Forensic Psychology: Human Rights Military and The Ethical Implications

Forensic Psychology

With regards to the discipline of Forensic Psychology, there are just as many if not more, ethical implications in this specific psychological modality then any of the other modalities within the career field. The main reason for this is due to the variety of “dual relationships, diverse modalities, and specific conflicting policies and procedures which are oftentimes, not in alignment with the APA Psychological guidelines but nevertheless are still highly sought after settings pursued by professional psychologists, therapists and researchers in the field of “forensic psychology”.

Specifically these places of employment include but may not be limited to, various government agencies, police departments, rehabilitation centers, prisons, jails, law firms, and private practices. Forensic Psychology in its entirety, deals specifically with the study as well as application of psychology and law.

Human Rights- Military & Enemies of the State

Consequently, Psychologists' involvement in military interrogations as it applies to the topic of human rights is highly controversial to say that least, since both the United States Courts as well as Congress are oftentimes reluctant to constrain the executive branch when it limits individual rights in the pursuit of national security” (Shirin, S. (2013, May) despite APA rules and ethics which govern the psychological profession at large.

Nevertheless, the public as well as the APA continue to be wary of the military setting and those psychological professionals whom conduct research and work in this environment because “Commanders and interrogators have in the past oftentimes, requested consultation on the attitudes, personality, and behavior of the captives and about methods to enduce desired information (Greene & Banks, 2009). These actions are highly unethical and very dangerous to the safety and overall wellbeing of the subject (and as such violate APA Psychological standards).However it should be noted that, very few psychological professionals have ever “had specialized training in order to prepare them for this type of mission” (Greene & Banks, 2009).

Furthermore, contrary to popular belief psychological professionals “began to assist commanders in preventing abusive situations from developing” instead of starting them (Greene & Banks, 2009). Consequently, both Green and Banks contend that, the fear of psychological professionals committing harm against subjects and patients, largely stems back to the emergence of the psychological profession itself (and it’s respective disciplines) back when there was virtually no rules, ethics or codes of conduct regulating the profession or its practitioners.

In a peer reviewed article entitled, “Protecting Right from Within? Inspector General & National Security Oversight written by Shirin and published by The Stanford Law Review The article contends that the United States Government (including its team of diverse Psychological professionals),“are now playing a significant role in monitoring national security practices curtailing individual rights” (Shirin, S. (2013, May).

The practices for which such situations are “neutralized” include but may not be limited to increasing transparency within the agency, identifying specific instances of wrongful conduct & human right violations, in addition to proving relief to victims whom had endured such ethical violations, holding officials liable for such occurrences should they happen again in the future, and lastly addressing current polices revising them where needed to prevent further instances of abuse and human rights violations.

As highlighted in the peer reviewed article entitled, “Ethical Guideline Evolution in Psychological Support to Interrogation Operations”, psychological professionals work to “analyze as well as predict terrorist behavior, vulnerability, help the local populations understand as well as cooperate, support and effectively repatriated troops” (Greene& Bank, 2009).In addition these soldiers showed improvement from psychological consultations and subsequent therapy sessions” (Greene& Bank, 2009).

Ethical Implications

With regards to ethical implications as they relate to forensic psychology, it is the psychological professionals full responsibly to abide by the current APA Psychological Standards, which stress benevolence, responsibility, confidentiality, integrity, justice, protection of human rights, and the dignity of patients and clients. Furthermore, if a psychological professional, learns at any time that their work is being misused or misrepresented they are to resolve the issue by means of writing letters and personally speaking with the specific parties involved “requesting the retraction specifically quoted misrepresentations, or by discussing with appropriate persons the corrective measures to be taken” (Fisher, C. B. 2009).In addition, the psychological professional is expected to act ethically by, checking in to make sure that requests are being followed and that misrepresentation has been permanently and accurately corrected.

Specifically, while working with military and other government projects, assignments, or in facilities (as a team member) a psychological professional is also expected to “clarify the nature of any “current” and “arising” conflicts, making known their commitment to the APA Ethics Code by taking “reasonable steps” to resolve conflicts consistent with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code” (Fisher, C. B. (2009).

As recent as 2010, the APA association officially amended its section 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority following news of psychologists involved in highly humane military interrogations involving torture, and unethical treatment of Prisoners at such centers as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. As it currently stands, the guideline (Standard 1.02) now requires all psychological professionals to take professional action (and stance against)unfair, harsh, and inhumane treatment of prisoners/patients essentially “prohibiting psychological professionals from engaging in acts that would neither encourage or justify a violation of human rights” (Fisher, C. B., Ph.D., Brodsky, S. L., Ph.D., . Neal, T. M., Ph.D., Michelle A. Jones, M. M., Ph.D., Lichtenstein, B., Ph.D., Kinscherff, R. T., Ph.D., & Grisso, T. J., Ph.D. (2013).

Protecting the rights of military service members is also addressed through both the “DoD Directive” and “DoD Instruction” which prevents commander-directed mental health evaluations, informs the military service personnel of which psychological professional will be conducting their assessment/evaluation, recognizes the soldiers right to obtain a copy of the mental health report, the right to a second opinion, and right to seek and speak with a legal counsel, chaplain and members of congress or senate”(Fisher, C. B. (2009).

Furthermore, psychological professionals along with the APA ethics codes of Psychology, work to protect their patients and clients from the legal system by informing appropriate authorities that standards embedded within the APA Ethics Code. This includes but may not be limited to, when a psychological professional is ordered to provide the courts (judge) with a release of client/patient therapeutic session information and the professional responds with stating to the courts that they must specifically request, as to what they are asking for, in the court order. (session notes relates to specific topics, occurrences, instances) This code relates specifically to Standard 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality.