Ethics in Criminal Justice Research

jeguiris87

Maxfield_8e_PPT_Ch03.pptx

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >Ethics in Criminal Justice Research

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

‹#›

LO 2

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

‹#›

LO 4

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

‹#›

LO 5

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

‹#›

LO 8

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

‹#›

LO 6

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

‹#›

LO 3

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)

‹#›

LO 6

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

‹#›

LO 6

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

‹#›

LO 9

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

‹#›

LO 9

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

‹#›

LO 11

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

‹#›

LO 7

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

‹#›

LO 11

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

‹#›

LO 6

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

‹#›

LO 6

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

‹#›

LO 6

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

‹#›

LO 6

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

‹#›

LO 6