An in-Depth Analysis of Forensic Psychology - Research Paper Example

Forensic Psychology: An In-depth Analysis Forensic Psychology: An In-depth Analysis According to the American Psychological Association (APA), forensic psychology entails all the forensic practice undertaken by psychologists who work within the various sub-disciplines of psychology (APA, 2013). Ideally, it is a specialized branch that serves as the meeting point between psychology and the law where the profession and science of psychology are applied to matters that relate to law and, generally, the entire legal system. Sound knowledge in forensic psychology facilitates comprehensive understanding of how human behavior relates to the law. From that knowledge, forensic psychologists are able to provide services to persons faced with restricted legal rights due to the need of safety and justice by the society (Allan, 2013). Forensic psychologists perform a wide array of roles and they may be drawn from other areas of psychology such as clinical psychologists, neurologists and school psychologists. For example, in the court system, forensic psychology is involved in areas such as assessing mental states of persons for the sake of insanity plea; evaluating the possibility of malingering; assessing personal injury; predicting violence and assessing risk; and interpreting polygraph data. Given the wide scope of areas it covers, the purpose of this paper is to research and offer an in-depth analysis and understanding of the field of forensic psychology and the role of forensic psychologists. It may be a relatively new area of specialty officially recognized by the APA only in 2001, but forensic psychology has developed into a wide and complex field that goes beyond getting into the minds of criminals and solving crimes (Ackerman & Dolezal, 2006). To clearly understand the field of forensic psychology, it is imperative to view it from the perspective of the role of forensic psychologists. For the purpose of discussion, a forensic psychologist may be defined as a psychologist at the moment he is engaged in forensic psychology. In general, the roles played by forensic psychologists are moderately limited in terms of period and scope and, in every individual case, a forensic psychologist is required to undertake a very specific role of a non-clinical nature. While clinicians strive to understand the unique perception of clients, forensic psychologists focus more on accuracy (Pope, 2011). Further, psychologists in clinical settings work with voluntary clients but forensic psychologists assess clients through an attorney’s request or judge’s order. Professionals in forensic psychology integrate evidence-based practices and consider individual and cultural diversities, research and theories to impact their profession, organizations and communities positively. They play critical roles at different levels which include expert witnesses, correctional psychologists, academic researchers, trial consultants, evaluators, treatment providers and consultants to law enforcement (APA, 2013). In these roles, they offer services such as child custody evaluations, sentencing recommendations, competency evaluations and evaluations of reoffending risks. Although they basically focus on research pertaining to civil or criminal law and psychology, academic forensic psychologists also engage in activities related to education such as training, teaching and supervising students, hence the need of having an advanced degree. Their research work empirically tests and applies hypotheses to legal and psychological issues. They also carry out research on policy evaluation and mental health (McLaughlin & Kan, 2014). As expert witnesses, forensic psychologists offer expert opinion on psychological matters in the form of testimony to legislative, judicial and administrative bodies. They offer more than fact witnesses who only testify about what they observed or know. Their role involves testifying about matters such as mental health and developmental, social, cognitive or experimental issues. However, given the wide scope of the field, it is not the primary function of forensic psychologists to be expert witnesses and, as such, assume the role alongside other expertise like clinical psychologist, evaluator or researcher (Allan, 2013). In conformity with the integrity principle, total honesty and objectivity is required of them in their communication with the court when they take on the role of expert witness. Reports written by forensic psychologists must not, whether intentionally or not, mislead readers (Fulero, 2009). In the capacity of correctional psychologists, forensic psychologists work in correctional settings with offenders and inmates. This role serves the functions of treatment providers and evaluators to persons either on probation and parole or imprisoned (Adler, 2004). Forensic psychologists are also involved in legal psychology where they participate in trial consulting. As trial consultants, also refered to as litigation or jury consultants, they are social scientists who work in conjunction with legal professionals to assist in preparing for cases. Here, their role will include preparing witnesses, developing case strategies and selecting juries, which relies heavily on research, reflecting their role as academic researchers. In this capacity, they participate in seminars aimed at improving the process of jury selection and skills in presenting trials (Ackerman & Dolezal, 2006). In a substantial number of cases, it is possible to find that psychologists working in the field of forensic psychology are not necessarily refered to as forensic psychologists. In such cases, the psychologists may be clinical psychologists, counselors, neurologists and school psychologists who provide their expertise in psychology to give testimony, recommendations or analysis in criminal or legal cases. For example, a school psychologist usually deals with children in a school setting but, when the same psychologist is required to work in forensic psychology, his role might include evaluating children in cases of suspected abuse (Ackerman & Dolezal, 2006). He may also be involved with preparation of children required to provide testimony in court or disputes that in child custody. On their part, clinical psychologists may also be required to provide services in mental health such as evaluation, diagnosis or treatment of persons who are being handled by the criminal justice system. Here, their role, which is essentially that of a treatment provider, will include determining if suspected criminals are suffering from mental disorders and may also be required to treat those suffering from addiction issues such as drug abuse (Beauchamp & Childress, 2009). As treatment providers, forensic psychologists administer psychological intervention in both civil and criminal cases. In criminal cases, the psychological interventions may be aimed at restoring competency after a court rules that a person cannot stand trial due to incompetence; minimizing the possibility of violent acts in future by high-risk individuals; and treat persons considered to be insane at the time of committing crime of mental illness (Allan, 2013). If a suspect’s competency to stand trial is doubted, whether they are in custody or out on bail, a forensic assessment is used to recommend to the court whether or not the trial may proceed. Malingering and deception are underlying issues in forensic assessment and are viewed by the court in some criminal cases as an obstruction to justice. More importantly, malingering during a competency assessment can lead to enhanced sentencing. Here, the role of forensic psychology is to regard this possibility as real, whereby a forensic psychologist gets the chance to observe a suspect across time in diverse settings, increasing the likelihood that deception will be detected (Allan, 2013). In civil cases, the role of forensic psychologists as treatment providers involves treating persons suffering from psychological injuries occasioned by trauma and treating families undergoing custody or divorce proceedings. In the practice of forensic psychology, it is not a rare occurrence to come across conflicts in demands and responsibilities (Fulero, 2009). Although they fulfil significant roles in the society, forensic psychologists face higher risks of coming upon ethical-legal challenges than those psychologists who work in conventional mental health settings. The conflicts are usually with legal authorities and organizational demands. Under such circumstances, it is the duty of the practitioner to communicate with the relevant parties and also take into consideration the interests and rights of those parties in their endeavor towards resolving the conflict (APA, 2013). When the responsibility of a forensic psychologist comes into conflict with the legal authorities, they proclaim their commitment to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (EPPCC), which are APA-informed guidelines, and move towards resolving it. In case the EPPCC conflicts with the law, efforts to get a solution to the conflict are conducted according to the EPPCC. However, when such means still fail, forensic psychologists may follow the requirements of laws and regulations (Davis, 2008). The adherence to such laws and regulations is only to the required extent and must not violate the human rights of any person. On the other hand, when conflicts are with organizational demands, forensic psychologists endeavor to make the nature of the conflict clear and find a solution compliant with professional responsibilities and obligations (APA, 2013). Often in their practice, forensic psychologists are required by organizational demands to violate set standards, values and principles. In such cases, they should make all the parties aware of their ethical-legal responsibilities and then seek constructive resolutions. When a possible or perceptible ethical violation causes or seems likely to cause harm, forensic psychologists are required to resort to appropriate action while considering the nature of the potential harm. Applicable privilege, confidentiality and privacy as well as the way the chosen action may affect the involved parties’ rights are also not overlooked (Roesch & Zapf, 2012). Appropriate procedures towards resolving perceived ethical conflicts sometimes require directly conferring with clients, getting the opinion of autonomous counsel or consulting colleagues. If forensic psychologists have reason to believe that another professional has violated an ethical value, they are obliged to make efforts to resolve the conflict by making that particular professional aware of it. However, this is only done if, in so doing, no privileges or rights will be violated and an informal approach is in order (Ackerman & Dolezal, 2006). Should this approach fail, forensic psychologists may escalate the procedure and report the violation to third parties. It, therefore, becomes clear that forensic psychologists as guided by a code of ethics, among numerous other norm systems, to govern their professional conduct (APS, 2010). Relevant norm systems in psychologists’ professional conduct include law, individual morality, human rights and public morality norms. The significance of the code of ethics is that it puts into consideration all norm systems in setting out ethical principles with the exception of the psychologists’ own morality (Fulero, 2009). The norm system of law is the most probable influence on how the code of ethics is interpreted, more so mental health, civil, family, criminal and correctional law. Making ethical decisions by forensic psychologists can also be influenced by legal provisions that do not necessarily target their behavior. The case of psychologists who assess a dispute in family law may be used as an example. They may, for instance, conclude that if the father is granted the role and right of primary caregiver, it would be in the child’s best interest. However, they also acknowledge the overwhelming emotional effects such an order will have on the mother with a history of depression and frequent attempts at harming herself. In such cases, they must assess the mother’s relative risk of harm against that of the child while upholding the principle of integrity that requires them to remain honest and fair to the involved parties (Allan, 2013). In conclusion, the range of clients that forensic psychology works with differs from those general practitioners of psychology deal with. This is due to the fact that the client base in forensic psychology is typically criminal and, therefore, a forensic psychologist’s profession is embedded in an abnormal world where they provide services to persons with restricted legal rights. Forensic psychologists may work in the criminal justice system directly to provide evaluation and treatment to persons suspected to have committed crime. They are also involved with investigating cases of divorce, child abuse and custody (Davis, 2008). Their work is based on extensive research and an understanding of both human behavior and the law. In the criminal justice system, forensic psychology is involved with evaluating sanity and competency and mitigating sentences and the forensic psychologists, unlike other psychologists, work in the confines of legal settings such as incarceration facilities and courtrooms. Here, they have an equal likelihood to testify for defense attorneys or the prosecution, since their testimonies are basically expert opinions and not necessarily in support of a particular party. Conflicts are also known to occur in the practice and, to this end, various norm systems and codes of ethics have been developed to guide forensic psychologists in their responsibilities and obligations. References Ackerman, M. J., & Dolezal, S. (2006). Experienced custody evaluators’ view of controversial issues. Family Law Research, 20(3), 200-205. Adler, J. R. (Ed.). (2004). Forensic psychology: Concepts, debates and practice. Cullompton: Willan. Allan, A. (2013). Ethics in correctional and forensic psychology: Getting the balance right. Australian Psychologist, 47-56. American Psychological Association (APA). (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 7-19. Australian Psychological Society (APS). (2010). Ethical guidelines (10th ed.). Melbourne: Author. Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2009). Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press. Davis, M. R. (2008). Psychology in court. London: Hodder Education. Fulero, S. (2009). Admissibility of expert testimony based on the Grisso and Gudjonsson scales in disputed confession cases. Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology, 1(1), 44-55. McLaughlin, J. L., & Kan, L. Y. (2014). Test usage in four common types of forensic mental health assessment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 128-135. Pope, K. S. (2011). Psychologists and detainee interrogations: Key decisions, opportunities lost, and lessons learned. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 7(3), 459-481. Roesch, R.., & Zapf, P. (2012). Forensic assessments in criminal and civil law: A handbook for lawyers. New York: Oxford University Press. Read More