The codes and guidelines for forensic psychologists are designed specifically to provide a direction to forensic psychologists when addressing their official duties as directed by courts. These guidelines, which are informed by the Ethical Principles of Psychologists, are to be followed by professional psychologists at all times in order to eliminate cases of unprofessionalism in their work. Harold (2010) says that it is common for forensic psychologists to ignore some of these guidelines, especially when they allow emotions to cloud their judgments. It may not be easy for the court to determine whether or not a forensic psychologist observed these codes when writing the final report to the court. In this case, the researcher will review the possible violations against these principles that occurred when Dr. Jones was evaluating detainee Smith and when writing the final report to the court.

We will write acustom essay on your topictailored to your instructions!

181experts online

Let us help you

Analysis of the Ethical Violations

A critical analysis of this case study reveals that Dr. Jones tried as much as possible to remain ethical in evaluating detainee Smith’s competency to stand trial. She was also tasked with determining whether or not he was responsible for his behavior at the time of the offense. In this analysis, it will be fair to state that Dr. Jones made a lot of effort to be ethical in her assessment despite the doubts she had that the detainee was faking his mental problem. However, it is clear that she violated a number of these ethical codes as noted below.

Impartiality and Fairness

This specialty guideline requires forensic psychologists to be accurate, impartial, fair, and independent (Weiner & Freedheim, 2013). Dr. Jones was independent in her report, but she failed to be accurate, impartial, and fair when she reported that Dr. Jones killed the child due to its continued crying. Her overall observation was that the detainee was not competent to stand trial because of his psychotic state. This conclusion means that all the statements and actions of the detainee could not be a sincere reflection of what could have happened. Individuals who are troubled in mind can say anything or act anyhow, but this cannot be used as a sincere reflection of what they did when they are normal. A mad person can claim that he flew to Jupiter or the moon on a Jumbo Jet (Bartol & Bartol, 2011). This cannot be used as a hard fact in a court of law. If she felt compelled to report about the outbursts of the detainee, she should have been very accurate. She should have stated in her report that in his mental unconsciousness, the detainee claimed that he killed the child.

Avoiding Conflicts of Interest

This guideline requires forensic psychologists to avoid professional roles when they are aware that their impartiality, effectiveness, and competency may be impaired by personal interests. The detainee is accused to have to murder the three-year-old daughter of his girlfriend. Dr. Jones has a four-year-old girl that she cares for so much. This case must have created fear in her. She must have felt the safety of her child threatened by people like Smith. One can easily deduce that she was keen on ensuring that this crime does not go unpunished (Brown & Sleath, 2015). This fact may help in explaining why she noted in her report that the detainee stated that he killed the child without describing the mental state under which the statement was made.