Forensic Psychology in Corrections: Roles and Ethical Dilemmas

The U.S. prison population has grown dramatically in the past decade.  The prison population within the U.S. has reached to the alarming rate of 2 million offenders behind bars (Morgan & Fitzgerald, 2007). Combined with the disproportionate increase in the number of mentally ill and substance-abusing offenders, there is a huge need for correctional and forensic psychologists in penitentiaries. While forensic psychology has become a highly desired discipline and plays a vital role in correctional institutions, it is also questioned with unique ethical dilemmas and conflicts (Gudjonsson & Haward, 1998).

Forensic psychologists have varied responsibilities within corrections. In the field of forensic treatment, these practitioners are required to provide counseling to inmates and ex-offenders. This may include drug education, sex offender treatment, resolution of family problems, crisis intervention, and assistance with problems that can arise due to incarceration (Arrigo, 2000). Counselors may also be responsible for developing and managing programs in order to reduce recidivism rates (Arrigo, 2000). Forensic psychology counselors also work with juvenile offenders in a variety of professional capacities. Forensic counselors run residential juvenile offender programs that include diagnosis, assessment, and treatment planning. Counselors often have the opportunity to provide therapy to clients as well as their families within their homes or a variety of other community settings (Gudjonsson & Haward, 1998). A correctional psychologist’s primary mission is to assist in offender’s rehabilitation and reintegration. However, the primary role of the correctional psychologist, treatment issues and confidentiality has created consistent ethical issues.

The main role of a correctional psychologist is to focus on the treatment of the individual, in order to create behavior changes. However, this approach is no longer the primary focus because with new laws and regulations, correctional psychologists have to focus primarily on the security of the institution and the community at large (Weinberger & Sreenivasan, 1994). These regulations for correctional psychologists have made dual role conflicts which created an environment that can seriously challenge the relationship between the therapist and the individual inmate. Weinberger and Sreenivasan (1994) described a situation when a short staffed correctional psychologist was asked to assist in a simple head count. This did not seem to create a major ethical dilemma, therefore the psychologist agreed. However, once in the correctional worker role the psychologist was ordered to assist in a contraband search of the prisoners. One could suspect that this dual role could destroy the therapeutic image between the psychologist and his clients, thus leaving the therapist recognized solely as another cop.

Another ethical issue that arises for psychologists engaged in forensic work is the issue of confidentiality. The relationship between practitioner and the client (inmate) in a correctional setting is greatly hindered by the limits to of confidentiality (Fowler & Brodsky, 1978). In a non-correctional practice, psychotherapist-patient privileges prevent psychologists from disclosing confidential communications to any other person. However, in the correctional setting information regarding abuse and violence towards others has to be reported in any situation (Fowler & Brodsky, 1978).

The ethical dilemma of neglect in the treatment of inmates with chronic mental illnesses is the next issue that should be considered. Mental health professionals continually have to intervene with angry and disruptive individuals, whether or not their behavior is the product of a chronic mental illness (Weinberger and Sreenivasan, 1994). As a result, those who are experiencing the chronic mental illnesses that psychology can treat (e.g., schizophrenia, mood disorders, suicide), are being forced to take a back seat to disruptive inmates who the correctional institution wants to bring under control (Weinberger and Sreenivasan, 1994).

Correctional psychology is clearly riddled with unique ethical dilemmas and conflicts. The primary roles of the correctional psychologist, treatment issues and confidentiality have created consistent ethical issues. The committee on ethical guidelines for forensic psychologists formulated guidelines for forensic practice in order to provide a more specific method to monitor professional conduct in a correctional setting. However, these standards have not lightened the majority of ethical problems, because they are vague, difficult to understand, and contradictory to other ethical principles (Weinberger & Sreenivasan, 1994).

References:

Arrigo, B. A. (2000). Introduction to forensic psychology: issues and controversies in crime and justice. San Diego: Academic Press.

Fowler, R. D., & Brodsky, S. L. (1978). Development of a correctional-clinical psychology program. Professional Psychology, 9(3), 440-447. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.9.3.440

Gudjonsson, G. H., & Haward, L. R. (1998). Forensic psychology: a guide to practice. London: Routledge.

Morgan, R. , Beer, A. , & Fitzgerald, K. (2007). Graduate students'
        experiences, interests, and attitudes toward
        correctional/forensic  psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior V. 34 
        No. 1 (January 2007) P. 96-107, 34(1), 96-107. 

Weinberger, L. E., & Sreenivasan, S. (1994). Ethical and professional conflicts
        in correctional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and
        Practice, 25(2), 161-167. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.25.2.161

What Is Forensic Psychology, Anyway?

"The story of the subconscious mind

can be told in three words:

there is none." --Hugo Münsterberg

The field of forensic psychology has been growing rapidly in recent years. This applied branch of psychology gained recognition with the huge increase in fictional TV shows such as Criminal Minds and CSI which have misinterpreted mainstream society’s view of this filed.  By following the latest television dramas one might think that the main task of a forensic psychologist is to help the police to catch serial killers or profile sex offenders. Although these popular notions regarding forensic psychology may be true in some areas, they do not represent the wide variety of tasks that a trained forensic psychologist can do. My goal is to introduce you to the real world of forensic psychology. In this blog I will briefly discuss the definition and history of Forensic Psychology. In addition I will explain the details about the role of forensic psychology in the three different branches of the criminal justice system – police, Court and correction- in my upcoming blogs.

According to the American Psychological Association(APA), forensic psychology is the “professional practice by psychologists within the areas of clinical psychology, counselling psychology, neuropsychology, and school psychology, when they are engaged regularly as experts and represent themselves as such, in an activity primarily intended to provide professional psychological expertise to the judicial system”(APA, 2011).

This description considers forensic psychology as a branch of applied psychology. Professor Anne Bartol of Castleton State College defines forensic psychology as both a research endeavor that studies characteristics of human behavior related to the legal system such as eyewitness memory, criminal behavior, and the practice of psychology within the legal system, which covers both criminal and civil law (Bartol, 2005). Clinical Psychologistswith training in forensics can be certified through the American Board of Professional Psychology. There is a Psychiatry and Behavioural Science section of the American Academy of ForensicSciences, which is the most interdisciplinary organization available to forensic psychologists (Heilbrun and Brooks, 2010).

To fully appreciate the field of forensic psychology, it is important to understand the historical facts that shaped the identity of this discipline. Forensic psychology was introduced for the first time over a hundred years ago. In 1873 Wilhelm Wundt founded the first psychology laboratory in Leipzig, Germany. He conducted experiments in areas such as witness testimony and criminal evaluation, which are still being used today.

Hugo Munsterberg was one of the first psychologists that studied under Wilhelm Wundt in Germany before moving to the United States in 1892. He set up a laboratory at Harvard University to do experiments on how psychology could be used in the legal system. His work included research on false confessions, witness memory and hypnosis in court.

In 1895, James McKeen Cattellthe head of the Psychology, Anthropology, and Philosophy departments at Columbia University, conducted some experiments that influenced the psychology of testimony. One of Cattell’s goals was to establish psychology as a legitimate science (Bartol& Bartol, 1999 P426).

In 1908 Munsterberg published a book titled "On the Witness Stand" regarding the subject of applying psychology to legal trials. In 1917 one of Munsterberg’s students named William Marston discovered the correlation between systolic blood pressure and whether someone was lying. This discovery led to the development of the polygraph. In 1923, Marston testified in the case of Frye vs. United States and his testimony set the precedent for the use of expert witnesses in court cases.

After World War II psychologists were fully recognized as credible witnesses. This happened in 1940 with the case of People v. Hawthorne. In this case the courts ruled the extent of an expert witness' knowledgewas more important than whether or not they held a medical degree. In 1962, in the case of Jenkins v. United States forensic, psychology experts gained more credibility, where psychologists served as specialists in a mental illness case. Since that timeforensic psychology has come into its own. In 2001, American Psychological Association identified forensic psychology as a speciality within psychology . (Gudjonsson and Haward, 1998 P22-23).

References

Arrigo, B. A. (2000). Introduction to forensic psychology: issues and controversies in crime and justice. San Diego: Academic Press.

Bartol, A. M., & Bartol, C. R. (1999). History of forensic psychology. In Handbook offorensic psychology, 2, 452-470. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Gudjonsson, G. H., & Haward, L. R. (1998). Forensic psychology: a guide to practice. London: Routledge.

Heilbrun, K. , & Brooks, S. (2010). Forensic psychology and forensic science: A

             proposed agenda for the next decade. Psychology Public Policy and Law,

            16(3), 219-253.

Public Description of Forensic Psychology.(n.d.). American Psychological

           Association (APA). Retrieved February 10, 2011, from

           http://www.apa.org/ed/graduate/specialize/forensic.aspx

Otto, R. K., & Heilbrun, K. (2002). The practice of forensic psychology: A look

           toward the future in light of the past. American Psychologist, 57(1), 5-18.