Topic Psychologists involvement in military interrogations

For this paper, you will examine the ethical implications of a controversial topic related to forensic psychology.

Topic: Psychologists’ involvement in military interrogations

In 1,000-1,250 words, consider the following:

Discuss human rights as it relates to the controversy.

Explain ethical implications that may arise for both sides of the controversy.

A minimum of three peer-reviewed sources and the textbook should be used to support this paper.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, An abstract is not required.

Please use the following references

Ethical guideline evolution in psychological support to interrogation operations.

Historicizing the Role of Psychologists in the U.S. Military: Introduction to Issue on Coercive Interrogations and the Mental Health Profession and Skeletons in the Closet: The American Psychological Association under Scrutiny.

For this paper, you will examine the ethical implications of a controversial topic related to forensic psychology.
Choose from the following topics:

undefined

Psychologists’ involvement in military interrogations
Psychologists’ involvement in assessments related to death penalty cases.

undefined

In 1,000-1,250 words, consider the following: Topic Psychologists involvement in military interrogations

undefined

Discuss human rights as it relates to the controversy.
Explain ethical implications that may arise for both sides of the controversy.

Read “Forensic Mental Health Evaluations in the Guantanamo Military Commissions System: An Analysis of All Detainee Cases,” by Aggarwal, From International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (2019).

Read “Criminal Responsibility Evaluations: Role of Psychologists in Assessment” by Ferguson & Ogloff from Psychiatry Psychology and Law (2011).

Human Rights and Psychologists’ Involvement in Assessments Related to Death Penalty Cases

In 2010, following intense controversy over the involvement of psychologists in military interrogations at U.S. detention centers such as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, the APA amended its Ethics Code Standard 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority. The amended language made clear that psychologists were prohibited from engaging in activities, however lawful, that would “justify or defend violating human rights.” The broad language of this modified standard raises new questions for ethical analysis of psychologists’ participation in another kind of controversial legal proceeding: death penalty cases.

Court Rulings

Forensic psychologists—those with specialty training in psychological evaluation, treatment, or consultation relevant to legal proceedings—have been increasingly involved in death penalty cases since the Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia (1976) ruled that capital sentencing must be tailored to the individual offense and the person who committed it. In practice, this has meant that during the sentencing phase of a capital case, courts must consider psychological factors that might influence a jury’s recommendation for execution or life imprisonment such as whether the defendant is capable of understanding the State’s reason for execution or is likely to engage in future violent behavior (DeMatteo, Murrie, Anumba, & Kessler, 2011). Topic Psychologists involvement in military interrogations

The need for psychological assessment in capital cases intensified in 2002 when the Supreme Court decided that use of the death penalty for defendants with mental retardation is unconstitutional (Atkins v. Virginia, 2002). Consequently, prosecutors cannot bring a capital case against a defendant accused of murder if a forensic psychologist or other mental health expert gives the defendant a diagnosis of mental retardation.

Similarly, the more recent Panetti v. Quarterman (2007) decision prohibits execution of criminal defendants sentenced to death if assessments indicate they do not understand the reason for their imminent execution. An assistant professor accused of student sexual harassment had a documented

history of poor student teaching evaluations, which, independent of the sexual harassment accusation, was sufficient to support a denial of promotion to associate professor. Topic Psychologists involvement in military interrogations

􀀵 A psychologist who accused a colleague of insurance fraud was found to have fabricated the evidence used against the colleague. The psychologist was fired from the group practice (Standard 1.07, Improper Complaints).

The use of the term solely in the first sentence of Standard 1.08 permits complainants or respondents to be denied employment, professional or academic advancement, or program admission for reasons unrelated to the complaint or for reasons based on the outcome of the complaint. Topic Psychologists involvement in military interrogations