ABSTRACT
Forensic psychology has grown in popularity and the assessments these professionals conduct can be incredibly beneficial in determining a criminal defendant or offender’s mental stability, ability to stand trial and the level of threat they may represent. That being said in order for forensic psychologists to provide these assessments it is required that a number of the Ethical Standards Code, which is the core structure of modern psychological practice, be augmented or adapted to allow the psychologist to be beholden to the law enforcement who hires them and not directly to the subject; they must be able to follow through with mandated reporting, which is legally required of court acquired psychologists. Ultimately, in the given case, Mr. Doe’s summarized assessment shows someone who has already committed violent, sex crimes, he does not seem remorseful and made more threats against an ex-mistress. It may be imperative to the winning this case the outcome of these psychological assessments.
INTRODUCTION
All of the major fields and disciplines of human scientific research and study, sociology, biology and anthropology, have all struggled to understand why people commit crimes, the mental state of such people and whether or not they are an immediate threat. In the modern era the field most associated with criminal behavior has been psychology. Very often psychologists, specifically forensic psychologists, are enlisted by the courts of law to assess offenders. These psychologists differ from traditional clinical psychologists practicing in a private practice primarily because private practitioners work for the patient, but forensic psychologists work for the law, which can alter some of the standards and codes that the two practice under. One of the best ways to understand the codes of conduct and standards of practice is to apply them to an actual sample case; Mr. Doe’s case provided is great example. Mr., Doe has admitted that he had sexually assaulted, at least, two adult women and even assaulted his own daughter. The psychological assessment includes his lawyer’s presence; he looked to his lawyer’s advice when answering questions. During the assessment he even made a statement that he would kill his ex-mistress, if he was to see her again. Now it is necessary to determine if he is competent to stand trial, capable of understanding the consequences of his actions and if he is potentially threatening in order to decide how best to proceed with the criminal cases against him. In order to get a better understanding of certain elements and the aspects that could be held to ethical debate, which includes ethical versus legal relationship, issues of confidentiality, personal beliefs and fair assessment and, lastly, the position of mandated reporter, must be discussed.
BACKGROUND
At the foundation of modern psychological ethics and principles have been practice decades. These are the origins that all future ethical considerations would be made. These five foundational core standards are the basis for all of the changes and adaption, which today’s practices and procedures exist today (Glancy, Buchanan & et. al., 2015).
Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence: In general this principle refers to those who practice psychology will never intentionally harm or neglect their responsibility to their patients or assessment subjects. They should also make efforts not allow themselves to abuse or take advantage of their position (American Psychological Association, 2010).
Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility: Mental health professionals must ethically make the conscious effort to conduct themselves according the code of ethical, fulfill all obligations and avoid conflicts of interest when doing their job (American Psychological Association, 2010).
Principle C: Integrity: Psychologists are expected to promote accuracy, truthfulness and honesty in the representation and procedure of psychology in practice and in the form of teaching the science to others. They should never engage in misrepresentation of the facts and avoid dishonesty to bolster results should be considered very carefully (American Psychological Association, 2010).
Principle D: Justice: Fairness and equality in how patients or subjects are treated. No patients well should be equal. The professional must avoid personal bias, which could lead to unjust practices (American Psychological Association, 2010).
Principle E: Respect for People's Rights and Dignity: Patients and subjects all have certain rights. Individuals expect mental health professionals have a respect for their privacy and proactive confidentiality. Psychologists must be objective and respectful of other people’s race, gender, age, ethnicity, religions, sexual orientation, culture or socioeconomic differences; they should never engage in bias or prejudice (American Psychological Association, 2010).
DISCUSSION
As mentioned the disciplines of medicinal care, whether physical or psychological, that requires standards of practice applicable to all; failing to do so could result in some extreme ethical consequences, but also legal and criminal ones. Most of these principles are specifically intended to protect patients from unethical treatment from mental health professionals. When the criminal justice system began to trust and rely more and more on the psychological assessments of forensic psychologists, it became necessary to augment the nature of some of the standards of practice in order to allow forensic psychologists to their jobs more effectively within the criminal justice setting. In order to look more closely at the most applicable standards to this case, that are both shared and different, it is best to look at them individually; specifically as applies to Mr. Doe’s case.
Relationships: Forensic psychologists working to assess offenders prior to trial have multiple relationships with different parties; this is highlighted under the Ethical Code 3.05, explaining the nature of multiple relationships (American Psychological Association, 2010). They are beholden to the law enforcement agency that has hired them, but also still work to maintain the client-patient trust. In traditional clinical settings the patient is the only one who the psychologist is working for, but for forensic psychologists that that had to be augmented (American Psychology Law Society, 2011). The forensic psychologist must be respectful of the subject, but has their loyalty and intention is to benefit those that hired them and required the assessment. In this case, Mr. Doe is not a typical patient, but the psychologist priority and responsibility is to the court of law; that being said the doctor-patient relationship will take “a back seat” to the relationship that the forensic psychologist relationship has with those that hired them.
Informed Consent: According to the Ethical Standards Code 3.10, regarding informed consent, details the importance of that rule. The concept of informed consent required psychologists, including forensic psychologists, to make certain that the patient or interviewee are clear on the details, purposes and outcomes of the assessment before the assessment begins. For an average patient once informed the client has the option to opt out if they are not willing to give consent. In the case of forensic psychologists, that informed consent works a bit differently, as detailed in Ethical Standard Code 9.03, number 1, while the psychologist may explain all of details of the interview and its purpose, the subjects consent is not required if it is ordered by the court (American Psychological Association, 2010). That being said, with the exception of mental illness or disability, certain offenders do not have to understand the entire process only submit to it (Kalmbach & Lyons, 2006). As in the case with Mr., Doe, he had no choice but to attend the interview, which is probably why he requested that his lawyer be present so that he does not say or do anything that is not beneficial in the long run.
Personal Beliefs and Fair Assessment: Ethical Standard Code 3.01 discusses the freedom from bias required in the professional psychological practice. A forensic psychologist must look at the offenders they assess with the same unbiased and objective approach that they will use with any one they interviewed. However, forensic psychologists are brought into legal cases and interview and assess some of the most heinous and dangerous of offenders. That being said it can be difficult to maintain objectivity when one is informed of an individual’s crime, as detailed in Ethical Standards Code 3.06 (American Psychological Association, 2010). In this case that could not be more true of Mr. Doe’s crimes. He, again, is a rapist and a child molester. These are the types of crimes that elicit the greatest outrage and disgust from most people. This is the same for forensic psychologists in many cases as well, according to Ethical Standard Code 2.06, regarding the distraction of personal beliefs and biases (American Psychological Association, 2010). Because Mr. Doe has admitted to sex crimes it is particularly important, because they seldom come with witnesses to the crime, except for the victims, getting a confession from a mentally competent offender will make conviction more likely (Kebbel, Hurren and Mazerolle, 2006). In this case being a female could jade the psychologists view knowing the nature of his crime; a parent of a little girl would elicit similar reactions. That being said it can be difficult, but is required of forensic psychologists to maintain their professionalism and put their personal opinions and beliefs aside in order to act in an unbiased and non-prejudice manner.
Confidentiality: As mentioned keeping patients and subjects sensitive information safe and secure from outside eyes is a priority. This is the premise behind Ethical Standard Code 4.01, which explains the sanctity of the doctor-patient privilege is something that is intrinsic to the practice of any kind of therapy and or medical treatment. At the same time Ethical Standard Code 4.2 details the exceptions to that expected confidentiality. Some regard those who are not capable of giving informed consent cannot be bound to it. However, in the case of forensic psychologists confidentiality is a more complex matter, releasing the psychologist from the need for informed consent in cases where the law has required the evaluation (American Psychological Association, 2010). In some cases, like Mr., Doe’s, the interview is being required by the courts, his interview does not hold the same expectation of privacy as non-offending public. Again, a forensic psychologist generally work for the court, therefore they are technically the patient, legally speaking, which means that Mr. Does confessions, attitude, behaviors and discussion is all open for assessment and that information will be shared by those who initiated the assessment to begin with. The fact that Mr. Doe is in custody and admitted to his crimes, his guilt and innocence is not in question, but whether or not he is mentally stable and competent enough to stand trial. All information relevant to the case against him will be shared with the law enforcement agency who hired the psychologist (American Psychological Law Society, 2011).
Mandated Reporting: Victims or potential victims must be a priority in any legal case because sometimes it is not the victims they have already hurt, but those they might hurt in the future that must be considered (Felthous, 2006). “Mandated Reporting” is a concept that allows forensic psychologists and others within the healthcare industry to overlook certain confidentiality laws in order to warn and protect an innocent person (Smith, 2003). Mandated reporting is often seen applied to cases of child neglect and abuse. If someone in the healthcare fields believes there is a possibility of harm and abuses against, children and, even, the elderly they are legally obligated to inform the proper agencies to intercede. In the case of forensic psychologists this can be very important for them to be aware of the subjects emotional outbursts and actual verbal threats. In the case of Mr. Doe, he is quite threatening. He has already admitted violent crimes against women and a child, there is every possibility that his threat is sincere and very real Again, he threatened to kill his ex-mistress if he was to see her. While his known crimes do not involve murder, does not mean that it could not occur. For that reason the forensic psychologist in this case would be well within her rights and responsibilities, as explained in Ethical Standard Code 4.05, to share it with law enforcement (American Psychological Association, 2010). In fact they are legally required, to inform law enforcement regarding Mr. Doe’s threat.
Third-Party: Third parties include anyone that is not directly contented with the assessment that occurs between the subject and the psychologists, meaning that confidentiality does not necessarily apply to such third parties, according to Ethical Standard Code 3.02 (American Psychological Association, 2010). For example, the lawyer that was present during Mr. Doe’s assessment could be seen by some as a third party, because he or she was not present at the time of the crimes and have an obligation, not necessarily to the truth, but just a beneficial verdict in favor of their client when it is all said and done. He may use and manipulate what he hears to benefit his client’s case. Those who hired the psychologist would also be considered third-parties because they were not present at the time the crime was committed and they themselves will likely not be present at the interview, as in this case. That said it means that the third-party must have faith in the results that are provided.
At the conclusion of the interview the forensic psychologist would then evaluate all of the different impressions and possible mental faculties of the subject. The aspects that seem intrinsic to the strength of their case will be shared, as detailed in Ethical Standard Code 3.02 (American Psychological Association, 2010). In this case, the forensic psychologist would, of course, pick up the implied threat against the ex-mistress and share that with authorities so that the party could be warned. However, they may include not just the details of his crimes, but, also, the way that he relied and deflected answers, multiple times, against his lawyer. To a psychologist this would apply to the subject awareness of right and wrong or else he might be far more candid. Also, there is no mention in the interview details that shows that Mr. Doe has any remorse or regret for the crimes he committed.
CONCLUSION
The Ethical Standards Code relied upon by mental health care professional in clinical, private or forensic settings are highly important. It is necessary to get a gauge on offenders mental acuity, stability and, whether they are disabled or seriously and dangerously mentally ill; all must be determined before they can stand trial and be held accountable for their crimes. One of these unstable and dangerous individual is Mr. Doe in the sample case. He admitted to sex crimes against adults and a child; he defers to his lawyer and makes threats against another woman. Even if he was exaggerating and did not intend to kill anyone, given the heinous nature of rest of his crimes, it still must be taken seriously and mentioned by the forensic psychologist. Given the variable involved in forensic psychology it is completely logical that these psychologists should be given variations and special dispensation when it comes to working for the courts of law. The ultimate goal in the grander scheme of things is to find the most beneficial way to make certain those responsible can be held accountable, but also that the process of determining must be fair, just and unbiased, even for the worst kinds of criminal, like Mr. Doe.
REFERENCES
Felthous, A.R. (2006). Warning a potential victim of a person's dangerous: Clinician's duty or
Victim's Right? Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online. 34(3). 338-348.
Glancy, G.D., Buchanan, A. and et. al. (2015). AAPL practice guideline for the forensic
Kalmbach, K.C. and Lyons, P.M. (2006). Ethical issues in conducting forensic evaluations.
Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice. 2(3). 261-291.
Kebbell, M., Hurren, E. and Mazrerolle. (2006). An investigation into the effective and ethical
interviewing of suspected sex offenders. Australian Journal of Criminology. 327. 1-16.
Smith, D. (2014). 10 ways practitioners can avoid frequent ethical pitfalls. APA-Monitor. 34(1).
50. Retrieved July 2, 2016, http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan03/10ways.aspx.
American Psychology Association. (2010). Ethical psychologists and code of conduct including
2010 amendments. APA. 1. Retrieved July 2, 2016, from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
American Psychology-Law Society. (2011). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology:
Adopted by apa council of representatives (Unofficial version). APA. 1. Retrieved July 2, 2016, from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
