Problem Statement

farra004

Chapter31740.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >Problem Statement

Chapter 3:

Ethics in Criminal Justice Research

Learning Objectives

• Recognize how criminal justice research is shaped by ethical considerations.

• Understand that what is ethically “right” and “wrong” in research is ultimately a matter of what people agree is right and wrong.

• Understand why researchers may not recognize whether their own work adequately addresses ethical issues.

• Summarize how ethical questions usually involve weighing the possible benefits of research against the potential harm to research subjects.

• Understand the norm of voluntary participation and how it can conflict with generalizability.

Learning Objectives, cont.

• Describe examples of the special ethical questions sometimes raised by criminal justice research.

• Discuss how informed consent addresses many ethical questions.

• Distinguish anonymity and confidentiality as ways to protect the privacy of research subjects.

• Summarize ethical principles presented in the Belmont Report.

• Describe why prisoners and juveniles require special ethical considerations.

• Understand the role of institutional review boards (IRBs) in protecting human subjects.

Ethical Issues in Criminal Justice Research

• Ethical concerns – Typically associated with morality; both deal with matters of right & wrong

• Ethical - May be defined as behavior conforming to the standards of conduct of a given group

• Ethics are a matter of agreement among professionals

• We need to know of this general, shared conception among CJ researchers

No Harm to Participants

• Dilemma – Balancing potential benefits against possibility of harm

• Collecting info from active criminals presents the possibility of violence against them

• Psychological harm via remembrance of unpleasant/traumatic experience

• Possible harm may be justified by potential benefit of study (still arbitrary)

• Perrone – Drug use in N.Y. dance clubs

Voluntary Participation

• CJ research often intrudes into people’s lives

• Asks them to reveal what is generally unknown

• Participation must be voluntary

• This threatens generalizability

Anonymity and Confidentiality

• Anonymity – When a researcher cannot identify a given piece of information with a given person

• Confidentiality – A researcher can link information with a subject, but promises not to do so publicly

• Techniques: Replace names/addresses with IDs, specify when survey is C rather than A, specify that info will not be disclosed to third parties

Deceiving Subjects

• Generally considered unethical

• Sometimes useful and even necessary to identify yourself as a researcher

• “Don’t go undercover”

• Widom (1999) – child abuse and illegal drug use

• Inciardi (1993) – studying crack houses

Discussion Question 1

Do you think being deceived during the course of a criminal justice study would change the way you view the role of science in public policy?

Analysis and Reporting

• Researchers have ethical obligations to the scientific community

• Must make shortcomings and/or negative findings known

• Must tell the truth about pitfalls and problems you’ve experienced

• It is as important to know that two things are not related as to know that they are

Legal Liability

• Researchers may expose themselves to criminal liability by: – Failing to report observed criminal activity to the

police – Engaging in participant observation studies where

crimes are committed

• Subpoenas violate confidentiality • Legal immunity (42 U.S. Code §22.28a)

Discussion Question 2

What if someone asked you to identify the most pressing ethical issue in your life? How would you reply?

Special Problems

• Becoming aware of staff misbehavior in agencies

• Research can cause crime or influence its location or target – Crime may be displaced

• Withholding desirable treatments from control group

• Mandatory Reporting: the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974

Promoting Compliance with Ethical Principles

• The National Research Act (1974): signed into law after a few highly publicized examples of unethical practices in medical and social science research

• The Belmont Report (1979): a brief, but comprehensive set of ethical principles for protecting human subjects – Respect for Persons

– Beneficence

– Justice

Code of Professional Ethics

• The American Psychological Association (2002) code of ethics is quite detailed, reflecting the different professional roles of psychologists in research, clinical treatment, and educational contexts – Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Ethical

Standards – American Society of Criminology Code of Ethics – U.S. Department of Health & Human Services – American Bar Association Code of Professional

Responsibility

Institutional Review Boards

• Gov. agencies and non-gov. organizations must establish Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) – Members make judgments about overall risks and

their acceptability – Members decide whether research procedures

include safeguards to protect safety, confidentiality, and general welfare of subjects

Discussion Question 3

What would modern social science look like without the IRB?

Informed Consent and Special Populations

• Informed consent – Requires that subjects both have the capacity to understand and do understand the research, risks, side effects, benefits to subjects, and procedures used – New Jersey State Troopers and Racial Profiling

• Special populations – Specific regulations exist for certain populations, such as juveniles and prisoners

Researcher Rights

• Many social research study designs are regarded as exempt from IRB review under federal guidelines

• Exempt means that research proposals do not have to be subject to full IRB review

Trouble in the Tearoom

• Laud Humphreys (1975) – Studied homosexual acts between strangers who meet in public restrooms in parks (“tearooms”)

• Served as “watchqueen” • Noted plate numbers of participants, tracked

down names and addresses through police, conducted a survey to obtain personal info at their homes

The Stanford Prison Experiment

• Dispositional hypothesis – Prisons are brutal and dehumanizing because of people in them

• Situational hypothesis – Prison environment creates brutal and dehumanizing conditions independent of the people in them

• Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo – Sought to test situational hypothesis by simulating a prison in 1971

The Stanford Prison Experiment, cont.

• “Prison” constructed in basement of psychology building

• 24 healthy/psychologically normal subjects selected, offered $15 a day for their participation

• Asked to sign a contract that they would be confined, put under constant surveillance, and have their civil rights suspended – but would not be subject to physical abuse

The Stanford Prison Experiment, part III

• Terminated after 6 days (planned for 2 weeks)

• Subjects displayed “unexpectedly intense reactions”

• Five had to be released b/c they showed signs of acute depression or anxiety

• Guards became aggressive, prisoners became passive

Researchers Sensitive to Ethical Issues?

• Obtained consent via signed contracts • Those who developed signs of acute

distress were released early • Study was terminated prematurely • Group therapy debriefing sessions were

conducted, along with follow-ups, to ensure negative experiences were temporary