Top Banner
© Cengage Learning 2016 © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17
36

© Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

Jan 21, 2016

Download

Documents

Garry Anthony
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016 © Cengage Learning 2016

Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology

17

Page 2: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Some roles of psychologists in the legal system– Psychological evaluation in child protection

matters

– Evaluation for child custody in divorce proceedings

– Civil commitment determination

– Protecting client rights

– Profiling criminals

The Intersection of Psychology and the Law

Page 3: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Assessing dangerousness

• Filing amicus briefs

• Aiding jury selection

• Determining sanity or insanity

• Providing testimony in malpractice suits

• Determining competency to stand trial

• Determining repressed, recovered, or false memories

Additional Roles and Activities of Psychologists in the Legal System

Page 4: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Incarceration of an individual for having committed a crime

• Criminal law– Some people lack the ability to assist in their

own defense or discern the ramifications of their actions because they are mentally disturbed

– Although they may be guilty of a crime, their mental state at the time of the offense exempts them from legal responsibility

Criminal Commitment

Page 5: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Refers to a defendant’s mental state at the time of post-arrest psychiatric evaluation

• Requirements to stand trial by federal law– Defendant must have a factual and rational

understanding of the proceedings

– Defendant must be able to rationally consult with counsel in presenting his or her own defense

• Defendant cannot be confined indefinitely solely on the grounds of incompetency

Competency to Stand Trial

Page 6: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

Legal Standards that Address the Mental State of the Defendant

Page 7: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Legal argument used by defendants– Admit they committed a crime

– Plead not guilty because they were not of sound mind at the time the crime was committed

• Legal tests of insanity– The “right-wrong” test

– The irresistible impulse test

Legal Precedents Regarding the Insanity Defense

Page 8: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Person can be acquitted if it can be shown that at the time of the act:– The defendant had such defective reasoning

that they did not know what they were doing (nature of the act)

– The defendant was unable to comprehend that the act was wrong (quality of the act)

• Criticism– Exclusively cognitive test

M’Naghten Rule (“Right-Wrong Test”)

Page 9: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Defendant is not criminally responsible if he or she lacked the will power to control his or her behavior

• Criticism– What constitutes irresistible impulse?

• Durham standard (the products test)– Accused is not responsible if the unlawful act

was the product of mental disease or defect

Irresistible Impulse Test

Page 10: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Guidelines established in 1962

• Mental disease or defect– Impairs capacity to appreciate the criminality

of conduct• Or to conform conduct to the requirements of law

– Does not include abnormality manifested by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct

Guidelines from the American Law Institute (ALI) Model Penal Code

Page 11: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Absence of specific intent to commit offense– As a result of mental impairment

• Used primarily to guide sentencing and disposition of defendants

• Sometimes introduced in the trial phase

The Law of Diminished Capacity

Page 12: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984– Bases definition of insanity totally on the

individual’s ability to understand what he or she did

• Some states adopted alternative pleas– Culpable and mentally disabled

– Mentally disabled, but neither culpable nor innocent

– Guilty, but mentally ill

Insanity Defense Reform

Page 13: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Insanity defense mostly used by defendants who have a long history of mental illness

• Determination of guilt can be complicated– Factor: severity of the defendant’s illness

• Deliberate delays– “Feigning” insanity rarely successful

• Past hospitalizations and medical diagnoses usually present

Contemporary Views on the Insanity Defense

Page 14: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Parens patriae (“father of the country”)– Government’s authority to commit disturbed

individuals for their own best interest

• Civil commitment – Involuntary confinement of a person judged to

be a danger to self or others• Even though the person has not committed a crime

– May be viewed as protective confinement

Civil Commitment

Page 15: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Major interruption in a person’s life

• Loss of self-esteem and self concept

• Dependency on others

• Possible loss or restriction of civil liberties

Negative Consequences of Civil Commitment

Page 16: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Criteria vary by state– Clear and imminent danger to self or others

– Inability to care for oneself or lack of social network to provide such care

– Inability to make responsible decisions about appropriate treatment or hospitalization

– Unmanageable state of fright or panic

Criteria for Commitment

Page 17: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Key factors– The rarer something is, the more difficult it is

to predict

– Violence is a function of both context and a person’s characteristics

– The best predictor of dangerousness is past criminal conduct or history of violence or aggression

– The definition of dangerousness is unclear

Assessing Dangerousness

Page 18: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Involuntary confinement rationale– Prevents harm to person or others

– Provides appropriate treatment and care

– Ensures due process of law

• Involuntary commitment is used when the individual refuses hospitalization

• Judge appoints two physicians to examine the individual

Procedures in Civil Commitment

Page 19: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Formal hearing takes place– Examiners and others testify about the

person’s mental state and potential danger

– The judge determines whether the person must enter treatment

– Commitment is usually for a defined length of time

• Six months to one year

• Indefinite subject to periodic review/assessment

Procedures in Civil Commitment (cont’d.)

Page 20: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Due process procedures important– Ensure commitment does not violate a

person’s civil rights

• Individual accused of a crime– Considered innocent until proven guilty in a

court of law

• Criminal justice system will not incarcerate people because they might harm someone– Civil commitment is based on possible future

harm

Protection against Involuntary Commitment

Page 21: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Addington v. Texas (1979)– Clear and convincing evidence that person is

mentally ill and potentially dangerous

• Dixon v. Weinberger (1975)– Least restrictive environment

• Right to least restrictive alternative to freedom that is appropriate to a person’s condition

Rights of Mental Patients

Page 22: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Those involuntarily committed have a right to receive therapy to improve their emotional state

• Rouse v. Cameron (1966)– Right to treatment is constitutional right

– Failure to provide treatment not justified by lack of resources

• O’Connor v. Donaldson (1975)– State cannot constitutionally confine

nondangerous person who can care for self

Right to Treatment

Page 23: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Many forms of treatment may have long-term side effects– Forced treatment may nullify potentially

beneficial effects

• Rennie v. Klein / Rogers v. Okin – People have a constitutional right to refuse

treatment (e.g., psychotropic medications) and to be given due process

• Least intrusive forms of treatment– Psychotherapy considered least intrusive

Right to Refuse Treatment

Page 24: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Trend toward deinstitutionalization– Influences access to treatment

– Shifts care from large institutions to local agencies

– Mental hospital population has dropped 75 percent since the 1960s and 1970s

– Concept of mainstreaming

– State hospitals inadequately staffed and underfunded

Deinstitutionalization

Page 25: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• States have relinquished responsibility

• Mentally ill are not receiving treatment and often live on the streets– Thousands are now homeless

• Estimate: 30 to 70 percent of the homeless have a mental disorder

• Communities lack preparation and resources to care for mentally ill

Criticisms of Deinstitutionalization

Page 26: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Right to die movement– Medical advances have increasingly

lengthened the dying process

• Physician faces civil or criminal lawsuit in many states– Particularly if patient lacks advance directive

• Suicide considered both a sin and an illegal act– Question: do people have the right to commit

suicide?

Moral, Ethical, and Legal Issues Surrounding Suicide

Page 27: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Confidentiality – Ethical standard that protects clients from

disclosure of information without their consent

• Privileged communication – Therapist’s legal obligation to protect a client’s

privacy and to prevent the disclosure of confidential communications without a client’s permission

Ethical Guidelines for Mental Health Professionals

Page 28: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Civil or criminal commitment or competency to stand trial

• Client introduces mental condition as a claim or defense in a civil action

• Clients younger than 16 or dependent elderly person– When therapist believes individual has been

the victim of a crime

• Client presents danger to self or others

Exemptions from Privileged Communication

Page 29: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Based on Tarasoff ruling – Obligates mental health professionals to

break confidentiality when clients pose clear and imminent danger to other person

– Must warn intended victim

• Criticisms– Therapist placed in role of a double agent

– The act of warning could escalate events

The Duty to Warn

Page 30: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

Duty to Warn

Page 31: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Prevents colleges and universities from disclosing personal information about students, even to their parents– Colleges treat students as adults, so telling

parents would infantilize students

– Students may be less inclined to share information if they knew rights were not confidential

• Undergraduates have more mental health needs than ever before

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act

Page 32: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Ethical code– Sexual intimacies with clients prohibited for a

minimum of two years after termination of therapy

• Importance of separating and creating boundaries between professional and personal lives– Therapists need to be objective

Sexual Relationships with Clients

Page 33: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Prevailing concepts of mental health and mental disorders are culture-bound– Therapy approaches based on highly

individualistic values of middle- to upper-class European Americans

• ASA guidelines adopted in 2003– Emphasize importance of culturally-sensitive

work with racial and ethnic minorities

– Recognize cultural factors in diagnosis

Cultural Competence and the Mental Health Profession

Page 34: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Becoming aware of and deal with biases, stereotypes, and assumptions

• Becoming aware of the values and worldviews of culturally different clients

• Developing appropriate intervention strategies– Considering social, cultural, historical, and

environmental factors that influence clients from diverse cultures

Cultural Competence (cont’d.)

Page 35: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• What are the criteria used to judge insanity, and what is the difference between being insane and being incompetent to stand trial?

• Under what conditions can a person be involuntarily committed to a mental institution?

• What rights do mental patients have with respect to treatment and care?

Review

Page 36: © Cengage Learning 2016 Law and Ethics in Abnormal Psychology 17.

© Cengage Learning 2016

• Are there situations in which suicide should be an option?

• What legal and ethical issues guide treatment practices?

Review (cont’d.)