Ethical concerns in correctional psychology

Abstract

The correctional psychologist’s primary mission is to assist in offender rehabilitation and reintegration. Additionally, the psychologist enhances staff and inmate safety by promoting a healthy institutional environment. While corrections has become a highly popular sub-discipline of psychology, it is also riddled with unique ethical dilemmas and conflicts. The primary role of the correctional psychologist, consent, treatment issues, confidentiality, and disciplinary roles have created consistent ethical issues. Ethical violations are identified and contradictions addressed.

Ethical Concerns Within the Practice of Correctional Psychology

The correctional psychologist’s primary mission is to assist in offender rehabilitation and reintegration. Additionally, the psychologist enhances staff and inmate safety by promoting a healthy institutional environment (Hawk, 1997). The correctional psychologist clearly has varied responsibilities. Their primary focus is their application of direct psychological services with inmates, evaluation of the prison population, inmate management, and release evaluation and recommendations. While corrections has become a highly popular sub-discipline of psychology, it is also riddled with unique ethical dilemmas and conflicts (Van Voorhis & Spencer, 1999). Unfortunately, many of the ethical dilemmas within correctional psychology appear to be far from successful resolution. There is virtually no recent academic literature concerning the ethical problems in corrections, and even fewer recommendations on how one should proceed when faced with such problems (Weinberger & Sreenivasan, 1994). The ethical guidelines that govern psychological practice are equally unhelpful (American Psychological Association, 1992; Canadian Psychological Association, 1991).

In historical times individuals felt that certain criminals, due to mental circumstances, did not deserve the same punishment as common offenders. Initially, this was first used to simply separate the mentally ill from the normal prisoner (Arboleda-Florez, 1983). During the mid-twentieth century the Federal Bureau of Prisons initiated the active use of psychologists and psychiatrists within their institutions (Roth, 1986). At this time a treatment approach was being implemented, with the professionals focused on the treatment of the individual inmate in order to create behavior change (Adams, 1985). By the 1970’s and 1980’s this treatment approach was no longer the primary focus, with the role of the correctional psychologist focused primarily on the security of the institution and community at large (Weinberger & Sreenivasan, 1994). With this new direction, and the regulations in place regarding it, a number of ethical issues have been created.

One concern with the combined treatment and institutional control role of today’s correctional psychologist is the potential dual relationships it has created. The American Psychological Association’s (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (1992) warns that forensic psychologists should avoid participation in any practice that has multiple and potentially conflicting roles.

The regulations for correctional psychologists within the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBP) would seem to have made dual role conflicts difficult to avoid, creating an environment that can at times seriously undermine the therapeutic goals and relationship that is formed between the therapist and the individual inmate. Upon hiring, each psychologist is placed in a correctional training program where they will learn basic correctional concepts, such as inmate review (from a correctional perspective), firearms training, and inmate search procedures (Weinberger & Sreenivasan, 1994). The psychology manual of the FBP actually states that in emergency situations the psychologist’s primary function is as a correctional worker (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1987). The guidelines continue by defining situations considered emergency situations, including those as miniscule as being short staffed. Weinberger and Sreenivasan (1994) described a situation in which during a shift where the prison was short staffed the correctional psychologist was asked to assist in a simple head count. This did not seem to create a major ethical dilemma, therefore the psychologist agreed. However, once in the correctional worker role the psychologist was ordered by his administrative superiors to assist in a contraband search of the prisoners. One could suspect that this dual role could function to destroy the therapeutic image between the psychologist and his clients, thus leaving the therapist perceived solely as another cop.

An additional dual role, one that is consistent with nearly every relationship between a correctional psychologist and their incarcerated client, is the psychologist’s role as both a therapist and evaluator for parole and release. The goal of the therapeutic relationship between the offender and therapist is the successful change of unacceptable behaviors so that reintegration into society can occur (Hawk, 1997). While there is no reason to suspect that the psychologist would allow his dual role as the clients evaluator of readiness for parole to effect his willingness to provide adequate treatment, one could suspect that the client would be less willing to provide the information required for an effective intervention. Additionally, it is also likely that the incarcerated client would want to misrepresent him/herself in order to be evaluated beneficially (Stone, 1984). By doing so they have erected defense mechanisms that will not allow them to release any of the crucial information required for both an effective treatment and an accurate evaluation.

There are a few potential consent issues that are unique and relevant to a correctional psychologist’s practice. Often within a forensics institution a client may not be considered competent to give consent. However, this situation is not unique to corrections. What is fairly unique is the possibility of forced consent. While it is difficult to suggest the client is being actually psychologically or physically forced into consenting to treatment, it is not an unfair assumption that a incarcerated client may fear the way not consenting to treatment may be interpreted. Many clients in the correctional system are in the process of appealing their convictions or hoping for parole, its is reasonable to assume that they may feel, possibly realistically, that if they do not cooperate with treatment procedures they will be punished further and lose opportunities for release (Stone, 1984).

An important part of the correctional psychologist’s job is the assessment of dangerousness. Many clinicians insist that they can make competent assessments via proper training, education, and experience (Weinberger & Sreenivasan, 1994). Typically, clients desire an accurate evaluation. The correctional client, however, may feel that an honest evaluation will not aid them, but rather harm their chances of release. For this reason they may try to deceive the evaluator. Some have suggested that, in this case, a covert evaluation may be appropriate. However, such covert evaluations can only be ethically undertaken during an emergency condition, which is limited to life-threatening circumstances with a risk of escape or internal disorder within the prison (American Association of Correctional Psychologists, 1980; Dubler, 1986). Arguably, one could define the release of a dangerous offender, based on an evaluation in which the client has been deceptive, a life threatening situation. However, professional ethical guidelines have always avidly dictated the need for informed consent and such arguments seem to be somewhat unrealistic (American Psychological Association, 1992; Canadian Psychological Association, 1991).

With recent court rulings, the unavailability, or willful neglect, of psychiatric care is an actionable violation of human rights (Wellman v. Faulker, 1983; Joseph v. Brierton, 1984). This has led to a rebirth of the treatment approach in correctional psychology. However, ethical concerns also persist with the treatment processes alone. As the correctional institution increasingly relies on the correctional psychologist to deal with population control and the institution as a whole, individuals with clearly chronic mental illnesses are being neglected. Mental health professionals continually have to intervene with angry and disruptive individuals, whether or not their behavior is the product of a chronic mental illness (Bennett, 1998). With this approach, nearly the entire incarcerated population is the responsibility of the psychologist, minimizing the availability of the mental health professional for those who have a legitimate mental illness. The shear size and diversity of the population for which these mental health practitioners are responsible is what leads to many of the treatment problems (Young, 1989). It is not the case that effective correctional interventions do not exist, but rather, that they have not found ones that can support or work with all of their clients (Van Voorhis & Spencer, 1999).

Even within the correctional population that can be diagnosed as mentally ill, one must consider who should be treated. The predominance of clients come from inmates diagnosed with personality disorders. They are virtually flooding the case load of the institutional psychologist, even though the outcome research on the successful treatment of such disorders is extremely limited and not at all encouraging (Bennett, 1998). As a result, those who are experiencing the chronic mental illnesses that psychology can adequately treat (e.g., schizophrenia, mood disorders, suicide) are being forced to take a back seat to disruptive inmates who the correctional institution wants to bring under control.

The therapeutic relationship in a correctional setting is greatly hindered by the limits to confidentiality. In non-correctional practice, the criminal justice system is rarely involved and for the most part the limitations to confidentiality do not hinder the therapeutic process. However, in a correctional setting the court system is involved from the very start of the therapeutic procedure. Clearly, information regarding abuse and violence towards others would be reported in either situation. However, when a client’s records are available to third party evaluation, as they are in a correctional setting, ones thoughts and motivations could be held against them (Stone, 1984). In a non-correctional setting such information would normally not have been brought to the attention of the authorities, for they quite possibly would not have been an adequate violation of the limitations to confidentiality. Subsequently, the client may be unable to safely act in an honest manner during treatments. Such dishonesty can greatly hinder the ability for the client to be adequately helped during treatment, and may very well explain the high rate of failure with many correctional therapeutic interventions. Surprisingly, neither the APA, CPA or FBP psychological guidelines make any recommendations regarding confidentiality of such disclosures in the correctional setting (American Psychological Association, 1992; Canadian Psychological Association, 1991; Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1987).

The correctional psychologist’s participation on disciplinary boards that involve any of their personal clients is a clearly unethical dual role. Fortunately, there is clear enough ethical guidelines to allow a psychologist’s exclusion from such a situation (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1987). However, a psychologist’s participation on such boards is arguably unethical even in the absence of a dual role. Prison disciplinary boards are responsible for exacting actions that lead to an inmate’s loss of privileges, transfer to a higher security prison (one arguably more dangerous), or solitary confinement. A psychologist’s participation on boards that initiate some sort of punishment is highly questionable (Weinberger & Sreenivasan, 1994). However, there is no specific ethical guidelines within the literature to specify how a correctional psychologist should act when asked to participate on a prison disciplinary committee.

Psychiatrists have successfully excluded themselves from such boards via their credo to do no harm (Weinberger & Sreenivasan, 1994). The CPA principles concerning the respect for the dignity of persons, as well as the APA’s principles of respect for people’s rights and dignity and concern for others welfare, would seem to apply in this situation. Psychologists, however, continue to carry out this role in what could arguably be a violation of their ethical code of behavior (American Psychological Association, 1992; Canadian Psychological Association, 1991; Weinberger & Sreenivasan, 1994). The solitary confinement punishment would clearly be a violation of the code. One could also state that the psychologists participation on such boards eliminates the fields unique role to serve mental health needs, and thus damages the traditional professional role of the discipline via the loss of credibility among inmates and a possible adoption of a jailers mentality.

Correctional psychology is clearly riddled with unique ethical dilemmas and conflicts. The primary role of the correctional psychologist, consent, treatment issues, confidentiality, and disciplinary roles have all created consistent ethical issues. The committee on ethical guidelines for forensic psychologists (1991) formulated guidelines for forensic practice in order to provide a more specific method to monitor professional conduct in a correctional setting. However, these standards have not alleviated the majority of ethical problems, for they are vague, difficult to understand, and contradictory to other ethical principles (Weinberger & Sreenivasan, 1994).

The fact that correctional psychological services fall under correctional administration, rather then mental health, could be a factor that is promoting the persistence of these ethical issues (Levinson, 1985). When mental health professionals encounter an ethical issue they will seek the aid of their professional department head. However, these psychological administrators do not hold any ultimate authority. If the correctional administration do not feel the issue is reason for concern it will go unresolved.

With a number of contradictory guidelines and professional behaviors, it is difficult to ascertain what is acceptable correctional practice. Re-evaluation and interpretation of current ethical guidelines seems to be in order. Consideration, and amalgamation, of contradictory guidelines could allow for less interpretation of ethical practice. As a result, a number of dilemmas that are consistently experienced within the field could be eliminated.

References

Adams, K. (1985). Addressing inmate mental health problems. Federal Probation, 49, 27-33.

American Association of Correctional Psychologists. (1980). Standards for psychology services in adult jails and prisons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 7, 81-127.

American Psychological Association (1992). Ethical principles of psychologits and code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author.

Arboleda-Florez, J. (1983). The ethics of psychiatry in prison society. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 25(1), 47-54.

Bennett, N. (1998). Changing paradigms in correctional mental health care. Corrections Today, 4, 1998.

Canadian Psychological Association (1991). The Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists [On-Line]. Available: http://www.cpa.ca/ethics.html

Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 655-665.

Dubler, N. N. (Ed.). (1986). Standards for health servies in correctional institutions. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.

Federal Bureau of Prisons (1986). Psychology manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Hawk, K. M. (1997). Personal reflections on a career in correctional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28(4), 335-337.

Joseph v. Brierton, 739 F.2d 1244 (1984).

Levinson, R. B. (1985). The psychologist as change agent in corrections. In C. P. Ewing (Ed.). Psychology, psychiatry, and the law: A clinical and forensic handbook (pp. 129-144). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resources Exchange.

Roth, L. H. (1986). Correctional psychiatry. In W. J. Curran, A. L. McGary, & S. A. Shah (Eds.). Forensic psychiatry and psychology (pp. 429-468). Philadelphia: Davis.

Stone, A. A. (1984). Law, Psychiatry, and Morality. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc.

Van Voorhis, P. & Spencer, K. (1999). When programs "don’t work" with everyone: Planing for differences among correctional clients. Corrections Today, 2, 38-42.

Weinberger, L. E. & Sreenivasan, S. (1994). Ethical and professional conflicts in correctional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 25(2), 161-167.

Wellman v. Faulker. 715 F.2d 269 (1983).

Young, T. J. (1989). Treatment of multicultural counseling in correctional psychology textbooks. Psychological Reports, 65, 521-522.

Written By Michael Decaire - Lakehead University