3-2 Milestone Two_ PSY 570 (1)

.docx

School

Southern New Hampshire University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

570-X1228

Subject

Psychology

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

8

Uploaded by SargentExplorationChinchilla4

Case Study Summary Rachel Marsh Case Study Summary 3-2 Milestone Two Southern New Hampshire University Ethical Practice in Psychology PSY 570 Professor Cara Acosta March 17, 2024 1
Case Study Summary I. Case Study 13-9: Helena Scruples Dr. Helena Scruples was called upon to testify as an expert witness regarding eyewitness identification in a case of rape (Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2016). An expert on eyewitness identification techniques, Dr. Scruples' research has shown evidence that eyewitness identifications are frequently unreliable; however, perpetrators of this nature are difficult to prosecute. She feels sympathy for the female victim knowing her testimony could conclude a “not guilty” verdict or reduce the perpetrator's conviction. Dr. Scruples’s ethical dilemma is centralized around whether or not she should provide testimony, as her testimony may reduce the probability of a conviction and have a negative discourse on the victim. Despite Dr. Scruples's conflict with her personal value system, defendants are entitled to a strong legal defense; however, although a defendant has the right to present relevant scientific data to support their case, a mental health professional is under absolute conviction to testify simply because he or she was asked to do so. (Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2016) The degree to which an expert witness is responsible for presenting both perspectives of psychological research or theory is convolute (Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2016). A consistent debate among experts astounds two different perspectives on the discussion: (a) an equitably stable presentation of research or theory is not necessary for a testimony; (b) expert witnesses are required to take an oath to “tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth”, which is violated if the expert witness omits research or theory. In the case of Dr. Scruples, her research holds evidentiary basis suggesting the unreliability of eyewitness accounts, which is research that has been further replicated and peer-reviewed throughout the psychology field. In this understanding, if Dr. Scruples does not testify to the breadth of her knowledge as an expert, it 2
Case Study Summary invalidates the evidence of her research claims while arguing in favor of universal discussion. (Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2016). II. Culture, Social Orientation, and Ethical Behavior Culture and social orientation influence the structuralization of individual beliefs, values, morals, and attitudes. The APA Code of Ethics, specifically standard 3.01: Unfair Discrimination, stipulates that psychologists do not discriminate unfairly during work-related enterprises against age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or any basis proscribed by law (American Psychological Association, 2017). Despite these stipulations and standards, a psychologist acting as an expert witness must consider their beliefs, values, and moral systems before agreeing to testify. As culture and social orientation influence behavior, psychologists must address their personal value systems to ascertain potential biases that could negatively implicate an expert testimony. Without addressing the impact of personal value systems, a psychologist acting as an expert witness in a court of law may conduct themselves unethically, as they cannot behave objectively. In the presented case study, Dr. Scruples’s social orientation as a woman has a significant influence on the ethical conflict. As Dr. Scruples’s research on eyewitness testimony may result in reducing or eliminating a guilty conviction, she is hesitant to agree to testify, as she understands cases of rape are difficult to prosecute. Due to her compassionate feelings towards the victim's predicament and her orientation as a woman, Dr. Scruples is hesitant to offer expert testimony that may debilitate the plaintiff and support the defendant’s case. Based on the Daubert decision and the Federal Rules of Evidence, Dr. Scruples' research would carry weight under scrutiny for scientific validity (Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2016). If Dr. Scruples omits 3
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help