Assignment 1 Case Study Analysis: Guilty Or Not Guilty

Assignment 1 Case Study Analysiscase Study Guilty Or Not Guilty Doe

Analyze the case study and address the following: How should Dr. Bauer proceed? Provide reasons to support your answer. Should she offer her advice regarding the syndrome evidence? Why or why not? Should she pursue the poison pill strategy? Why or why not?

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Dr. Jennifer Bauer presents a complex ethical and strategic dilemma within the context of jury selection and expert testimony. Her knowledge of psychology and her ethical obligations are key factors in determining her course of action. The core issues involve whether Dr. Bauer should voice her professional opinion regarding the utility of battered woman syndrome as a defense, and whether she should employ manipulative strategies such as the “poison pill” to intentionally cause a mistrial. Analyzing these questions involves understanding legal protocols, ethical standards, and the potential consequences for justice and her professional integrity.

Dr. Bauer’s primary responsibility as an expert witness and professional psychologist is to uphold ethical standards, which include providing honest, unbiased opinions and avoiding actions that could manipulate the legal process unjustly. Therefore, her first step should be to thoroughly review all case evidence, including the defense’s battered woman syndrome strategy and the prosecution’s evidence, to form an informed and ethical stance. Even if she personally believes that battered woman syndrome may not be effective in court, her role is to present objective, evidence-based testimony that aids the court in understanding relevant psychological factors without advocacy bias.

Regarding whether Dr. Bauer should advise the court on the syndrome’s applicability, the answer leans toward transparency and honesty. Suppressing or withholding her professional opinion, particularly if she considers battered woman syndrome a weak defense in this case, might compromise her integrity. Conversely, providing her objective expertise on how such evidence might be perceived by a jury or its evidentiary value is within her professional obligations. She should avoid offering personal opinion on whether the defendant is guilty or innocent, instead focusing on the psychological nuances relevant to jury comprehension. Her insights could help the court weigh the evidence more accurately without over or underemphasizing the syndrome's importance.

As for pursuing the poison pill strategy—selecting jurors whose personalities might clash to deadlock the jury—this raises significant ethical concerns. While the strategy might improve her chances of avoiding conviction, it borders on jury tampering and subverts the fairness of the legal process. Juror selection should aim to uphold justice and fairness, not manipulate outcomes through discord. Engaging in such a tactic could have serious professional repercussions, including disqualification and damage to her reputation, as well as undermining public trust in the justice system. Therefore, her efforts should focus on impartial jury selection that reflects genuine diversity without resorting to divisive tactics.

In conclusion, Dr. Bauer should proceed ethically by providing objective, evidence-based input related to the psychological aspects of the case without advocating for any particular outcome. She should avoid advising on or endorsing unreliable or weak defense strategies and refrain from manipulative tactics like the poison pill. Upholding ethical standards will ensure her credibility, support justice, and respect the integrity of her profession, aligning her actions with legal and professional best practices.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. APA.
• Canterbury, R. J. (1994). Psychological expertise in criminal cases: Past, present, and future. Law and Human Behavior, 18(2), 159–165.
• Hunsley, J., & Meyer, G. J. (2003). The contribution of psychological science to forensic mental health assessment. Canadian Psychology, 44(3), 225–234.
• James, S., & Nordgaard, J. (2016). Ethical considerations in forensic psychology. Journal of Forensic Psychology, 5(1), 45–59.
• Martinez, L. M. (2012). Jury selection and psychological strategies: Ethical issues. Forensic Psychology Review, 23(4), 19–25.
• Melton, G. B., et al. (2017). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers. Guilford Publications.
• Reid, K., & Milne, G. (2019). The science and practice of jury decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 25(3), 456–467.
• Schreiber, R. (2019). Ethical dilemmas in forensic assessment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(4), 407–412.
• Simon, R. I., & Pietrantonio, E. (2014). Ethical issues in forensic mental health assessment. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(2), 213–227.
• Wilson, K., & Roesch, R. (2012). Ethical considerations in jury research and selection. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18(2), 206–214.