Psychology and Policing (Policing and Society)
No investigations were found that examined the perceptions of psychologists as to whether or not they functioned under any special ethical codes or practice guides that exhorted them to possess specific competence with respect to the issues presented by these type of cases. Forensically relevant psychological standards e. Both the dearth of forensic research and the relative absence of documentable expertise with police evaluations work serve to reinforce a need for adherence to guidelines found in the APA Ethical Codes and Forensic psychology guidelines codes.
That is, psychologists are ethically obligated to ensure their own competence for working with police work. The problem with this recommendation is on a whole people are often inaccurate in their self-assessments of any characteristic or competency.
Why Evidence-Based Community Policing Needs to be the Norm, Not an Exception
Since these evaluations are not usually a primary area of expertise for many psychologists, by default it carries with it an extra burden for a psychologist to exercise scientific responsibility i. Too often, competence in working with these evaluations can be confused with how much general education or training one has received in the distant past, instead of how much targeted experience or specific training can be documented recently that they have been learned and able to demonstrate through effective forensic work [ 39 ]. Complicating this ethical dilemma even further, the lens through which we view ourselves may result in an inaccurate self-assessment of competence.
A distorted cognitive schema here contributes to an even greater challenge due at least in part to an inability to accurately calculate the potential adverse malpractice risk consequences stemming from police work e. The shortcomings discussed above, lend support for the recommended quantitative metrics included in Figure 1. Appellant hearings for psychological disqualifications DQs are based on the administrative or procedural role of the law [ 40 , 41 ]. Appellants are sometimes allowed to have witnesses testify on their behalf. At issue is whether the process and information contained in the psychological report more likely than not warrants the appellant receiving a designation of no pass, bypass, not suitable or unfit [ 42 ].
The decision on whether to disqualify is based on the psychological evidence presented by the department and the appellant. Towards this end, it is essential that hearing officers have a documented psychological training background sufficient for understanding the relationships between the strengths and weaknesses of complex PAH factors i.
Society for Police and Criminal Psychology - Forensic Psychology Online
Years of experience hearing cases are insufficient to document competence of hearing officers. Psychological experts work to inform the trier of fact about variables beyond its expertise [ 43 ]. Experts also need knowledge, ongoing ethnoracial competence, training, and experience with the role of a forensic examiner. Many PAHs consider reviewing three psychological reports e. The standard of practice dictates that each report must be based on the same psychological testing data, independent psychological interview, and all previous psychological reports.
Another standard of practice prohibits conditional statements or qualifiers connected to the suitability rating e. An examiner must firmly and unequivocally state their final opinion on the appellant regarding their suitability or lack thereof. The first opinion from the department on an appellant can prompt a department to request a second evaluation opinion.
Post navigation
Some departments do not pay for second opinions if an applicant is disqualified, but do allow appellants to secure their own outside evaluation opinions, with certain stipulations regarding the qualifications and use of previous records. Other departments, per policy, send all disqualified appellants for a second opinion, to extend an appellant the benefit of the doubt. Or, a department can make an in-house second opinion request because of concerns raised during the first opinion evaluation. Although all recent e. Intentional or unwitting untruths are always possible when conducting these types of evaluations.
The examiner must operate with the Four Cs of second opinion evaluations: Clarify findings of all previous examiners , Change impressions left from the previous reports , Challenge findings, opinions, and recommendations , and Confirm identify points of agreement information that leads to an independent final recommendation [ 14 ]. The examiner of the second opinion report has an ethical and professional obligation to address the issues and opinions raised in the first opinion evaluation. The OE and second opinion examiners must provide a sound rationale for their agreement or disagreement with the findings and opinions of previous reports, based on the science of psychology.
The OE report written by a psychologist hired by the appellant, recommends e. The ethical, malpractice, and professional challenges for the OE psychologists are three-fold. First, the OE report must provide a psychologically-sound and defensible rationale for overriding what may be two previous psychological evaluation opinions which determined that the appellant is unfit for duty [44].
Second, the OE report must provide a detailed and strong counterarguments i. The OE report loses credibility if words are parsed, previous disqualifying data is summarily dismissed without sufficient countering data, or, an OE report has reasoned around problematic disclosures or other negative information available at the time of an OE interview. Finally, a weak or lopsided opinion in the OE Report may not establish enough scientific credibility to mute the charge of bias.
In the book, Whores of the Court, Margaret Hagen discusses the proclivity for some experts to agree to render any opinion as long as they are paid to do so [ 14 ]. Psychologists must testify as to how their psychological methods and procedures resulted in their findings and opinions regarding a particular appellant [ 45 ]. This process requires the expert to persuasively describe facts and opinions in a way that can be understood by hearing officers.
These cross-examination areas include, but are not limited to: Have the methods been subjected to peer review and accepted within the scientific psychological community? Is the error rate or confidence level known and reasonable? Is the expert qualified to use the challenged methods e. Has the examiner provided a sufficient basis for the opinions, ratings and recommendations? During cross examination an attorney can raise concerns about a psychologist in four primary areas e.
First are the area of professional qualifications. Does a psychologist have a documented, historically weak identity with police psychology that is separate i. Private practice or other work in forensic psychology is insufficient in establishing a police psychology identity in this context [ 47 ] Long lists of workshops passively attended over the years are inferior to scholarly work products e. The second area where a psychological cross-examination can occur is bias. An examiner could be accused of being biased towards a particular appellant.
Statements made during the psychological interview, comments in the report, or those made during the hearing itself can be used as a basis for a bias charge. Attorneys may use bias charges as a cross examination strategy [ 48 ]. For example, one attorney accused an examiner of not liking an appellant.
For example, a psychologist was accused of bias after twice disqualifying an appellant arrested for soliciting prostitutes in the town where he was applying to be a police officer.
Another bias charge was made against a psychologist who disqualified an appellant who had made repeated violent threats against a romantic competitor. The same appellant had been brought before legal authorities twice for the same offense [ 49 ]. A cross examination could be focused on any deviation from standard psychological methods.
A third cross examination issue is the extent to which, if at all, a psychologist provides a clear statement on the overall risk assessment rating i. These included surveying community members and holding focus groups of police officers, local residents and researchers. The data collected were then used to create training for police and citizens, which led to greater mutual understanding.
More recently, social psychologist Phillip A. Goff, PhD, and his colleagues at the Center for Policing Equity have worked to develop collaborative relationships with law enforcement, communities and political stakeholders, to identify ways to strengthen relationships between local law enforcement departments and the communities they serve. As a society, we have the behavioral tools to help heal police-community relations. We now need to ensure that we apply them — fast.
- The Heart Plunderer (Angel at Large, Book 2) (Erotic Romance - Fallen Angel Romance).
- Police Studies.
- Society for Police and Criminal Psychology - About SPCP.
- LA LOI DATTRACTION - LE BONHEUR EXISTE (French Edition)!
McDaniel is president of the American Psychological Association. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Twitter account.
- Hungry For You (Falling For Him #2) (Falling For Him (A M/M Military Love Story));
- Un étrange alphabet poétique (French Edition)!
- Claimed by the Minotaur Warlord (First Time Interspecies)!
You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. McDaniel, PhD Longstanding tensions between police and communities of color have reached a boiling point in the United States. Thus these type of investigations and any based on them, being most legally conducted in their areas of origin, are highly dubious. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved 7 May Archived from the original on Retrieved 1 October Retrieved 8 October Retrieved from " https: Forensic psychology Law enforcement.