Why Do Psychologists Engage In The Forensic Role?

Introduction The Therapeutic role and the Forensic role continues to be a debatable subject, some critics believe it’s a conflict of interest some argue that impartiality can be maintained. The question is can the two engage in a dual relationship where both roles work together for a common cause? When asking this question we have to consider the main factors, therapeutic clinicians provide care, and forensic evaluators cater to the courts. When we look at this issues form this perspective it’s not an easy yes or no answer. The information collected by a therapist is different from the information collected by the forensic evaluator and is used for different reasons. This is one reason why this dual relationship cannot work. Information
Holmes: The Psychologist as Expert Witness: stated that there are ethical rules that can govern forensic activity by psychologists. According to Poliacoff within the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct are four standards that apply to psychologist being expert witnesses, the ethical Principles of Psychologists and the Code of Conduct standards allow the Psychologist to step out of their role into the role of Forensic Experts these standards are acceptable and are reinforced by the courts decision in the Daubert case. Standard 1.06, which challenges psychologist to rely on science, Standard 2.02 requires psychologists to select assessment instruments on the basis of research, in order to prevent the misuse of those assessment tools. Standard 2.05 requires psychologist to present any problems they many have about the correctness or incorrectness about the accuracy of those assessments. the author also states that” this can be proven by the Courts decision in the Daubert case”. Furthermore, it’s up to the courts to decide if someone is an expert witness, the courts judges this level of expertise by addressing the Federal rules of Civil Procedure, rule 702 to be exact. The expert must possess the knowledge, skills and experience in order to render an opinion using facts, and reliable principles. Poliacoff
Many of the expert witness only seen M’Naghten for a few seconds and based their opinions on their expertise not the history of the defendant, there were a couple of the witness that did not interview M’Naghten at all, the judge stop the entire trail after the performances of the expert witnesses, because of this the defense won the insanity plea. To make a long story short M’Naghten was found Incompetent to stand