Question

1)The readings demonstrate some of the conflicting ethics between the legal system and science. For instance, the legal system is founded upon an adversarial model (here in the U.S. anyway –other countries use different models). In our adversarial legal system, and attorneys are ethically obligated to advocate for their client and tell the best story possible for their “side” out of the evidence available. In contrast, science is founded on objectivity – not advocacy – and thus data is supposed to speak for itself rather than be shaped to tell a good story. Why are these competing ethical foundations between the legal system and science important for understanding the challenge of practicing forensic psychology?
2)When a psychologist accepts a referral to do a forensic evaluation, who is the “client?” Discuss how and why this is a complicated question.  
3)Can a forensic psychologist wear “2 hats” – that is, can they serve in multiple roles in a case? For instance, in a child custody evaluation case, can a psychologist who provides treatment to the family then become the forensic psychologist hired in the case to conduct a child custody evaluation to help the court determine custody arrangements? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Answer.

1. forensic psychologists are required to make evaluations which involve consideration of aspects of human behavior that are not normative and may be quite disturbing such as in determining the relevant mental state at time of offense, competency to stand trial, etc.

In cases involving potential legal dispositions, a competent performing of forensic evaluations requires the psychologist to approach assessments with as much clinical impartiality as possible.
Forensic psychology is based on a unique scientific practice that focuses on objects analysis and dissemination of information in order to meet a high ethical standard towards beneficence and well being of the greater number of people. This requires that forensic psychologists give special attention to various issues including confidentiality, clarification of roles, and the intended use and potential recipients of the opinion or evaluation a sentence experts.