2
Application of Ethical Code and Guidelines
The present case is about Dr. John P. and the defendant, 37-year-old Sam, who is charged with murdering a correctional officer while serving a 24-year sentence in the state prison for murdering his wife. The prosecuting attorney asked Dr. P to conduct a competency evaluation on
Sam. Sam has a history of violent behavior and has been in and out of the correctional facility as a juvenile and adult. Dr. P was the forensic psychologist tasked with evaluating and testifying for
the district attorney when Sam was on trial for his first offense. Dr. P testified then that Sam was malingering psychosis and a psychopath. After reading the case, I have identified four areas of ethical dilemmas. Ethical Dilemmas
The first dilemma identified is that Dr. P testified that Sam was a psychopath based on his
extensive experience of informally assessing psychopaths in the correctional system. The second dilemma is that Dr. P testified that Sam posed a significant risk of acting violent if he was given a non-capital sentence despite not formally evaluating Sam for potential violence. These are ethical dilemmas based on specialty guideline 9.03 and code of conduct 9.01 (APA, 2011; APA, 2017). Specialty guideline 9.03 states, "Forensic practitioners recognize their obligations to only provide written or oral evidence about the psychological characteristics of particular individuals when they have sufficient information or data to form an adequate foundation for those opinions or to substantiate their findings” (APA, 2011). Code of Conduct 9.01 Bases of assessments, states that “psychologists base their opinions
contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings” (APA,
2017). Dr. P’s testimony that Sam is a psychopath is based on “extensive experience” conducting
