M5:1 Discussion Conflicting Roles In The Forensic Setting

M5:1 discussion Conflicting Roles in the Forensic Setting Correctional P

Discuss the APA stance on dual relationships for psychology professionals in a correctional setting, the inherent conflict a psychology professional may face by serving as both treatment provider and evaluator, and the individual client factors that could influence prerelease decisions made by psychology professionals in a correctional setting. Consider these aspects within the context of writing a risk assessment report for a client who has shown significant progress during incarceration and is being evaluated for early release.

Paper For Above instruction

In correctional psychology, professionals often encounter complex ethical and practical dilemmas, particularly regarding dual relationships. The American Psychological Association (APA) explicitly discourages dual relationships due to the potential for conflicts of interest, compromised objectivity, and harm to the client. In correctional settings, this stance emphasizes maintaining clear boundaries between treatment and evaluation roles to uphold ethical standards and ensure that assessments are impartial and reliable (American Psychological Association, 2010). Dual roles can inadvertently influence a psychologist’s objectivity, potentially leading to biased evaluations that favor either the institution or the client, which can undermine not only the ethical integrity of the assessment but also the safety and fairness of the legal process.

The inherent conflict faced by psychologists working in correctional environments is significant. When serving both as a treatment provider and an evaluator, psychologists may experience role tension, as these functions can sometimes have conflicting objectives. Treatment aims to support the client's rehabilitative needs, fostering trust and rapport, while evaluation aims to assess risk, recidivism potential, and suitability for parole or early release. This duality can lead to difficulties in maintaining objectivity; for example, a psychologist might consciously or unconsciously alter their evaluation to favor a positive outcome for the client to promote therapeutic rapport or due to biases rooted in the desire to help the client succeed. This conflict underscores the importance of adhering to ethical guidelines that advocate for role separation to preserve assessment integrity and the client's rights.

When considering prerelease decisions, several individual client factors can influence a psychologist's assessment and recommendations. These include the client’s track record during incarceration, such as participation in rehabilitative programs, demonstrated change in impulse control, anger management, and criminal thought patterns. The client’s prior criminal history, severity of the offense, risk assessments related to dangerousness, and responsiveness to treatment are critical considerations. Moreover, psychological factors like mental health status, substance abuse history, and social support systems play a role. In this case, although the client has made notable progress, the psychologist must objectively evaluate whether this progress indicates genuine reform or if residual risk remains. These evaluations directly influence critical decision-making processes that determine whether the client is suitable for early release, emphasizing the need for unbiased assessments rooted in empirical data and ethical standards.

In conclusion, correctional psychologists must navigate ethical boundaries, roles, and complex client factors when conducting evaluations for parole. Upholding APA’s standards on dual relationships, maintaining objectivity, and carefully considering multiple individual factors are fundamental to ensuring fair and accurate assessments that serve justice, public safety, and client rehabilitation.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. APA.
• Siegel, L. J. (2011). Criminology: The core. Cengage Learning.
• Wong, S., & Cyr, D. (2013). Ethical issues in forensic psychology. Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, 13(2), 58-72.
• Reid, J. B., & Prinz, R. J. (2000). Bridging the gap: Integrating family-based and school-based prevention science. Prevention Science, 1(1), 3-17.
• Hobby, R. H. (2009). Forensic Psychology. In K. K. Rosenthal & S. R. Johnson (Eds.), Ethical dilemmas in forensic assessment (pp. 45-66). Routledge.
• National Institute of Justice. (2021). Assessment of risk for criminal behavior. NIJ.
• Borum, R. (2014). The role of psychology in risk assessment and management. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(3), 385-393.
• Kalverboer, A. F., & Zijlstra, J. R. (2007). Ethical challenges in correctional psychology. European Journal of Psychology in Education, 22(2), 203–209.
• Glover, S. H., & Turnbull, B. J. (2014). Correctional Psychology: Practice, Policy, and Research. Routledge.
• Monahan, J., & Kelly, T. M. (2002). Violence risk assessment: Scientific and professional standards. Law and Human Behavior, 26(2), 165-181.