Running Head: ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY 1

Ethical Dilemmas in Forensic Psychology

Student’s Name

Institution

Tutor

Date
ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY 2

Ethical Dilemmas in Forensic Psychology

Modern forensics have evolved and advanced extensively in recent times. Advancement

in technology and scientific research has expanded the limits within which forensic psychology

can enhance the investigation and exploration of human behavior and experiences. Forensic

psychology combines the subjects of the practice of psychology with law and analytical

techniques of information. Essentially, forensic psychology is an application of social,

neuropsychology, experimental, clinical, and counselling psychology in forensic investigation. It

is a result of the nexus between psychology, law and the practice of the criminal justice system.

In contemporary times, crime has become m more sophisticated and it has required

diversification of resolution techniques. The psychological skills comprising of psychoanalytical

assessment and evaluation of psychological behavior together with treatment of individuals with

psychological conditions in the criminal justice system. Forensic psychology however

encompasses areas wider that the legal aspect. All elements of human psychology that may be

analyzed to provide certain assessment or a certain conclusion through techniques of psychology

are within the precinct of forensic psychology. The area of human psychology has many ethical

issues due to the fact that it relates to intimate matters of personality and consciousness. It

therefore understandably arises ethical issues during its practice in regards to both aspects of

psychology ethics, legal and criminal justice ethics. All psychologists of all disciplines are

guided by a set of rules and standards by the American Psychological Association. At times,

conflict occur between the pursuit for ethical practice of forensic psychology. In this complex

relationship ethical dilemmas inevitably occur. This paper will assess the ethical dilemmas in the

practice of forensic psychology.

ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY 3

One of the most common ethical dilemmas in clinical and psychological fields is privacy,

confidentiality and privilege. Privacy is a pertinent issue in the relation between humans.

Individuals naturally desire the freedom and autonomy to choose what aspects of their selves can

be in the public domain and which others cannot (Griffith, 2018). Modern societies today have

defined rights and civil liberties to extensively protect privacy of members of society. As such

persons guard their privacy jealously and regard any violation as an outright ill. Ethically,

privacy is a crucial principle that should be preserved. Many disciplines and code of conducts

regard privacy as being central to practice ethics. On the other hand for societies to live

coherently and prosper, there has to be some level of control of human behavior that may

sometimes step into the boundaries of human privacy. Particularly in the practice of forensic

psychology, investigation of psychological conditions of persons may be necessary to deliver

justice or avert the suffering of others. The extent to which forensic psychology can justifiably

and ethically assess the mental faculties of a person are a major ethical dilemma. While the

interest of both the law and the subject are at play, a balance to ensure that no one’s rights are

unjustly violated can be difficult to establish. For instance, while legal standards presume a

person to be innocent until proven guilty and the right not to give incriminating evidence, the

establishment of justice may require mental assessments. While it is obvious that forensic

psychologists are bound by psychological ethics to preserve the privacy of information provided

by a subject, certain aspects in the criminal justice system are used to provide evidence for trials

Confidentiality is caused by the issue of handling forensic data or information while

privilege arises due to the unbalanced relationship between the psychologist and the examinee. In

confidentiality, forensic psychologists are faced with the challenge of discerning between the

limitations of how to handle data or how to dispose/ secure it after it has been drawn from the
ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY 4

subject and examined (Brendel, 2018). Irresponsible sharing of personal information is

prohibited in clinical and psychological respects. However, the nexus with legal systems where

openness and accountability to the public are major aspects develops a conflict within the ethical

considerations. On one hand, court proceedings and investigative processes are kept in the public

domain and every persona has a right to access them. On the other hand, this is critical, intimate

and personal information that describes the most innate personality details. In the general field of

psychology, it is a direct contravention of ethics to give personal information to other parties. As

a result, an ethical dilemma arises and conflicts forensic psychologists.

Conversely, privilege is also a thorny issue in forensic psychology ethics. This is mostly

caused by the unbalanced nature of power in the relationship between the psychologist and the

subject. The psychologist has an uneven power in the relationship due to their professional and

expert experience over the subject (Bersof, 2008). The whole arrangement of an assessor and

their subject grants the former more power and thus, more privilege. The power of privilege can

be easily abused by the forensic psychologist. It is therefore fundamental that professionals limit

themselves within the extents that they do not overly exploit their power unjustifiably which at

times leads to degrading intrusion and treatment or causing conditions such as dependence. As a

consequence, privilege alongside confidentiality and privacy are sources of ethical dilemma in

forensic psychology;

Another majorly contested area is coaching. The question as to whether or if a subject can

be coached in readiness to taking a psychological test is a problematic one. Firstly, all

psychologists are not allowed to coach a person for a psychological test according to ethical

standards (Perlin, 1991). However, in the criminal justice system, many other players not bound
ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY 5

by the code of conduct create a confusion as to the ethical practice. For instance, the law of an

attorney appears to enable an attorney to assist their client in anticipation of a psychological test.

Moreover, different cultural backgrounds among forensic psychologists have varied views

towards examinee coaching. Also, the distinction of forensic psychologists with clinical

psychologists who function using similar psychological techniques but practice in starkly

different fields and for different goals develop questions if forensic psychologists can viably

abide to the generalized ethical principles while still functioning effectively in their practice.

This complex situation causes and ethical dilemma.

Another cause of ethical dilemma in the practice of forensic psychology is consent.

Basically, the practice of forensic psychology involves little or no consent. In the criminal justice

system the examination of individuals is often non-voluntary. Confidentiality is a key obligation

that a psychologist should protect in their work (Gottlieb & Coleman, 2012). Forensic

psychologist hold interviews with their clients as they try to dig out information. This also leads

to disclosure of very sensitive information by the clients. Psychologists should make reasonable

precautions to keep the confidentiality and should not in any instance disclose it to another party

without the express consent from the client. Participation in the mental and psychological

assessments are often required and backed by law such that the subject has little or no say as to

whether they will be performed on them. Consent is therefore mostly lacking unlike other

psychological disciplines such as clinical, social, and experimental psychology (Gottlieb &

Coleman, 2012). It therefore inevitably exposes these persons to involuntarily giving personal

information. This excessive rights over examinees by psychologists can often cause ethical

problems. Because of the great access to information that the psychologist has, he or she is the

only source of restraint to the extent of information to mine or extract from the subject. For this
ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY 6

reason, ethically, forensic psychologists are only required to extract information about the

cognitive and psychosocial state of the examinee that is necessary in the forensic process. There

is therefore a thin line between how much intrusive interviews and analysis can go within this

threshold. As a result, this dispute causes an ethical dilemma.

Another ethical dilemma is about objectivity in forensic research. Objectivity refers to the

distinction between the subjective and objective truths during forensic analysis of psychological

information. While a forensic psychologist is required to tell objective truth in its pure,

independent and unbiased state in recognition of apparent limitation in forensic methodology,

sometimes bias and subjectivity may intrude a forensic psychologist’s thought (Ostrov, 2013).

The dilemma in this ethical situation arises when experience and natural practice provides

divergent perceptions or when the psychologist encounter new situations contrasting to

established research. In the practice of forensic practice, practitioners encounter new scenarios

often because the human nature and especially the cognitive aspect is dynamic and has not been

comprehensively explained (Ostrov, 2013). These scenarios can cause a dilemma as regards

objectivity. This is the case because despite the fact that new information may be at play, it is

still not researched and reviewed by peers to authenticate objectivity. Thus, the distinction

between the objectivity of such information can be problematic. Psychological practice dictates

that practitioners recognize their biases. Additionally, it requires that they recognize the

limitations of their scientific and professional knowledge. In the deduction of conclusions in this

dynamic field, it can therefore be confusing and create an ethical dilemma for practicing forensic

psychologists.
ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY 7

Entering into multiple roles and relationships also causes ethical dilemmas. The concept

of multiple roles and relationships is the existence of a forensic psychologist in professional

relationships with more than one individual or party. There are different specialty areas in the

criminal justice system. A forensic psychologist may be an examiner, expert witness, fact

witness among others. The manner in which examiners approach their role being either forensic

or clinical can create a conflict of ethics. This is because it ultimately decides the manner and

techniques to be employed in the assessment. Forensic psychologists should ideally remain in

their scope of forensics. However, they may at times steer away in terms of the nature of

information sought, interviews, and the systematic approach employed.

Ideally, psychologists should adopt the forensic manner of research and analysis and

abstain from clinical psychology. Clinical psychology covers the aspects of evaluation and

administration of therapeutic techniques in psychoanalytic processes to resolve different kinds of

psychological and personality conditions and disorders (Rodgers, 1987). Contrastingly, forensic

psychology is about the investigation into the behavioral traits and conditions that underlay and

attempting to establish a connection to some behavioral characteristics inherent in the subjects

with some activity. Forensic psychology is not concerned with the resolution of the condition but

rather, establishing a linkage, existence or inexistence of the condition to certain phenomenon.

At times the examiner may be tempted to exercise their therapeutic techniques. Additionally, the

different roles that forensic psychologists can have may conflict their attention or interest

(Rodgers, 1987). Because a forensic psychologist cannot offer a subject the privileges of

psychological confidentiality and privacy, they should restrain themselves to only forensic

investigation. For this reason, forensic psychologists have been required to only partake in either

the role of expert witness or a fact witness but not both. When a practitioner is required by the
ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY 8

law to undertake more than one role in legal proceedings, they have an ethical obligation of

disclosing that fact. Also, they are directed not to assume any other role if it will impede their

fair judgment and objectivity. In absence of these regulations, forensic evaluation may be

compromised.

Another ethical dilemma in the practice of forensic psychology is the interpretation of

analytical data and the presentation of witness testimony in trials. The association of forensic

psychologists with the court trial process often causes ethical dilemmas. Bias, use of difficult

scientific terminology, and advocacy are some of the ethical issues that may arise in a court

room. The professional and technical analysis of information in a psychology laboratory can also

cause ethical issues. This is because different competencies, techniques, and analytical practices

can cause issues with uniformity of results. The presentation of these results also highly

influence their effect in a courtroom. As the psychologist is the person who has superiority and

authority when addressing matters, what they say carries great weight. As such uniformity of

results and varying presentation of the results can be influenced by the psychologist. Accuracy,

independence, competence, and objectivity are concerns of the ethics of forensic psychology in

the analysis and presentation of facts.

Private practice is another contentious area in forensic psychology. Private practice is

associated with an added incentive for financial gain. Moreover, the field is not closely

monitored and regulated in terms of enforcing the code of conduct or professionalism. These two

factors combined are a cause for concern for players in the domain. While private practitioners

have the freedom to do so and can be helpful in civil litigations and other private prosecutions,

they are often treated as suspect. In terms of financial incentives, forensic psychologists in
ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY 9

private practice perform task at the request and funding of a party. Thus, they can be easily

compromised into either purposeful or unconscious bias towards their clients. Also, the

professionalism in performing completely objective forensics on clients who they are under their

payroll can be conflicting. Public forensic psychologists on the other hand have the luxury to be

completely independent from dependence or influence of any party since they are remunerated

by the national exchequer. Additionally, public consultants are offered stringent control by

regulators and peer reviews. Therefore, private practice is an area of ethical dilemma within the

field of forensic psychology.

At times in the criminal justice system or in other governmental processes and

organizations, enhanced interrogation may be employed. Enhanced interrogation is the practice

of coercive and intrusive interrogations using psychological techniques (Gottlieb &Coleman,

2012). At times, nations utilize these techniques in the interrogation of enemy captives to punish

them and obtain information about military strategies and enemy positions. This area has been

the source of major debate as to the ethical permissiveness of the acts. On one hand, some

players regard it as technique equitable to torture since the aims are almost always solely

destructive and negative. They rely on the fact that there has not been adequate empirical

evidence to prove the effectiveness of these techniques to positive drawing of information

without torture. On the other hands other practitioners regard it to be a technique necessitated by

the circumstances and refer to it as enhanced interrogation which they term as effective and

necessary in times of war or aggression. For instance in 2001, in the height of the American war

on terror , hundreds of war prisoners were subjected to psychiatric torture using methods such as

simulated drowning to enhance interrogation in Guantanamo Bay. Also, psychiatric drugs such
ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY 10

as Melfloquine was administered to prisoners to interfere with their cognitive processes and

enhance interrogation. Such methods are sources of ethical dilemmas.

Another contentious ethical issue in forensic psychology is child neuropsychology.

According to Morse (2018), the prominence of child neuropsychology is increasing in modern

times especially due to increasing familial disputes, child neglecting, child abuse and juvenile

delinquency. Like with other emerging specialties in forensic psychology child neuropsychology

is a niche area that does not have adequate and specialized expertise. While children are

obviously a sensitive subject especially in regard to forensic psychology, the area is also not

comprehensively developed with experts who specialize in dealing with children. Thus,

professional competence is a major ethical issue related to child forensic psychology (Cox &

Brodsky, 2018).. However, problems have to be resolved and swift administration of justice can

often require that unspecialized forensic psychologists perform the role. This intricate balance

between professional competences with necessity to act is a source of an ethical dilemma in the

practice of forensic psychology. Furthermore, when dealing with children, the issues of

confidentiality, informed consent, privilege and privacy become accentuated and even more

complicated. Children are classified among vulnerable groups which make them a sensitive

group to work with for forensic psychologists. Forensic psychologists dealing with children are

therefore put in an ethical dilemma on how to act rightly without infringing on the interests of

the child while also being effective in their role and the delivery of justice.

Ethical standpoints and conflict with law is another source of conflict with ethical

standards in forensic psychology. At times, the effective evaluation of behavioral and cognitive

characteristics of a subject can conflict with legal procedural and substantial systems (Cox &
ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY 11

Broadsky, 2018). Although the practice of forensic psychology can be dynamic in adapting to

different challenges and situations, it may encounter issues when intertwining with systems of

criminal or civil justice. Forensic psychology as a discipline has a set of processes and

mechanisms of operation that are established to direct psychological evaluation. Diagnostic

techniques may often comprise of standardized tests. Adapting these systems and mechanism

may sometimes compromise the accuracy, objectivity and analytical integrity of evaluation

results and conclusions. On the other hand, legal systems are mostly static. They are based on

predictability and consistency to ensure justice, effectiveness and continuality. Thus, they are

often not ready to bend to accommodate forensic systems. For instance, the incarceration and

environmental conditions of the justice system can compromise the best and accurate results of

psychological evaluation. In this case, the stress and inhumane treatment in these centers can

alter the psychological states of the examinees resulting in results that are not reflective of the

actual psychological state. This impasse often results in forensic psychology giving in and

thereby compromising effectiveness. The balance between optimal effectiveness of psychiatry

versus the integrity of legal systems causes an ethical dilemma.

Another area in forensic psychology that faces an ethical dilemma are cultural concerns

in practice. Forensic psychologists encounter different individuals from different cultural

backgrounds. Additionally, forensic psychologists have cultural backgrounds. The practice of

forensic psychology is associational in that it involves social interaction between the evaluator

and the subject. For this reason, cultural backgrounds can play a great role in influencing this

interaction and ultimately, the results and conclusions of the evaluator as well as the impact of

the assessment on the subject (Bersoff, 2008). Socialization in a particular culture in terms of

language, beliefs, and social norms dictate an individual’s personality and perspective to a large
ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY 12

extent involuntarily. As a result, both the evaluator and the subject can be influenced negatively

or negatively during the assessment. These control biases, perspectives and preferences. Forensic

psychologists are trained to absolve their reasoning from any biases they may have. The robust

mechanisms and standards of practice are meant to ensure that bias is filtered as much as

possible. However, tense conflicts in culture can manifest in assessment sessions. Subjects can

have a positive or negative view of the evaluator based on cultural perspectives and therefore

affecting the results of the forensic report. Fear, contempt, hate, reservation among others may

affect the psychological condition of the examinee and reflect on the conclusions. This comprises

on the integrity of a forensic psychological assessment.

Report writing is another area where ethics play out. The psychological code of conduct

requires a set of regulations to be followed in report writing to ensure objectivity, clarity and

effectiveness. Forensic work results in conclusions which have to be reported in a professional

manner. Often, reports can reflect biased views through passionate portrayal of some facts or

irregular reporting of facts which causes ambiguity. Report writing may also lack directness and

loose sentimental value. Objectivity is key. Conclusively, the presentation of a report has a

crucial effect on its effect on the audience.

Technology and the internet are new entrants to the practice of forensic psychology and

which have caused an ethical dilemma. Forensic psychology has quickly adopted digital

technology in the evaluation recording and analysis of behavioral conditions (Weiner & Hess,

2014). Moreover, there are new sources and avenues of interaction and for the collection of

information for evaluation by psychologists. Social media and digital medical and academic

information is availed in repositories where forensic psychologists can assess. Additionally,

ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY 13

video teleconferencing and text messaging can be utilized for remote communication in live or

recorded assessment of subjects by forensic psychologists. These avenues have however

provided opportunities and possibilities for intrusion and violation of professional guidelines.

Furthermore, the rapid advancement of technology means that regulations are often not up to

date to provide guidance to practitioners when new and effective technology arises.

Ethical dilemmas also exist in the interaction of forensic psychologists with the media.

The expertise of forensic psychologists can often be requested for public consumption.

Invitations may consist participation in social discussions, offering clarification for

misconceptions or contribute opinions. However, without clear parameters public discussions

can threaten professional conduct and sometimes inhibit the effective practice in their daily

practice. Psychologists function optimally when they are abstract persons to the subjects. When

there is some publicity associated with the practitioner, it may compromise their relationship

with subjects. Moreover, they may disclose pertinent information about a client or involuntarily

shift limelight to an unwilling client. This therefore makes the area to have an ethical dilemma.

Lastly, ethical dilemmas may arise in the collaboration of forensic psychologists with

other practitioners or disciplines. This is usually majorly because there are different guidelines

and ethical considerations for different disciplines and specialties. Therefore, when practicing in

common programs in interdisciplinary teams or experts, there can be conflict about how to make

ethical decisions that arise in such a relationship. For example different professions and

competencies are involved in general forensic processes. An instance are criminalistics and

police officers involved during criminal investigations. The cooperation can often cause conflict

of ethical standards and considerations. This poses an ethical dilemma to forensic psychologists.
ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY 14

Psychologists are faced with many ethical dilemmas as they try to assemble and combine

vital and confidential information in their forensic work to facilitate a legal decision. This is due

to the nature of their work be it in courts as expert witnesses, rehabilitation centers, law firms

that make their practice of forensic psychologist unique as most of them work with involuntary

examinees and even vulnerable members of the society making them face multiple ethical

question in their work.

ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY 15

References

Bersoff, D. N. (2008). Ethical conflicts in psychology. American Psychological Association.

Brendel, R. (2018). ON WEARING TWO HATS: Ethics Challenges in Role Conflicts in

Forensic

Practice. In Griffith E. (Ed.), Ethics Challenges in Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology

Practice (pp. 56-66). New York; Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press.

Cox, J., & Brodsky, S. (2018). OBJECTIVITY AND BOUNDARIES OF COMPETENCEAS

ETHICAL ISSUES IN FORENSIC ASSESSMENTS. In Griffith E. (Ed.), Ethics

Challenges in Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology Practice (pp. 67-84). New York;

Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press.

Griffith, E. (2018). INTRODUCTION. In Griffith E. (Ed.), Ethics Challenges in Forensic

Psychiatry and Psychology Practice (pp. 1-4). New York; Chichester, West Sussex:

Columbia University Press.

Morse, S. (2018). NEUROSCIENCE IN FORENSIC CONTEXTS: Ethical Concerns. In Griffith

E. (Ed.), Ethics Challenges in Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology Practice (pp. 132-

158). New York; Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press.

Rodgers, R. (1987). Ethical dilemmas in forensic evaluations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law,

5(20,

149-160.

Gottlieb, M. C., & Coleman, A. (2012). Ethical challenges in forensic psychology practice.
ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY 16

Weiner, I. B., & Hess, A. K. (2014). Practicing ethical forensic psychology. The handbook of

forensic psychology, 85.

Ostrov, E. (2013). Legal, psychological, and ethical issues in police-related forensic psychology

evaluations. In Police psychology into the 21st century (pp. 151-164). Psychology Press.

Perlin, M. L. (1991). Power imbalances in therapeutic and forensic relationships. Behavioral

science & the law, 9(2), 111-128