Ethical Principles and the Communication of Forensic Mental Health - Report Example

• The report evaluation will recognize any changes or improvements in Mr. Smith mental state or behavior. The primary reason for the evaluation is to propose to the board an opinion on behalf of the inmate for the parole appropriateness. The accused will answer questions, weigh them, and relate to the previous evaluation. Subsequently, the report assessment will offer useful information to the Board of Parole detailing professional opinion as to Mr. Smith’s danger to the society if released and suitability for the parole. The ground for the report is to summarize the inmate crucial issues that led to the crime. Furthermore, the report will conform to the board requirements. The preparation of the report employs interview in the forensic psychology field, best practices procedures, and risk assessment practices. The report will benefit all users.
• However, the inmate understands that the generation of the report does not guarantee automatic release. Risk evaluation and psychological report evaluation proved to board to and conformed to professional measures. Furthermore, the report is also standardized. The recommendation will provide evidence that the inmate exceeded and filled all the worldwide guiding principles. Consequently, the recommendation shows that Mr. Smith established a stable, robust social history, signals of sorrow, enthusiasm for the crime, and has strong strategies for the future. However, the inmate will attain desires for his treatment plans. The primary aim of presenting the report is for the board to assess the proof concerning the inmate prison term spent behind bars and analyze the developments. The board will weigh and evaluate the information fairly and recommend unsuitability or suitability for Mr. Smith.
• Mr. Smith is familiar with the actions that put him behind bars and has remarkable insight into his plans. The report will meet the demands and standards of the Health Professions Council (Allan & Grisso, 2014) and the Indeterminate Sentence Prisoner Policy Professional. Additionally, the report will also meet the standards of the parole board. There are several reasons why a psychologist should develop (Côté, Crocker, Nicholls, & Seto, 2012) a risk assessment and a forensic report (van den Brink et al., 2015). First, the report guides the parole board in the decision-making process (Côté, Crocker, Nicholls, & Seto, 2012). Secondly, the report will support deliberations concerning Mr. Smith, and will determine the inmate release back into the community under parole release conditions. The board receives the report in preparation for the interview with the inmate to gather information before releasing the inmate. The psychologist explains to the offender the consequences relevant to the application for parole, information collected through parole interview, and examination of the inmate. Furthermore, the psychologist explains to the inmate that the parole board report and recommendation will depend on the information gathered and will determine release (van den Brink et al., 2015).
• Therefore, the primary reason for presenting the psychological and risk report by forensic psychologist is to come up with a recommendation concerning suitability for release (van den Brink et al., 2015). The board discusses and weighs the risk factors if renewing should become an issue if the board grants parole. The board also considers inmate suitability for parole, and the board should inquire the present prisoner attitude toward the crime, the past and current mental state, and any other relevant information related to the probation. The board should use the capacity of the report (Côté, Crocker, Nicholls, & Seto, 2012) to develop a ruling on inmate’s mental health condition. The report will assess the danger the inmate might pose to the residential area if freed.
• Subsequently, the content and quality will determine the release of the inmate established on the recommendations from present and previous assessments providing the inmate has satisfied all the required conditions for liberation. Subsequently, the assessments (Côté, Crocker, Nicholls, & Seto, 2012) are critical in assisting the boards in determining whether an inmate might present a risk of danger to the society. The Board of Parole Hearing follows rules based on a model that rely on factors that might aid in decision making before releasing a convict on parole. Depending on knowledge, the experience of the literature, and the psychologist offered a clinical judgment concerning the report. The report influences the parole panel on deciding denial or release of the inmate.
• Additionally, employment decisions employ psychological and report assessment evaluation (Salsman et al., 2014). The attorneys should have the report evaluation so that psychologist involved in the process may access the information. The courts have a right to access all written documents related to the case. Subsequently, other experts who might use the written report in the future include a therapist or a clinical psychologist (Amend & Peters, 2015). The doctor or the therapist might need sensitive information covered by confidentiality, for instance, the inmate test results, previous psychological and medical history. The doctor will examine any previous medications and treatments with the objective of carefully treating the individual. Such procedures limit the chances of an incorrect diagnosis. The inmate or the offender has to sign the informed agreement and adopt the terms of the assessment. The consent should openly state that an agency will know of the information and should state the client is the law enforcement agency. There should be an agreement to share the report with other bodies between the qualified professional conducting the examination and the organization that initiated the psychological analysis.
• There are professional government jobs, for instance, the department if intelligence that may need an extensive background check and may demand copies of the report evaluation. The background check inquiry will depend on the level of government job one is seeking. Similarly, there is also the Prisons Bureau Records that will require inmates psychological and risk assessment reports. Many readers connect with clearly written and understood reports. Many write psychological, and risk assessment evaluation reports with complicated jargons and as a result, many readers cannot fully digest the information. On the contrary, such reports should be readable without leaving out sensitive information. Psychologists (Amend & Peters, 2015) should write considering the readers or the audience. For example, many parents read such reports and therefore, the writer should ensure that the parents fully understand the content of the report at their level of understanding. Therefore, the psychologist in charge apparently wrote psychologically and risk assessment report (Amend & Peters, 2015). The vocabulary in the report was precise, familiar, and had no jargons. The Psychologist clearly explained the information in the report and did not use any technical terms.
• Consequently, the law indicates that an average person should understand psychological report. Concerning the psychological and risk assessment report utilized in this case, the psychologist followed all the readability standards in psychological report writing. The numbers of difficult words were minimal, and the sentences were to the point and short. In general, the report had reduced reading difficulty. Therefore, average person understands the report because the report has no jargon. Providing a critique on another psychologist evaluation is very appropriate, and analyses the weakness and strengths of a colleague.
• Reviewing and criticizing differ in meaning. Concerning other forensic psychological assessment reports (Goodman-Delahunty & Dhami, 2013), the psychologist covered all information professionally and apparently according to the guidelines. The report captures the client’s date of birth, name, telephone number, address, and the referred agency (Goodman-Delahunty & Dhami, 2013). The report discussed the reason for the referral, the relevant background information, and the assessment methods. Furthermore, the report listed problems from the client perspective, Mr. Smith’s behavioral observations, and Mr. Smith current mental status. Additionally, the report included the psychological symptoms, risk assessment, treatment recommendations, and present diagnostic impression.
• The psychologist recommends a chemical dependency treatment and suggests that Mr. Smith completes a program registered and certified to handle such an offender. Consequently, the psychologist suggests that the inmate undergoes a referral for psychotropic medications. The panel should release Mr. Smith and recommend a structured program. The inmate will benefit from transitional programming, but the inmate should embrace additional career training to be marketable. Finally, the psychologist recommends that Mr. Smith fosters pro-social behaviors and attitudes. The inmate should engage in similar activities in the future. Therefore, from the recommendations the client needs the relevant information to improve.
• Additionally, from the recommendations, taking an antidepressant is not easy, and the client needs prior explanation. The inmate needs an explanation of the benefits of psychotropic medications in the treatments of depression. The best implementation for the inmate is a structure relapse prevention plan (Ayumi Takano et al., 2016). From the long history of alcohol and drug abuse, a structured relapse prevention plan would be appropriate.
• The plan will assist the inmate in the growth process. Mr. Smith will know about the use of SRP (Ayumi Takano et al., 2016) and the twelve sessions contained in that plan. There is also need to implement a transitional programming into the treatment plan. The plan assists inmates to transit smoothly into the society by equipping inmates with skills relevant to the current job market. Therefore, the key to reduced recidivism is to provide a sound prevention and treatment plan. Many inmates in the nation’s prisons and jails have a mental health problem, severe psychiatric disorders. New therapies that do not need medication are essential. For instance, clinical depression patients could engage in aerobic exercise to interact with their environment. There is a need to incorporate the antidepressant drug, psychotherapy, and conduct weekly follow-up in person or by phone. There is also need to do a follow-up a treatment plan, ensure their effectiveness, and address any side effects.
• Additionally, there is need to ensure that the inmate is adhering to the referrals. Mental health experts (Wilson, Crocker, Nicholls, Charette, & Seto, 2015) judge the mental state of a person and the court oversee their appointments. Some mental health experts find witness testimony difficult and tedious process. Other psychological experts (Wilson, Crocker, Nicholls, Charette, & Seto, 2015) do well on their job. Many try to understand whether psychologists are relevant or not though the topic is controversial. Subsequently, many try to comprehend whether the expertise psychologist poses are helpful or harmful. Suppose the evidence does not support the conclusion then the trial judge will exclude the testimony. Experts who testify in open courts should know that debate standards apply not only to scientific experts but also to all experts (Wilson, Crocker, Nicholls, Charette, & Seto, 2015).
• Experts should be cautious about their wording. There is the best way to offer an opinion and a wrong way to submit an idea. State law allowed experts (Wilson, Crocker, Nicholls, Charette, & Seto, 2015) to take on the ultimate issue of fact so long as the issue did not cause interference bust assisted in discussing facts. The rule states that an expert might testify in relation to the defendant mental disease and similar circumstance. There is a difference between expert scientific testimony and expert (Wilson, Crocker, Nicholls, Charette, & Seto, 2015) testimony. However, the two terms are similar. The courts evaluate expert testimony (Wilson, Crocker, Nicholls, Charette, & Seto, 2015) for the admissibility using the general acceptance test. The courts may choose an individual to give information to assist the court to decide a legal issue.
• Furthermore, the courts may also require the same person to testify in front of the bar. In such cases, the court may not allow a witness to express an opinion. Subsequently, courts allow psychologists to express opinions and testify as witnesses about treated clients. However, the courts limit the testimony to treatment and diagnosis. Experts tell a story to win a case and assist the fact finder to observe the facts and argue the case. Experts (Wilson, Crocker, Nicholls, Charette, & Seto, 2015) collect points with the meaning of what has transpired and elaborate conclusions based on the facts, for instance, the symptoms. Judges require an expert evidence to assist in providing opinion on many matters and understanding facts. Judges cannot make the decision alone and therefore need experts. The expert (Wilson, Crocker, Nicholls, Charette, & Seto, 2015) should split the evidence in a clear and logical manner using simple language.
• Similarly, the evidence should be independent and accurate. Questions asked during a forensic mental health testimony differ based on the issue at hand. However, the questions should be within the field of expertise. Questions asked include, professional background, occupation, educational background, the degree of license or certificate they hold, whether they have taught any conference or seminar, and whether they hold any membership with a professional body.
• Additionally, the questions include published article, any monthly award received, and involvement in any case. Subsequently, the jury will inquire about the codes of ethics applicable to the profession (Allan & Grisso, 2014). Therefore, the expert must present all credentials and respond to all questions. The expert (Wilson, Crocker, Nicholls, Charette, & Seto, 2015) must prepare so as not to feel stressed while offering the testimony. During the testimony phase, the psychologist may also inquire the sort of treatments and diagnosis done, supervision, teaching in the field of expertise, the difference between a psychologist, social worker, and psychiatrist. Additionally, the psychologist will also inquire about the experience, previous testimony in a criminal or civil case, and the difference between a clinical psychologist and a psychologist. Furthermore, the psychologist will ask the expert (Wilson, Crocker, Nicholls, Charette, & Seto, 2015) about the explanation of the standard methodology of a psychologist, and the overall result of the methodology.
• In sum then the report evaluation will offer helpful information to the Board of Parole detailing professional opinion as to Mr. Smith’s danger to the society if released and suitability for the parole. The evaluation report will also meet the demands and standards of the Parole Board. The forensic expert submits the report to the board to assess all the data concerning the inmate, the duration behind bars and examine the developments. Subsequently, the board will weigh and evaluate the information fairly and recommend unsuitability or suitability for Mr. Smith. First, the report guides the parole board in the decision-making process. Secondly, the report will support deliberations concerning Mr. Smith, and will determine the inmate release back into the community under parole release conditions.
• There are professional government jobs, for instance, the department if intelligence that may need an extensive background check and may demand copies of the report evaluation. Other professionals who might utilize the report in the future include a therapist or a clinical psychologist. The doctor or the therapist might need sensitive information covered by confidentiality, for instance, the inmate test results, previous psychological and medical history. Concerning other forensic psychological evaluation reports, the psychologist included all information professionally according to the guidelines. The report captures the client’s date of birth, name, telephone number, address, and the preferred agency. The report discussed the reason for the referral, the relevant background information, and the assessment methods. Furthermore, the report listed problems from the client perspective, Mr. Smith’s behavioral observations, and Mr. Smith current mental status. Additionally, the report included the psychological symptoms, risk assessment, treatment recommendations, and current diagnostic impression.
• References

Allan, A., & Grisso, T. (2014). Ethical Principles and the Communication of Forensic Mental Health Assessments. Ethics & Behavior, 24(6), 467–477. http://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2014.880346

Amend, E. R., & Peters, D. (2015). The Role of Clinical Psychologist. Gifted Child Today, 38(4), 243–245. http://doi.org/10.1177/1076217515597286

Ayumi Takano, Yuki Miyamoto, Norito Kawakami, Toshihiko Matsumoto, Tomohiro Shinozaki, & Takashi Sugimoto. (2016). Web-based cognitive behavioral relapse prevention program with tailored feedback for people with methamphetamine and other drug use problems: protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial in Japan. BMC Psychiatry, 16, 1–12. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-0793-x

Côté, G., Crocker, A. G., Nicholls, T. L., & Seto, M. C. (2012). Risk Assessment Instruments in Clinical Practice. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 57(4), 238–244.

Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Dhami, M. K. (2013). A Forensic Examination of Court Reports. Australian Psychologist, 48(1), 32–40. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-9544.2012.00082.x

Salsman, J., Lai, J.-S., Hendrie, H., Butt, Z., Zill, N., Pilkonis, P., … Cella, D. (2014). Assessing psychological well-being: self-report instruments for the NIH Toolbox. Quality of Life Research, 23(1), 205–215. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0452-3

Van den Brink, R. H. S., Troquete, N. A. C., Beintema, H., Mulder, T., van Os, T. W. D. P., Schoevers, R. A., & Wiersma, D. (2015). Risk assessment by client and case manager for shared decision making in outpatient forensic psychiatry. BMC Psychiatry, 15(1), 1–10. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-015-0500-3

Wilson, C. M., Crocker, A. G., Nicholls, T. L., Charette, Y., & Seto, M. C. (2015). The Use of Risk and Need Factors in Forensic Mental Health Decision-Making and the Role of Gender and Index Offense Severity. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 33(1), 19–38. http://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2162