Case Study Inmate X

Case Analysis

Karen M. McKenzie

Argosy University

Case Analysis

The mental health professional within the correctional institution has been asked to evaluate an inmate with a violent history and is currently serving a sentence for a violent offense. The inmate is almost at the end of his or her sentence and is currently scheduled to meet with the parole board. According to the inmates records this individual had been seen as a model prisoner during this time of incarceration, but the warden still believes this inmate is still too dangerous to be granted parole. While requesting that an evaluation be conducted on this inmate, the warden also asked that the mental health professional not inform the inmate that evaluation is being conducted due to the warden’s belief that the inmate would refuse to participate.

There are some factors to answering the question posed, “should the warden’s request for an evaluation of this inmate be completed”? The warden’s request is no different than if a judge or the probation office would have requested the evaluation for determining sentencing (Weinberger, & Sreenivasan, 1994). Ethical Standard 1.02 states if a psychologist ethical obligation are in conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority that the nature of the conflict be stated and that reasonable steps are taken to rectify the conflict in accordance with General Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code ([APA] American Psychological Association, n.d.).

 The concern is that the warden has asked that the evaluation be done without the knowledge of the inmate, this is not considered an emergency under the standards developed for mental health professional working in the correctional facility (escape, internal disorder or riot) where the consent of the inmate is not needed ([APA] American Psychiatric Association, 1989 as cited in Weinberger, & Sreenivasan, 1994). Since evaluating inmate’s mental health conditions and their potential threat to society are routinely conducted for inmate’s readiness to return to society, the warden’s request would not be unreasonable or unrealistic and the evaluation should be completed. The warden’s believes that the inmate still poses a threat and is acting on behalf of the state, orders the mental status evaluation. Guideline 1.02: Impartiality and Fairness, a practitioner should be unbiased and impartial, avoid of presentation of incomplete or in accurate evidence that could mislead the facts. Since the request is not mandated legally and there is no clear and emit danger, the psychologist has an obligation to obtain an informed consent (APA, n.d.).

The psychologist should inform the warden of the Ethical Standard 3.07 Third-Party Request for service; with all parties involved discuss their professional responsibilities and their ethical obligation as a psychologist (APA, n.d.), also included in their discussion Ethical Standard 3.10 Informed Consent, 9.03 Informed Consent in Assessments, and 10.01 Informed consent to Therapy, the psychologist obtains informed consent for assessments, evaluation, or diagnostic services, unless proven that one of the criterions from Ethical Standard 9.03 (a) has been met in regards to reasons for not obtaining an consent from the inmate (APA, n.d.). The inmate is incarcerated for violent behavior, and has a history of this type of behavior may hold the legal justification for the evaluation request.

The American Psychology-Law Society Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (APLS, 2011) Guideline 1.01: Integrity states that a practitioner should do everything possible to resisted pressure to provide service that may be misleading or inaccurate, Guideline 7.01 Conflicts with Legal Authority states when a conflict cannot be resolve, the forensic practitioner may follow the requirements of the law, regulation, or other governing legal authority. Adhering only to the extent required and so long as it does not violate a person’s human rights. So again I would have to say complete the evaluation.

No matter whether the psychologist is or is not a member of the APA my decision would still depend on factors involved. All practicing psychologist no matter their affiliation, have ethical, moral and legal obligation that they must consider when it comes to clients. All psychologists should adhere to do no harm, and should work in the best interest of the client. When becoming a psychologist and during the education process, the APA code of ethics are taught so no matter if one becomes a member or not they are still held to the same standards as an individual who is a member of APA. Not being a member does not exempt an individual. If the psychologist in the scenario where to comply with the ethics code and insist on informing the inmate, then there is documentation of what the inmate will or will not consent too and it protects the psychologist as long as planned action (evaluation) are documented on the consent form.

If this inmate were an African-American male, who is gay and raised in a single-parent adoptive home, should be of concern if the practitioner had no multicultural/diversity training and who is not culturally competent. Culture must be understood as a set of shared beliefs, norms, or any values among any group of people, and that cultural difference is not a deficiency. The issue of isms, racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, ethnocentrism or any other discriminatory issues that one may pretend to not have should be a concern when conducting an evaluation of an individual from a multicultural/diverse background. When conducting an evaluation, the professional should consider cultural self-awareness, which is important for the ability to work with a diverse population. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition (DSM-5) states that identifying differences in culture, language, and social status is of importance to building the client/clinician relationship. These differences could influence how the diagnostic results are interpreted (APA, 2013 p. 750). African-American males, who are gay, alone have experienced racism and discrimination which ultimately could be an issue with establishing a relationship of safety and trust during the evaluation. Another concern of the practitioner should be the evaluation and if it is geared to multicultural diversity that is representative of the inmate.