To Prepare Review The Learning Resources Consider The Ethica

To Preparereview The Learning Resourcesconsider The Ethical Consequen

Review the Learning Resources. Consider the ethical consequences of the death penalty as presented in the Learning Resources. Consider that you are in charge of addressing a key issue: capital punishment involving a minor. Post a response to the following: Based on the principles of the forensic risk assessment, discuss the risks not only to the inmate, but the community at large. Explain how AP-LS forensic psychology specialty guidelines and APA Ethical Guidelines pertain to the issue of the death penalty. How does this affect the forensic psychology professional’s assessment? (Consider the concept of no right to harm). Explain whether there is a connection between capital punishment assessments involving a minor and society at large. American Psychological Association (2002). APA guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists . Retrieved from Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases. American Psychological Association. (2016c). Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology . Retrieved from Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases. Death Penalty Information Center . (2016a). Retrieved from Death Penalty Information Center. (2016b) Executions by year . Retrieved from Gillespie, L. K., Smith, M. D., Bjerregaard, B., & Fogel, S. J. (2014). Examining the impact of proximate culpability mitigation in capital punishment sentencing recommendations: The influence of mental health mitigators. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39 (4), 698–715. doi:10.1007/s Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases. Nagin, D. (2014). Deterrence and the death penalty: Why the statistics should be ignored. Significance, 11 (2), 9–13. doi:10.1111/j..2014.00733.x Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases. Richards, T. N., & Smith, M. D. (2015). Current issues and controversies in capital punishment. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40 (1), 199–203. doi:10.1007/s Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases. Walsh, M. (2015). Death revisited: Will the Supreme Court ‘peck away at’ capital punishment? ABA Journal, ), 19. Retrieved from Required Media Laureate Education (Producer). (2016). Nowhere to hide: School shooter podcast [Audio file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical considerations surrounding the death penalty, especially involving minors, form a complex nexus of legal, moral, psychological, and societal issues. When evaluating such cases through the lens of forensic psychology, it is imperative to understand not only the risks to the individual inmate but also the broader implications for society. This paper explores these concerns, emphasizing principles of forensic risk assessment, the adherence to professional guidelines, and the societal impact of capital punishment involving minors.

Understanding Forensic Risk Assessment and External Risks

Forensic risk assessment plays a crucial role in determining the potential danger an individual poses to society, informing sentencing decisions and policy debates. When involving minors, the assessment must account for developmental psychobiological factors that influence culpability and risk of future harm. The risks to the inmate include psychological harm from incarceration, potential violations of human rights, and the moral consequences of executing a juvenile—an act now internationally condemned (United Nations, 2019). The risks to society extend beyond the inmate to include moral deterioration, potential for wrongful executions, and societal acceptance of violence as retribution (Gillespie et al., 2014).

Guidelines Informing Ethical Forensic Practice

The American Psychological Association’s (2002) guidelines on multicultural competencies emphasize minimizing bias and ensuring fair, culturally sensitive assessments when making legal decisions about minors. The APA's (2016c) Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology reinforce the importance of conducting evaluations that respect human rights and avoid causing harm, aligning with the principle of “no right to harm” (American Psychological Association, 2016c). These guidelines foster a professional responsibility to avoid assessments that could lead to irreversible harm such as execution, particularly in vulnerable populations like minors.

Impact on Professional Assessments and Ethical Considerations

Forensic psychologists are bound by the ethical principle of beneficence and non-maleficence, which prohibits harm. Assessing a minor for the death penalty challenges these principles, as it involves evaluating culpability, future dangerousness, and mental health in a context that may conflict with their development and capacity for remorse (Skeem & Mulvey, 2002). The “no right to harm” concept implores psychologists to avoid participation in assessments that could result in irreversible harm, such as execution, especially in minors who are morally and cognitively different from adults (American Psychological Association, 2016c).

Societal Connection and Broader Impacts

The link between capital punishment assessments involving minors and societal impacts is profound. Societally, executing minors perpetuates a cycle of violence, undermines international human rights standards, and signals a moral regression (United Nations, 2019). Public attitudes toward juvenile executions influence policy, requiring psychologists to consider the societal repercussions of their evaluations. Moreover, wrongful convictions or assessments influenced by biases or inadequate information can lead to tragic miscarriages of justice with long-term societal consequences (Gillespie et al., 2014).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the intersection of forensic psychology, ethical practice, and societal considerations underscores the importance of cautious, ethical assessment procedures when dealing with capital punishment involving minors. Professional guidelines serve as an ethical safeguard, reminding psychologists of their responsibility to prioritize human rights and avoid harm, while societal consequences highlight the broader implications of such assessments. Ultimately, the death penalty's application to minors remains a deeply contentious issue, challenging the core principles of justice and morality in forensic psychology.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2002). APA guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. Retrieved from Walden Library.
• American Psychological Association. (2016c). Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology. Retrieved from Walden Library.
• Gillespie, L. K., Smith, M. D., Bjerregaard, B., & Fogel, S. J. (2014). Examining the impact of proximate culpability mitigation in capital punishment sentencing recommendations: The influence of mental health mitigators. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(4), 698–715. doi:10.1007/s
• United Nations. (2019). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
• Skeem, J. L., & Mulvey, E. P. (2002). Assessing and managing the danger of violence among juvenile offenders. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8(4), 214–253. DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.8.4.214
• Death Penalty Information Center. (2016a). Retrieved from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org
• Death Penalty Information Center. (2016b). Executions by year. Retrieved from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions
• Nagin, D. (2014). Deterrence and the death penalty: Why the statistics should be ignored. Significance, 11(2), 9–13. doi:10.1111/j..2014.00733.x
• Walsh, M. (2015). Death revisited: Will the Supreme Court ‘peck away at’ capital punishment? ABA Journal, 19. Retrieved from
• Laureate Education (Producer). (2016). Nowhere to hide: School shooter podcast [Audio file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.