To prepare:

• Review this week's case study. Pay attention to specific areas in the case study that may present ethical conflicts or dilemmas for the forensic psychology professional. Select four such areas for use in this Application Assignment. Consider the severity of each.
• Review the American Psychological Association's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Consider which specific principles/standards would apply to the areas identified.
• Review the American Psychological Association's Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. Choose the specific guideline(s) that speaks to each of the four areas identified.
• Reflect on how and why the guidelines would apply to the four areas of potential ethical conflict.

The Assignment

• Explain the four areas of potential conflict or dilemma in the case study.
• For each instance, list the specific ethical code or guideline that might apply and explain how and why it is relevant and applies to the areas you selected.

Case Study

A criminal forensic psychologist, Dr. John P., was asked by a prosecutor (district attorney) to conduct a competency evaluation on a 37-year-old, black male (Sam) who had been charged with murdering a correctional officer while Sam was incarcerated at the state penitentiary. Sam was serving a sentence of 25-years-to-life for a previous conviction of murdering his wife. Sam had already served 24 years on his initial sentence and was up for parole consideration next year. Sam had a lengthy history of violent behavior, both in and out of correctional facilities. Indeed, Sam had been in numerous juvenile detention facilities since the age of 10. He had also spent time in two different psychiatric hospitals as a juvenile. At the trial where he was convicted of killing his wife, mental health professionals testified about his legal responsibility at the time he killed his wife (by dousing her with gasoline and setting her on fire). Sam told mental health experts after his arrest for killing his wife that he had killed her because his dog had told him to do so. Indeed, Sam claimed that his dog commanded him to do various acts around the time of the offense. Conflicting testimony was given concerning Sam's mental health and its relationship to this criminal behavior (the murder of his wife). The psychiatrist called by the defense testified that Sam suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and was psychotic at the time of his wife's murder. The psychologist, Dr. P., who worked at the state penitentiary where Sam was serving his sentence and where the correctional officer was killed, had previously conducted the evaluation of Sam for the prosecuting attorney at Sam's first murder trial. Dr. P. testified at the first trial that Sam was malingering psychosis and was responsible for his behavior. Dr. P. also testified at this trial that Sam was a psychopath based on Dr. P.'s extensive experience of informally assessing psychopaths in the correctional system. The prosecution had sought the death penalty in the first murder trial and Dr. P. had testified at the sentencing phase of the trial that Sam posed a significant risk for acting violently if given a non-capital sentence, despite not formally evaluating Sam for potential violence. However, Sam was not given the death penalty. Now Dr. P. has been asked by the same district attorney that prosecuted Sam in his wife's murder trial to conduct a competency-to-stand-trial evaluation of Sam for the correctional officer's murder. Dr. P. knew the correctional officer that was murdered and had an extensive history with Sam throughout the 24 years that Sam was incarcerated at the state penitentiary. Dr. P. agreed to testify about Sam's competency to stand trial since he had such an extensive history with Sam and was present after the assault of the correctional officer took place. Besides, history had now shown that Dr. P. had been correct all along; if Sam had been given the death penalty at the first trial, he would probably not have been alive to kill the correctional officer. The assault on the correctional officer that resulted in the officer's death included Sam using a hammer to beat the correctional officer 15 times in the head and neck region. The assault was witnessed by three staff members and a number of inmates, and an investigation reported that the assault was not provoked by the correctional officer. Dr. P. had not witnessed the assault but had responded to the alarms that were sounded while the assault was taking place. Dr. P. arrived at the crime scene minutes after the correctional officer was rushed out of the prison and taken to the local hospital. Dr. P. assisted in handcuffing and in conducting a pat-down search of Sam, who was non-threatening after the assault.

After a year of legal maneuvering, the case was called before a local magistrate judge to determine Sam's competence to stand trial. After testimony by Dr. P. only, Sam was found competent to stand trial. Six months later when Sam's attorneys alleged that Sam was not legally responsible for his behavior of killing the correctional officer because he was insane at the time of the offense, Dr. P. testified that Sam was not suffering from any mental illness, that Sam was a dangerous psychopath who would certainly kill again if the death penalty was not imposed at this time. Dr. P. based his testimony on his extensive history of Sam and his observations when Sam was secured by Dr. P. and others after the killing of the correction officer. After the jury returned a guilty verdict and then imposed the death penalty, Dr. P. gave several interviews to the local media about many of his experiences with Sam over the last 24 plus years. Dr. P. was approached with a book deal and conducted several paid speaking engagements during which he presented on the multiple advantages to society of imposing the death penalty. Since these events, Dr. P. has testified for the prosecution in three death penalty cases in which he stated when cross-examined that he was paid, on average, $30,000 per case.

References

• American Psychological Association.(in press) Specialty Guidelines for Forensic PsychologistsLinks to an external site.. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/forensic-psychology.aspx
• APA Online: Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of EthicsLinks to an external site. http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx