can be defined as the utilisation of psychological concepts, skills and insights in seeking to enhance the understanding of various elements of legal and criminal justice systems. Within the context of the subject various psychological and legal aspects become combined in seeking to understand the functioning and operations of criminal systems (Davies & Beech, 2012). This approach to criminal justice involves various activities involved in the delivery of justice, ranging from the enforcement to treatment of suspects and law breakers. The fundamental elements of forensic psychology revolve around a combination of various aspects of the justice system and psychological aspects. The psychological aspects of forensic psychology is focused on understanding the legal principles utilised within the justice system. The failure to understand the fundamental legal procedures utilised within the justice system results in failure by of the forensic psychology. Forensic psychology involves conducting different forms of evaluations when seeking to administer justice to criminal suspects. Though the process has been defined as significantly helpful to the justice system, within the practice of this psychological concept, there are numerous issues that might arise. These issues commonly become associated with the different procedures involved in conducting different forms of evaluations. The issues commonly present different ramifications related to ethical aspects of conducting the psychological evaluations. Literature review Conducting forensic evaluations commonly involves the utilisation of psychological concepts in seeking to enhance the understanding of the criminal. The content of many evaluations is normally narrowed to become fully focused on gaining pertinent information regarding the psycholegal elements being reviewed in the evaluation (Kalmbach & Lyons, 2006). The main reason that leads to the requirement of psychological evaluations is commonly centered on identification of aspects of human behaviours which fall outside what can be described as normal behaviour. Such behaviours commonly cause disturbances upon the involved individuals, and could have potential effect on the administration of justice. Consideration of various ethical issues surrounding the evaluations is essential in seeking to ensure fairness in the justice system. In conducting psychological evaluations, there are various special considerations that might be involved in seeking to ensure effectiveness of the evaluation. These considerations are commonly involved as an approach for mitigating the negative effects which might results from issues related to the administration of the evaluation (Hoge, 2012). Forensic psychology makes consideration of the individual’s mental state in seeking to ensure accuracy of the assessment since the information gained might be utilised in making judgements (Neal & Grisso, 2014). Individuals with cognitive limitations are commonly not exposed to these evaluations despite their necessity within the justice systems. Psychological analysis is however conducted upon individuals suspected to have cognitive challenges in seeking to ascertain the presence of these factors. Many of these cognitive impairments affect an individual’s capability to receive and process information; hence mental capabilities must be considered before conducting psychological evaluations. Psychologists involved in conducting these evaluations are commonly faced with the eminent problem of complaints being launched against them. As individuals involved in the justice system, erroneous assessment could result in wrong prosecution and understanding the processes is essential for these individuals (Allan, 2013). The individuals must, therefore, be able to meet the legal and ethical responsibilities that have been accorded to them by the law. The development of professional norms seeks to avert the issues that might arise from psychological issues occurring during the evaluation process. The interpretation of the evaluations remains significantly based on the ethical principles associated with the psychological assessment. The fundamental issues surrounding the conducting of psychological evaluations commonly arise for the various human rights provisions regarding the treatment of offenders. When conducting psychological forensics, the involved parties must adhere to the code of conduct and possess understanding of the human rights, which might be violated by the process (Ward, Gannon, & Vess, 2009). Failure to make consideration of these human rights commonly results in the various issues that have been constantly associated with the forensic psychology. There is a close relationship in the human rights and the conduct of psychologists undertaking these psychological evaluations. The human rights factors are the fundamental causes of many issues related to the conduct of individuals during the psychological evaluation process. The forensic psychology process is commonly limited to the confines of courtrooms, incarcerations facilities and other facilities involved within the judicial system. While the process utilises psychological concepts, there are different codes of conduct involved in forensic psychology as opposed to clinical practice (McLaughlin & Kan, 2014). The psychologists commonly act on the general welfare of the parties involved in the justice process and they must remain impartial in their assessment. Confidentiality of the information shared between the client and the psychologists cannot be assured since it is essential for the general public to get insight into this information. This results in the development of ethical issues surrounding confidentiality of the information, since the psychologist is not an attorney for either side. Evaluation of individuals is complicated by the setting and the environment in which the evaluation is conducted. Various issues arising from forensic psychology revolve around the conduct of the psychologists in relation to the processes involved within the justice system. Breach of duty and other care issues have become common malpractice elements that have been identified within the field of forensic psychology. Compared to other psychologists, professionals within this field are faced with professional liability issues related to confidentiality of the information (Davies & Beech, 2012). This is complicated by the settings within which the interviews and assessments are conducted. While the individuals being assessed might have basic rights, there are fundamental limits to these rights because of the individuals being suspects of criminal activity involvement. Discussion Forensic psychology is deeply rooted in psychology but draws other fundamental elements from different areas. Some of the areas from which forensic psychology has been drawn form include clinical, experimental, social and developmental psychology. These other areas form a fundamental element for determining the acceptable standards which the psychologists must adhere to. The standards have been established through a consideration of various psychological and legal requirements. These standards determine the conduct of the professional when undertaking evaluations and have constantly become a source of forensic psychology issues at the professional platform. The ethical issues within the profession have been closely associated with the norms and standards which must be maintained by the professionals within the field. The evaluation environment and setting presents a fundamental challenge in the maintaining confidentiality of the information shared between the client and the professional. Confidentiality remains one of the main ethical elements which define the concept of psychology. Since many evaluations are conducted in the public, confidentiality issues arise as the general public follow the proceeding of the discussions between the psychologist and the client (Dror, Kassin, & Kukucka, 2013). This remains an issue which the professional cannot control since the information must be obtained regarding the pertinent legal matters involved within the situation. The fundamental focus of the evaluation remains gaining meaningful legal information, rather than ensuring ethical conduct of the profession in ensuring confidentiality of the information. When conducting a forensic evaluation the clients are mandated to sign an issue of information, as a way of consenting to the release of personal information. This however does not involve clarification on the ways which the information will be utilised. This failure to make clarifications results in confidentiality issues arising during the evaluation. Within forensic psychology, there are limits to the confidentiality despite the consent to the release of information (Gunn & Taylor, 2014). Within some setting the examinees are not owed duty of confidentiality, which remains an ethical issue facing many psychologists. Statutory mandated evaluations are commonly accorded such orders and there is a requirement for the examinee to be informed of such development. Many psychologists are commonly accused of failing to inform the examinees about the actions which necessitated the psychological evaluation. The interview techniques utilised could sometimes be considered malpractice within the professional conduct of psychology. Coercive strategies might be employed in forensic psychology in seeking to ensure the client provides the required legal information to the justice system. Coercion during psychological evaluation remains an approach which is equated to professional misconduct. Within the forensic setting however, it might become a necessity because of the behavioural elements that are displayed by the individuals being evaluated (Alison, 2013). Since the client base within the profession is largely comprised of criminals, the professionals are commonly immersed in a working environment which could be considered abnormal. Forensic psychology involves the provision of legal privileges to the professional conducting the psychological evaluations. While these privileges are applicable within most evaluation setting, they are a source of ethical issues within the profession. The privileges are commonly associated with therapeutic encounters in which the professional seek to assess the mental condition of an individual (Heilbrun & Brooks, 2010). It, however, has become a common practice by legal practitioners to seek waivers of the legal privileges provided to the psychologists. This becomes a limiting factor to the amount of information which a psychologist might acquire without passing the professional limit. When the privileges are waived, human rights factors become fundamental issues which affect the evaluation process. There is a fundamental ethical requirement which obligates mental health practitioners to remain competent in whatever field which they practice. Despite there not being a standard approach for determining competence levels among the professionals, a combination of factors result in questionable capabilities of competence upon the person conducting a psychological evaluation. While educational qualifications might be utilised in indicating the competence of the psychologists, many legal practitioners seek to discredit the evidence provided by the psychologists through questioning their competence. Within the legal setting, there is also a requirement for the professional to prove their competence through evidence of previous evaluations which make it extremely difficult for individuals to become involved in such assessments (Otto & Heilbrun, 2002). Personal interest in the topic The concept of forensic psychology has been extended from the psychological concepts and developed by the necessity to understand the psychological elements of criminals. The need to understand the cognitive perspectives of criminals has been fundamental in the development of forensic psychology as a field of study. This field presents one of the unique segments of psychology. The uniqueness in the setting which the interviews are conducted make forensic psychology possess fundamental discrepancies with other related psychological elements like developmental, social and even clinical psychology. While the field contains many elements drawn from these other psychological fields, the application of forensic psychology remains completely different from the other psychological elements, from which it has been drawn. References Alison, L. (2013). Forensic Psychologists Casebook: Psychological Profiling and Criminal Investigation. London: Routledge. Allan, A. (2013). Ethics in correctional and forensic psychology: Getting the balance right. Australian Psychologist, 48(1), 47–56. Davies, G. M., & Beech, A. R. (2012). Forensic Psychology: Crime, Justice, Law, Interventions (2nd ed.). London: John Wiley & Sons. Dror, I. E., Kassin, S. M., & Kukucka, J. (2013). New application of psychology to law: improving forensic evidence and expert witness contributions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 78–81. Gunn, J., & Taylor, P. (2014). Forensic psychiatry: clinical, legal and ethical issues. New York: CRC Press. Heilbrun, K., & Brooks, S. (2010). Forensic psychology and forensic science: A proposed agenda for the next decade. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(3), 219–253. Hoge, R. D. (2012). Forensic Assessments of Juveniles Practice and Legal Considerations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(9), 1255–1270. Kalmbach, K. C., & Lyons, P. M. (2006). Ethical issues in conducting forensic evaluations. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2(3), 261–288. McLaughlin, J. L., & Kan, L. Y. (2014). Test usage in four common types of forensic mental health assessment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(2), 128–135. Neal, T., & Grisso, T. (2014). The cognitive underpinnings of bias in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(2), 200–211. Otto, R. K., & Heilbrun, K. (2002). The practice of forensic psychology: A look toward the future in light of the past. American Psychologist, 57(1), 5–18. Ward, T., Gannon, T., & Vess, J. (2009). Human rights, ethical principles, and standards in forensic psychology. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(2), 126–144.  Read More