Forensic Psychology
Forensic psychology has an extensive history which dates back to the 20th century at the time when psychology was first applied in the legal system. Miller and Reynolds (2003) highlighted the 1921 State vs. Driver case when the first psychologist testified as an expert witness and marked the onset of professional practice of forensic psychology. Since then, forensic psychologists have been involved in numerous cases and their expertise has become more recognized (Miller Reynolds, 2003). Forensic psychologists are ideally different from other psychologists, especially due to their unique roles. While clinical psychologists are involved in diagnosis forensic psychologists rarely perform any diagnostic procedures (Freedheim, Goldstein Weiner, 2003). Other distinct differences include their heightened conceptualization of human behavior, their focus on evaluation of involved items, and their capacities to derive conclusive proof of occurring events.
This paper will extensively explore the criminal, civil, investigative, police, and correctional subspecialties of forensic psychology. Criminal law focuses on the acts against society and involves pursuing criminal matters while civil law caters for the violations against individuals (Riber, 2002). In these two areas forensic psychologists have different roles, one of them being expert witnesses in court cases. They also evaluate criminals competencies for trial involving both juvenile and adult offenders. This indicates that other areas such as juvenile forensic psychology are also entwined in criminal forensic psychology (Ribner, 2002). This paper will also highlight the specific roles for different subspecialties and also provide a comprehensive account of the historical components of their origins, issues, and controversies as well as the relevant research developed in the specific subspecialty.
Criminal Forensic Psychology
In the subspecialty of criminal forensic psychology the focus is often on legal competency which thus fosters requests for forensic psychological assessments. Furthermore, psychologists are engaged at different levels of criminal law and tend to interact with a wide range of criminals (Walters, 2007). In this application, forensic psychologists are observed to take on such responsibilities as validating the competencies of witnesses in testifying in court or the capacity of criminals to face trial (Smith, 1993).
Criminal forensic psychology was influenced by the State vs. Driver court case of 1921 and the Jenkins vs. United States case of 1962 (Bartol Bartol, 2004). In the State vs. Driver case a psychologist was requested to provide expert testimony in court while in the Jenkins vs. United States case of 1975 forensic psychologists were allowed to provide testimonies on the capacity of the defendant to testify after a thorough psychological evaluation. This was significant because forensic psychologists were recognized as qualified professionals to render expert testimonies regarding mental disorder (Bartol Bartol, 2004). However, the court further asserted that the determination of a psychologists capability to render an expert testimony based on his or her results as to the absence or presence of mental defect or disease must depend upon the extent and nature of his or her knowledge (Bartol Bartol, 2004).
Hess and Weiner (2006) presented other influential cases in the practice of criminal forensic psychology with one of them being the Hidden vs. Mutual life Insurance Co. in 1954. In this case the plaintiff argued that he had a nervous condition which would not allow him to engage in any occupation. In order to examine whether the insured had a mental illness, a forensic psychologist administered projective tests and testified in favor of the plaintiff (Hess Weiner, 2006). Even though the court later disregarded the psychologists testimony, they also acknowledged the critical role forensic psychologists played as expert witnesses in court cases (Hess Weiner, 2006). The following years saw their recognition as expert witnesses in the legal system.
In their role of determining legal competency amongst criminals, forensic psychologists are meant to evaluate whether offenders understand the proceedings being made against them (Trager Brewster, 2001). After the evaluation of a rational understanding of court systems, they are also expected to evaluate mental health capacities, particularly for instances when the sanity of criminals or witnesses is questionable. Using various assessment tools, Bartol and Bartol (2004) illustrated that forensic psychologists are able to determine the genuineness of such conditions as insanity and establish whether offenders are indolent or not. This aspect is considered important in court cases as mentally retarded or insane individuals are accorded differential treatment in court cases (Bartol Bartol, 2004).
These forensic psychologists are allowed to express their opinions on the mental capacities of such defendants or witnesses. Developments on issues of competency made by a forensic psychologist are valued and more often than not critically considered by judges and juries.
Forensic psychologists have been influential at providing expert opinions on the reliability of certain witness testimonies. The fate of criminals and victims are often dependent on eye witness testimonies which heighten the need for forensic psychologists at determining accurateness (Trager Brewster, 2001). Hess and Weiner (1998) indicated that courts have shown an inclination at allowing psychologists to educate and enlighten judges and jurors on eyewitness testimonies. Apart from this, forensic psychologists are allowed to assess the criminal responsibility of a defendant at the time they committed the crime. While doing this, forensic psychologists must also present what forms of disturbances were present at the behavioral, volitional, and cognitive levels and provide a clarification of how they relate to the crime committed (Meloy, 2006)..
Criminal forensic psychologists are also given the responsibility of evaluating the risks posed by criminals to society. These assessments are done at times when the court considers bail provisions for the defendant, especially if they are charged with violent crimes and the resulting assessment determines whether to award bail or not (Meloy, 2006). Another important role relegated to forensic psychologists is in sentencing of offenders. As explained by Fabian (2003), in matters regarding such harsh sentences like the death penalty, psychologists are called upon for evaluating the competency and sanity of offenders. These insights may be what mitigates death penalties and instead offer rehabilitative andor correctional alternatives for defendants.
Ethical considerations are relevant in the field of forensic psychology. The Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (American Psychological Association APA, 2002) are used as guidelines for ensuring professionalism and ethics in psychology. Among such considerations is the issue of confidentiality where forensic psychologists are mandated to disclose information on their findings and only use it with informed consent. They are also obligated to have an awareness of the legal standards and implications which may limit their relationships with offenders or witnesses to whom they are assigned (APA, 2002).Ethical dilemmas for forensic psychologists handling criminal cases arise when they are expected to disclose crucial information to involved third parties (APA, 2002). In cases where the relationship between the psychologist and offender has made them privy to information which indicates eminent danger to others, psychologists must seek to protect the third party (APA, 2002). Hart, Ogloff, and Roesch (1989) asserted that the importance of protecting third parties cannot be overemphasized.
In this field of forensic psychology, there are emerging controversies especially with regard to the ethical role of psychologists when dealing with cases where a not guilty by reason of insanity has been delegated. This is also observed when issues of competency are involved and it is in these circumstances that the forensic psychologists ethical role needs to be clarified. Palermo (2003) argued that there are numerous factors which must be put into consideration when defining these ethical roles. Among these factors are the different moral values upheld by society, and the differences in ethic issues of clinical and forensic psychologists (Palemo, 2003). Furthermore, the relationship between forensic psychology experts and the legal systems are crucial in clarifying these ethical issues. Among the relevant research studies carried out in criminal forensic psychology are those by Gejdenson (2006) and Archer, Buffington-Vollum, Handel, and Stredny (2006) who attempted to advance the knowledge of forensic psychology instruments often used in determining the competencies and credibility of witnesses and defendants. In these studies, the researchers evaluated such instruments like the multiscale inventories, single scale tests, personality tests, and psychopathy instruments among others used in forensic assessments in the legal system (Barrack Mount, 1991).
Juvenile Forensic Psychology
Juveniles are a special population in the society usually considered as minors and whose care is assigned to adult individuals (Randall, Rachel, Craig, Leistico, Alecia, 2002). Over the years, this population has becomes increasingly engaged in crime and the legal justice system, however as a result of the observable differences between juveniles and adults it has been crucial to devise ways of ensuring their genuine culpability. Forensic psychologists are expected to evaluate the competence of juveniles to either stand trial or provide testimonies (Randall, Rachel, Craig, Leistico, Alecia, 2000). At an era when crimes involving juveniles are rampant, forensic psychologists play a critical role in juvenile court systems. Following the creation of Miranda rights in 1966 which are meant to protect constitutional rights of individuals, juveniles capacities to understand these rights have become an integral issue in criminal courts. For evidence provided by a minor to be admissible in court, they are expected to fully comprehend their rights and understand their actions. Forensic psychologists as explained by Ribner (2002) are requested to conduct a complete evaluation of the juvenile by considering the totality of circumstances.
The California case of 1967 People vs. Lara (Ribner, 2002) influenced the practice of forensic psychology with its total consideration of circumstances by psychologists as they seek to establish the competency of juveniles to waver their Miranda rights. Furthermore, psychologists are also delegated in establishing a juveniles competency to stand trial as noted by Benedek, and Cornell (1989) where the minors rational competence is scientifically evaluated. Ribner (2002) also sights other influential cases such as Fare vs. Michael C. in 1979 and West vs. United States in 1968. In these cases, forensic psychologists were allowed to evaluate the circumstances under which the juveniles had been interrogated and also whether they possessed the mental competency to stand trial. In 2005, the United States Supreme Court made a landmark decision by abolishing juvenile death penalty (Roper vs. Simmons, 2005). The court ruling was based on the developmental science that drew expansively from amicus curiae brief submitted by the APA (Steinberg, Cauffman, Woolard, Graham, Banich, 2009). In making the ruling, Justice Kennedy drew his attention to three definite aspects of juveniles immaturity which diminished their unlawful culpability their immature sense of responsibility, their heightened susceptibility to peer influence and the unformed nature of their characters (Steinberg, Cauffman, Woolard, Graham Banich, 2009). This case affirmed the earlier mentioned statement that forensic psychologists are expected to evaluate the competence of juveniles to either stand trial or provide testimonies in the courts of law.
Forensic psychologists who are involved in juvenile court cases are also assigned the role of determining the juveniles amenability to rehabilitation. There is a growing controversy on how juvenile offenders should be treated. In cases where juveniles are likely to benefit from rehabilitation, forensic psychologists are requested to establish their capacity to do so. This aids the judge and jury in formulating the appropriate sentence. As highlighted by Arrigo, and Shipley (2005), there are those who perceive that some juveniles are merely troubled and only need treatment while there are those who perceive them to deserve extreme punishment. In such instances forensic psychologists encounter ethical dilemmas especially when they have formed a bond with the minor in question (Arrigo Shipley, 2005). If their emotions interfere with their judgment, their ability to make impartial decisions regarding the provision for rehabilitative treatment may become limited. In these situations, forensic psychologists should withdraw from the court case as their findings are compromised and inadmissible in court (Arrigo Shipley, 2005).
Among the growing controversies in the practice of juvenile forensic psychology is the issue of the utilization of developmental considerations in juvenile cases. Since children are involved in a constant process of change their behaviors and characteristics are rapidly dynamic. Grisso, Miller, and Sales (1987) asserted that these developmental issues must be critically evaluated and considered in juvenile cases. This is especially important in determining the legal capacities and culpabilities of juveniles at their level of development and that is vital in establishing their levels of rationality and comprehension. Forensic psychologists are urged to develop assessment tools for measuring these developmental perspectives (Grisso, Miller, Sales, 1987)). This issue has led to the emergence of numerous research studies of juvenile offenders and their capacities in legal system providing ample empirical foundations for use in forensic (Arrigo Shipley, 2005).
Civil Forensic Psychology
This subspecialty of forensic psychology involves civil issues especially in court cases with regards to individually executed proceedings. Such civil proceedings range from child custody cases, discrimination and harassment issues, and injury litigation cases among others (Bow Quinnell, 2001). Forensic psychologists as observed in earlier discussed subspecialties are consulted in establishing competency capacities of involved parties. In child custody proceedings, forensic psychologists conduct evaluations on the capabilities of individuals seeking custody in raising the child or children in question. Civil competency is also mandated in civil disagreements involving will contests (Bow Quinnell, 2001). Psychologists are expected to perform assessments to establish the mental competency of particular individuals during the time of writing their will. The findings provide guidelines on whether there are grounds for contesting it or not.
Goldstein (2007) highlighted a number of landmark cases, which changed the processes of civil law. Such cases include that of Jackson vs. Indiana (1972) established a significant principle in regard to civil commitment when the plaintiff who was retarded and deaf therefore declared incompetent to stand trial leading to his involuntary commitment in a mental institution. In Atkins vs. Virginia case of 2002, Renard Atkins together with his accomplice William Jones were convicted of armed robbery, abduction and capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment (Lori, 2003). The jury based its decision on interviews with persons who knew Atkins, a review of court records and administration of intelligence tests which showed that Atkins was not mentally retarded as evaluated by Dr. Evan Nelson, a forensic psychologist. However, after sentencing Atkins to death, the Virginia Supreme court ordered for a second hearing, alleging that the trial court had utilized a misleading verdict. Dr. Nelson testified at this resentencing. The State provided a forensic expert disproof witness, Dr. Stanton Samenow, who evaluated Atkins and concluded that he was normal with average intelligence, but with antisocial personality disorder (APD). The jury at the Virginia Supreme court again found Atkins guilty and sentenced him to death (Lori, 2003).
As showcased in these cases involuntary civil commitments are also subject to civil forensic psychology. In circumstances when individuals are not competent to consent to psychiatric treatment forensic psychologists are sought after in order to establish whether involuntary civil commitment is warranted. As established by Petrila (2003) minors are not considered competent enough to consent to treatment and custodians are expected to take this responsibility, however, with this responsibility are other issues which may compromise the wellbeing of the child. It is under such circumstances that forensic psychologists are able to make concrete evaluations of the culpability of custodians in denying minors access to treatment. Mentally ill individuals who are considered incompetent in decision making are admitted to mental institutions through involuntary commitment only after psychologists have established the presence of the mental illness.
Ethical dilemmas are very common in child custody evaluations because they are laden with emotionally vulnerable children and parents. Ethical considerations are very crucial in these cases as the failure to maintain impartiality of judgment in the psychological evaluations may render evidence inadmissible. Forensic psychologists encounter difficulties in providing viable evidence when they conduct evaluations with a preconceived preference on one part as pointed out by Ackerman, and Ackerman (1997). If acquainted with one parent, they are biased against the other parent gaining custody.
Together with following ethical guidelines for psychologists that are available to forensic psychologists they must find alternative replacements when they establish that their impartiality has been compromised. Petrila (2004) addressed controversies within civil law with regard to forensic mental health psychologists who have been used to practicing their profession within mental institutions. Considering that mental health forensic experts have often worked under institutionalized jurisdictions, emerging civil decisions are shifting their focus and pressuring them to deinstitutionalize. Petrila (2004) observed that even though they have questioned their capacities and responsibilities in offering expert testimonies in civil courts, it is eminent that they need to integrate their expertise cohesively with civil law while doing this.
Since civil forensic psychology involves many personal evaluations, a majority of researches are carried out with the aim of assessing issues involved. Knapp, and VandreCreek (2001) addressed ethical issues involved in conducting personal assessments and further provide information which can guide forensic psychologists in carrying out ethical evaluations consistent with the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (APA, 2002). Another relevant research involves the study of trends and the state of professional practice among psychologists in child custody evaluations (Bow Quinnell, 2001).
Investigative Forensic Psychology
This subspecialty refers to the application of forensic psychological research and principles to investigations of criminal behaviors. As described by Canter (1995) in Arrigo, and Shipley (2005), investigative psychology is deemed to have begun in 1985 when the author was requested to explore the possibilities of integrating investigative techniques and procedures with psychological concepts. Central to investigative forensic psychology is the determination of significant behavioral features of crimes which can aid prosecution of the offenders. This creates inferences on characteristics of offenders which can lead to their identification and also establish the likelihood of such offenders to have committed other crimes. Forensic psychologists are tasked with the responsibility of profiling during investigations. Profiling is done especially on the psychological and demographic features of involved individuals. Mcgrath (2000) asserted that as a profiler a forensic psychologist is mandated to make inferences on offender characteristics using gathered information of crime scene behavior and form interpretations made from collected crime scene evidence and victimology. A forensic psychologists expertise is also considered very instrumental in investigating serial crimes as they are capable of identifying crimes which were carried out by the same person(s). Douglas, and Munn (1992) expound that forensic psychologists may not be considered the best criminal profilers but are better placed to build substantial profiles due to their forensic training. They add that their work is quite extensive and rather difficult. Recently, forensic psychologists have also been involved in conducting psychological autopsies where they attempt to recreate personality profiles of deceased individuals in collaboration with law enforcement officers (Douglas Munn, 1992).
The field of investigative forensic psychology includes the investigation of the Boston strangler in 1964 cited by Turvey (2008) where the defendant Albert DeSalvo confessed to being the Boston strangler. In line with the DNA evidence found on the strangled women it was clear that DeSalvo had not committed the crime. A forensic investigation was carried out and while in prison a forensic psychologist evaluated his confession and concluded that there were anomalies. The psychologists claim was validated when DeSalvo recounted his confession and denied being the Boston strangler. Bartol and Bartol (2004) highlighted the 1971 case of the mysterious hijacker of the Northwest Airlines Boeing 727 in Portland. In pursuit of the hijacker, forensic psychologists were involved in the investigations as criminal profilers (Turvey, 2008).
In making contributions to criminal profiling forensic psychologists are expected to be aware of the weight of their expertise during investigations. As such they must conduct their investigations accordingly so as to avoid compromising cases. Ethical dilemmas in criminal profiling emerge when forensic psychologists lose their objectivity and professionalism. Kocsis (2006) argued that it is crucial to remain objective and independent throughout criminal profiling proceedings. At times psychologists may have a differing opinion from those they are engaging with during investigations. In order to avoid compromising the investigations it is important that they remain objective and distance themselves from engaging with either side of the investigation.
Controversial debates in investigative forensic psychology have emerged in offender profiling. Alison and Goodwill (2007) expanded the debates on the possibilities of inferring offenders features using details from crime scenes. They also set out to ascertain the possibilities of profiling an offenders age from the victims age in cases of stranger rape. Processes and methods used during criminal profiling by forensic psychologists suggest that factors present in crime scenes can indeed have differential moderating effects on the outcomes of predictions. Other relevant researches in investigative forensic psychology involve formulating an understanding of the roles of forensic psychologists in offender profiling under different contexts. Annon (1995) described the concepts and theories behind the practices of offender profiling and the critical roles forensic psychologists play in behavioral analysis of different crime scenes.
Police Forensic Psychology
Policing in the 21st century has shifted from incident driven perspectives to problem solving stances which have further integrated the necessity for forensic psychologists. Police psychology distinguishes roles played by police officers from other law enforcement officers. Forensic psychologists are expected to provide services to policing in areas such as the recruitment of police officers and fitness for duty evaluations, juvenile policing and community policing (Bartol, 1996). Cochrane, Tett, and VandreCreek (2003) pointed out that psychological expertise is required by police departments during procedures for selection. It is the responsibility of the forensic psychologist to conduct tests on the similarity of police personalities with those of aspiring individuals. In fact they are often requested to conduct research and create ideal police profiles which can be used during recruitments. During police interrogations forensic psychologists are often requested in order to offer insight on the capacity of individuals to respond to interrogations. Confessions are only admissible in court when they have been derived accordingly and forensic psychologists play a big role in advising police officers on the credibility of confessions (Cochrane, Tett, VandreCreek, 2003).
Hess and Weiner (2006) claimed that the first practice of police forensic psychology was in 1917 when mental tests were used as screening devices in the selection of police officers. After that other psychologists were involved in developing assessment tools for the recruitment of law enforcement personnel such as the Army intelligence examination. Bartol and Bartol (2004) presented a study in 1992 where forensic psychologists administered personality inventories like the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2), Citizen Police Academy (CPA), Sixteen-Personality Factor Questionnaire (16 PF) and the Inwald Personality Inventory (IPI) in measuring the integrity levels of police officers. It was evident that police officers engaged in corruption possessed common personality characteristics such as immaturity, delinquent histories and signs of maladjustments (Bartol Bartol, 2004).
In todays world, police officers are highly involved in the lives of juveniles especially with the rise of delinquent youths. Their interactions can be quite demanding as they are expected to develop amiable relations with juveniles (Alec Richard). There are emerging controversial issues in this regard as police officers find themselves in situations where they are conflicted on how to implement intervention strategies. In the midst of such interventions are the conflicts of addressing the juveniles best interests and their responsibility of maintaining public safety and security. At this point forensic psychologists offer valuable services of conducting risk assessments in areas where juvenile delinquency is highly prevalent. This helps police officers in identifying high risk areas and therefore considering relevant strategies (Alec and Richard).
Fulero and Wrightsman (2009) depicted that ethical issues are often present when forensic psychologists consult with law enforcement. For instance, an ethical dilemma arises when forensic psychologists are obliged by authorities in the police department to disclose information on individual officers who are evaluated for promotion (Fulero Wrightsman, 2009). In such circumstances if they are under threats, forensic psychologists are expected to uphold their code of conduct and honor the confidentiality privilege however they can seek to terminate their services when they encounter such circumstances rather that break their code of ethics and conduct. Moreover, the ethical problem of dual roles is continuously raising controversial debates in policing forensic psychiatry and as explained by Alec and Richard (1998). There have been various mechanisms which have been invoked as experts attempt to provide a common ground for practice.
Relevant researches in police forensic psychology have included the evaluations of risk assessment techniques and tools such as the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management-20 (HCR-20), violence risk assessment technique (VRA) and the MMPI-2 for adolescents among others used by forensic experts in judging delinquency (Arrigo Shipley, 2005). In the Tarasoff vs. Regents of California University (1979) landmark case, the court ruled that forensic psychologists should be in position to assess their clients for any possible mischief to an identifiable victim. Therefore, this decree brought the theme of risk assessment to the lives of forensic psychologists, and was significant as it led to a major controversy among forensic psychologists about the effects of such risk assessment on the remedial processes and moral principle of confidentiality (Trager Brewster, 2001). Experts have time and again agreed that forecasting risk for prospect violent behavior in their clients is a remarkably tricky role. However, its expected that the courts will carry on demanding forensic psychologist to provide risk assessments, in spite of the difficulties distinguished in giving precise, accurate or exact predictions (Arrigo Shipley, 2005). The courts have continually ruled that forensic psychologist provide expert testimonies about predictions of violent behavior (Schall vs. Martin, 1984 Barefoot vs. Estelle, 1983 Saleno vs. United States, 1987). This makes the forensic psychologist plus other mental health professionals to uphold their principled duty and acknowledge the setbacks of their proficiency in providing such predictions (Arrigo Shipley, 2005).
Correctional Forensic Psychology
Corrections in the world today are considered a complex and extensive form of operation which relies heavily on psychological expertise. This field addresses correctional facilities and issues involved in the rehabilitation of individuals (Walters, 2007). In prison correctional facilities forensic psychologists play a role of conducting evaluations on inmates in the consideration of a variety of factors. In circumstances where inmates are indicative of aggressive behavior and need further restriction, forensic psychologists assess their behaviors and report on their qualifications for prison transfers.
Bartol and Bartol (2006) explained that forensic psychologists are expected to observe the inmates behaviors paying close attention to the aggressive responses they elicit. In prison psychological assessments are carried out at the entry level of inmates, when they are about to be released and when there are psychological crises. In addition, when inmates involved are facing death penalties forensic psychologists are very influential in establishing the mental health of such inmates (Walters, 2007).. This can help if the inmate has been wrongly incarcerated and investigations are being carried out on their involvement in particular crimes. Since the constitution prohibits the execution of inmates who are mentally handicapped and who do not comprehend the extent of the punishment forensic psychologists have been vigorously involved in catering for inmates on death row (Bartol Bartol (2006).
Noteworthy developments of the practice of correctional forensic psychology occurred in 1964 as explained by Hess and Weiner (2006) where the introduction of a unit management system was established in federal prisons. These systems involved forensic psychologists dividing prison populations of both staff and prisoners with regard to the prisoners rehabilitation needs and the staffs areas of expertise. Prior to this development forensic psychologists had been more involved in working with offenders and offering them treatment services (Hess Weiner, 2006).
More often than not, psychologists working in correctional facilities encounter ethical dilemmas with regard to the informed consent of inmates. Inmates are often subjected to psychological evaluations without their consent and forensic psychologists may encounter problems especially when inmates believe that they have no choice but to take part in the evaluation (Trager Brewster, 2001). This also capitulates to the problem of dual relationships when forensic psychologists are expected to honor both the correctional facility and the individual they are evaluating. Further controversies arise in cases where forensic psychologists are expected to offer expert opinions with regard to the rehabilitative capacities of juveniles in correctional facilities (Trager Brewster, 2001). In recent times, the majority of juvenile offenders are assigned rehabilitative treatments as opposed to punishments as this has increased the involvement of psychologists in juvenile correctional facilities. As they are charged with the duty of determining the capacity of rehabilitated juveniles to cope in their former home environments they can develop deep bonds with them. This may induce ethical problems of lack of due diligence and objectivity while carrying out evaluations. Althouse (2000) highlighted a case of choosing freely vs. freely choosing, where Uri Gofman, a man blamed for arranging a major mortgage scheme in the history of Ohio being enrolled in a rehabilitative program by a correctional forensic psychologist. The program was intended to assist rehabilitate Gofman, such that when he is released and rejoins the general public, he would be obligated to follow the law (Althouse, 2000).
Correctional forensic psychology has not been operative for long and there has been limited relevant research assigned to this field of psychology. Linda and Shoba (1994) have researched on the above mentioned ethical and professional conflicts often observed in correctional facilities. Although this has been relevant it has not indicated specific reference to the practice of forensic psychology, however there are future considerations being made for more research on the roles of forensic psychologists in correctional facilities (Linda Shoba, 1994). Also, there is a general need to conduct surveys in correctional facilities on the provisions made for forensic psychologists evaluating aggressive inmates.
Summary
From the above discussion, it is evident that the paper has extensively addressed the field of forensic psychology. With specific attention being paid to the different subspecialties, it is observable that forensic psychologists are tasked with a vast range of roles. Forensic psychologists working with criminal courts are responsible for carrying out evaluations and providing expert opinions on competencies of offenders to stand trial and witnesses in providing testimonies. They also assess the criminal responsibility of offenders and even provide insight on the competencies of offenders during sentencing. Ideally, forensic psychologists are valued in all the subspecialties as their expert opinions are utilized during judging of cases. Other roles discussed include their capacities as criminal profilers during criminal investigations, their involvement in police selection processes and the evaluation of police officers fitness for duty. They are also instrumental in child custody cases filed in civil courts where they are expected to evaluate the credibility of custodians and also in assessing the best provisions available for the childs wellbeing. Furthermore, they are engaged in correctional facilities where they offer services to death row inmates in evaluating their mental rational capacity.
In the practice of forensic psychology, there are emerging ethical issues which have been detailed in the discussion with regard to the various subspecialties, however eminent issues include the aspects of dual agency and a lack of objectivity in handling various circumstances of their work. Regardless of this, the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (APA, 2002) has been showcased as a valuable source of guidance which can aid forensic psychologists in handling any ethical issues that they may experience. From the above mentioned landmark cases in dissimilar subspecialties of forensic psychology it is also evident that these ethical issues have been subject to controversial debates in the field of psychology. However with the rampant growth of forensic psychology research, these controversies will be solved. Even though the subspecialties are indicative of distinct fields of practicing forensic psychology, there are common roles which can be deduced. Forensic psychologists ultimately play the role of rendering expert testimonies and knowledge to all these subspecialties of forensic psychology. Therefore, their competence takes precedence along with ethical guidelines to follow, and coupled with continuous search for more relevant knowledge. The many roles of forensic psychologists are and will be invaluable to society.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment