Applying Codes and Guidelines in Forensic Psychology

Analysis of the Ethical Violations

A critical analysis of this case study reveals that Dr. Jones tried as much as possible to remain ethical in evaluating detainee Smith’s competency to stand trial. She was also tasked with determining whether or not he was responsible for his behavior at the time of the offense. In this analysis, it will be fair to state that Dr. Jones made a lot of effort to be ethical in her assessment despite the doubts she had that the detainee was faking his mental problem. However, it is clear that she violated a number of these ethical codes as noted below.

Impartiality and Fairness

This specialty guideline requires forensic psychologists to be accurate, impartial, fair, and independent (Weiner & Freedheim, 2013). Dr. Jones was independent in her report, but she failed to be accurate, impartial, and fair when she reported that Dr. Jones killed the child due to its continued crying. Her overall observation was that the detainee was not competent to stand trial because of his psychotic state. This conclusion means that all the statements and actions of the detainee could not be a sincere reflection of what could have happened. Individuals who are troubled in mind can say anything or act anyhow, but this cannot be used as a sincere reflection of what they did when they are normal. A mad person can claim that he flew to Jupiter or the moon on a Jumbo Jet (Bartol & Bartol, 2011). This cannot be used as a hard fact in a court of law. If she felt compelled to report about the outbursts of the detainee, she should have been very accurate. She should have stated in her report that in his mental unconsciousness, the detainee claimed that he killed the child.

Avoiding Conflicts of Interest

This guideline requires forensic psychologists to avoid professional roles when they are aware that their impartiality, effectiveness, and competency may be impaired by personal interests. The detainee is accused to have to murder the three-year-old daughter of his girlfriend. Dr. Jones has a four-year-old girl that she cares for so much. This case must have created fear in her. She must have felt the safety of her child threatened by people like Smith. One can easily deduce that she was keen on ensuring that this crime does not go unpunished (Brown & Sleath, 2015). This fact may help in explaining why she noted in her report that the detainee stated that he killed the child without describing the mental state under which the statement was made.

Knowledge of the Legal System and the Legal Rights of Individuals

Dr. Jones knew that the testimony and the report she gave to the court would influence the court’s decision. That is why she was given the task (Bush, Connell, & Denney, 2006). The prosecution attorney knew her critical role in this case and that is why she was subpoenaed to testify. She knew that the legal rights of the detainee were in her hands. Her failure to clearly state that the statements made by the detainee were subject to her ruling that he was in a psychotic state violates this code. The result of this violation is the harsh sentence given to detainee Smith.

Communication

It was the responsibility of Dr. Jones to engage the detainee in all possible ways by creating an appropriate communication platform after the initial failure of face-to-face communication. However, the most she did was observe his behavior, read his mail, and listen to his phone conversations. As a professional forensic psychologist, she should have made an effort to draw near to the detainee and talk to him even if it meant using communication technologies or using the security officers every time she went to talk to him (Dorsten, 2012). This code was, therefore, violated in her assessment.

Conclusion

The case study has revealed a lot about the application of specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists in a practical context. It is observed that it is practically impossible for the courts to determine if a forensic psychiatric has observed the ethical codes expected of him. It is also clear that sometimes the psychiatrists may be influenced by personal issues when making decisions without their knowledge.

References

Top of Form Bartol, ‎C., & Bartol, A. (2011). Introduction to Forensic Psychology: Research and Application. New York: Cengage.

Brown, ‎S., & Sleath, E. (2015). Research Methods for Forensic Psychologists: A guide to completing your. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bush, S., Connell, M., & Denney, L. (2006). Ethical practice in forensic psychology: A systematic model for decision making. Washington: American Psychological Association.

Dors