Get fast, custom help from our academic experts, any time of day.
Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts.
Secure Original On Schedule
Main Discussion Post:
Section 6.03.03 in the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology, established by the American Psychological Association ([APA], 2011), discusses persons lacking the capacity to provide informed consent. The APA (2023) defines informed consent as, “a person’s voluntary agreement to participate in a procedure on the basis of their understanding of its nature, its potential benefits and possible risks, and available alternatives” (para. 1). This may be a challenging guideline to adhere to as a forensic psychology professional because there are many disorders such as dissociative identity disorder (DID) that can impair an individual’s understanding and/or ability to provide the voluntary agreement required to participate in a procedure.
Slater (2015) proposed a solution to help ensure compliance with all ethical guidelines. Additionally, Slater (2015) suggests that rather than declaring an individual who suffers from DID as incompetent, that, “it should instead be determined (1) which identity, if any, should govern the decision, and (2) how to elicit such information” (pp. 239-240). Another solution would be to ensure the individual has someone who is in charge of making medical and legal decisions for them such as a medical power of attorney (POA). This would allow that appointed individual to make sound decisions in the same way a parent/guardian makes decisions for a minor in their care.
Section 8.02 in the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology discusses release of information (confidentiality). Forensic psychology professionals often handle sensitive information. Balancing the need for confidentiality with the legal obligations to disclose certain information can be challenging. This requires a thorough understanding of both ethical standards and legal requirements.
The court’s need for all pertinent information can clash with traditional confidentiality standards (Knapp & Fingerhut, 2024). While the court requires confirmation that the treatment has met its objectives, psychologists must maintain trust with their patients to be effective (Knapp & Fingerhut, 2024). The best approach is to create a balanced confidentiality policy that all parties agree to in advance (Knapp & Fingerhut, 2024).
Psychologists should strive to protect patient privacy as much as possible while complying with court requirements (Knapp & Fingerhut, 2024). For instance, they can provide the court with general information but keep more specific details that are not directly relevant to the court’s concerns confidential (Knapp & Fingerhut, 2024). However, psychologists cannot ensure complete confidentiality since the release signed by the patient typically grants the court full access to the patient’s information (Knapp & Fingerhut, 2024).
Section 1.02 in the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology discusses impartiality and fairness. This is, in my opinion, one of the most challenging guidelines. Personal biases can inadvertently influence the assessment process, leading to skewed results. Ensuring that personal beliefs, experiences, or attitudes do not affect the evaluation is crucial to upholding this guideline. The human mind often leans towards wishful thinking, showing a propensity to accept, believe, and even validate what we desire to be true (Oudijk, 2007). Therefore, I think the best way to lessen the biases we have that may influence our decision-making and/or treatment is by recognizing these biases, actively working to educate ourselves on inevitable societal changes, and engage with members of all races, socioeconomic statuses, etc.
References:
American Psychological Association. (2023, November 15). APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/informed-consent
American Psychological Association. (2011, January 1). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/forensic-psychology
Knapp, S. J., & Fingerhut, R. (2024). Forensic psychology. In Practical ethics for psychologists: A positive approach., 4th ed. (pp. 187–200). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000375-011
Oudijk, G. (2007). Bias and Its Impact on Expert Testimony: How the Thoughts of the 17th Century Enlightenment Can Help the Forensic Scientist. Environmental Forensics, 8(3), 289–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/15275920701508330
Slater, J. (2015). Can Dr. Jekyll Sign for Mr. Hyde?: Examining the Rights of Individuals Suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder in Civil Contexts. Southern California Review of Law & Social Justice, 24(2), 239–265.
Expand discussion thread from Talia Wind1 Reply, 1 Unread1 Reply, 1 Unread
Reply to post from Talia WindReply
Mark as ReadMark as Read
Alina Nicole Rodriguez-MckennaSep 4 11:36pmLast reply Sep 6 8:04pmManage Discussion by Alina Nicole Rodriguez-Mckenna
Reply from Alina Nicole Rodriguez-Mckenna
There are different types of guidelines when it comes to a forensic assessment. Each assessment has different uses when it comes to interviewing offenders. Using accurate test results, informed consent and interpreting test assessments all come into play in making sure that any assessment taken on an offender or victim is accurate when it comes to any type of cases that come their way.
Informed consent assessments involve in making sure no ethical codes are violated during any type of interview but it also goes over the reason on why they are conducting the assessment. There are only three reasons for informed consent to not be mandated; “(1) testing is mandated by law or governmental regulations; (2) informed consent is implied because testing is conducted as a routine educational, institutional, or organizational activity (e.g., when participants voluntarily agree to assessment when applying for a job); or (3) one purpose of the testing is to evaluate decisional capacity.” (APA, pg. 13, 2011). I think this would be challenging due to some of the nature of the crimes are committed. When you have an offender in custody sometimes you may forget to include that information.
Psychological test results can also help understand the interviewees mental state. During these assessments the interviewer is asking the interviewee different questions given by a psychologist. This may be one that I may have trouble with understanding the how to test is how the administered and understanding what to look for in order to give accurate results.
Interpreting test results can be the most valuable piece of information especially when it comes to psychologists needing to know if the offender can possibly be determined as criminally insane, unfit to stand trial or showing that the offender was mentally sane during their crime. In order the interpret the test results they have to take into account on why the test was administered in the beginning, interviewee’s test taking abilities, background, health, culture and many other factors (APA, pg. 14, 2011). Having to take all these factors into consideration it may be difficult when making sure each question has an accurate result in the end.
Reference:
American Psychological Association. (2011). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologyLinks to an external site.. https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/forensic-psychology
Expand discussion thread from Alina Nicole Rodriguez-Mckenna5 Replies, 5 Unread5 Replies, 5 Unread
Reply to post from Alina Nicole Rodriguez-MckennaReply
Mark as UnreadMark as Unread
Mark post as readMarlisha Gregory (They/Them)Sep 4 10:11pmLast reply Sep 7 1:16pmManage Discussion by Marlisha Gregory
Reply from Marlisha Gregory
Main Discussion Post
In APA’s justice portion of general ethical principles, it includes that psychologists should “take precautions to ensure that their potential biases. . . do not lead to or condone unjust practices,” (pg. 3; APA, 2010), and also touched on in 1.02 of the specialty guidelines for forensic psychology (APA, 2011). Personal bias(es) of forensic psychologists could encourage an injustice of a free person being wrongly incarcerated or a dangerous or high-risk individual being freed. An issue of personal biases is also discussed by Dror (2018) which ultimately reflects this path, in that one personal bias can “snowball’ into a bias affecting others within the process and ultimately their decisions. Dror (2018) also points out that implicit biases are even more difficult because an individual is not always aware of them and may even actively ignore these biases. APA’s advice is to ensure that a psychologist are aware of their biases, and to the best of their abilities avoid enacting these biases or removing themselves from the equation if the biases cannot be overcome (APA, 2010; APA, 2012).
A personal bias that I know myself to have, and that has been something that I have had to be aware of during my current field of work as a crisis associate is a predisposed negative judgment of parents who have substance abuse issues. The way that I approach this bias is usually by identifying it, reminding myself that it’s there, and adjusting any accompanying thoughts or beliefs that I have surrounding the bias. This bias didn’t impact my work in a way that was determinantal to the client, or my work performance, but rather how I felt about the case.
Another guideline that I find may be difficult to follow is in the APA (2011) Specialty Guidelines in the competency section in which forensic psychologists are expected to “provide opinions and testimony that are sufficiently based on adequate scientific foundation,” (2.05). Melton et al., (2018) discuss how issues have arisen from the testimony of forensic expert witnesses providing testimony on questions from lawyers that indicate guilt or innocence of the defendant. Though it seems as though it would be easy to avoid implicating guilt or innocence, I imagine it is much different on the witness stand being cross-examined, as well as likely having an actual opinion of the case based on the evidence presented. I believe the best way to address this, as was covered by Melton et al., (2018) is to only provide opinions that can be backed up by the evaluation that was conducted. So, if a PCL-R was conducted and did not express significant results of psychopathy and the expert is asked if the defendant is a psychopath, then the expert should respond that the test was not conclusive and then wonder if, in the expert witness’s judgment did the defendant commit the crime, the expert should respond along the lines of not being able to provide an opinion on the matter.
Lastly, the specialty guideline that I feel would be difficult for me is under the diligence section, in which the APA states that “Forensic practitioners seek to manage their workloads so that services can be provided thoroughly, competently, and promptly,” (3.02). Managing my workload is a current issue that I am working on with my job, in that I tend to bite off more than I can chew, which tends to leave me frazzled and less likely to provide the best of the services that I can offer, and rather, either working longer and harder than I am required or doing the bare minimum to skate by. I imagine in the realm of being a forensic psychologist, the issue I would have the most difficult time with is saying “No.” The way that I am actively addressing this issue is by mapping out what my caseload looks like, categorizing things into importance, and scheduling appointments in a manner that leaves me time to do documentation in between.
References
American Psychological Association. (2011). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/forensic-psychologyLinks to an external site.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf Links to an external site.
Dror, I. (2018). Biases in forensic experts. Science 360(6386), 243. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat8443Links to an external site.
Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (2018). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (4th ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Expand discussion thread from Marlisha Gregory4 Replies, 4 Unread4 Replies, 4 Unread
Reply to post from Marlisha GregoryReply
Mark as ReadMark as R
Get fast, custom help from our academic experts, any time of day.
Secure Original On Schedule