Legal disc

David

Although this may not be strictly along the lines of the discussion assignment, but in the world of empathy-bias I think it pertains. What I am going to attempt to do is to relate a psychologist's struggle with empathy-bias as he became aware of issues arising as he served on a Federal Grand Jury for two years (extended due to COVID in 2019 and 2020. The psychologist is me, if that isn't clear, and the appointment to the Grand Jury was prior to beginning this PhD program but after working in higher education and attaining an MS in forensic psychology. Although Shuman and Zervopolous (2010) mainly touched on the idea of empathy in terms of fitness for adjudication issues and how that is applied in the realm of forensic evaluation, their discussion on empathy-bias, or the personal biases of an evaluator influencing their approach to the evaluation, are germane to the story of the psychologist serving on a Grand Jury. At its core, a Grand Jury is empaneled to decide whether or not a crime has probably been committed by whomever the state has brought forth. The 'probably' in that statement is referential to 'probable cause.' The Grand Jury does not decide guilt or innocence, but whether or not there was probable cause to go to criminal trial. Now, the Grand Jury was responsible for assessing and determining probable cause in child exploitation cases. Therein the idea of empathy-bias really took hold. Shuman, et. al. (2010) called what I was experiencing during the child exploitation cases the evaluator's dilemma. I, and my fellow jurors, had an extreme revulsion to child exploitation cases and, as I examined how we approached these cases as opposed to felon in possession of a handgun, for example, the condemnation of the accused was swift, did not involve as much discussion, and the sentiment was 'accusation equaled guilt' and minds were made up prior to testimony. Now, this is anecdotal and personal, but there were many child exploitation cases and I slowly started to see our patterns and would try an initiate a discussion of probable cause that, largely, fell on deaf ears. There were sixteen jurors for quorum and my attempts were met with annoyance on one end and hostility on another. I was unaware of Shuman, et. al. (2010) and their proposal of plausible alternative explanations to dissuade that bias, but I did make cursory attempts at finding alternatives, but when met with so much resistance, that was abandoned (and were, as indicated, only cursory to begin with). If I could transpose this trend in the Grand Jury and apply it to forensic evaluation. If I were to evaluate a person accused of child exploitation and had the assumption of guilt right away due to my revulsion of child sex crimes and bias toward the accused having deviant behaviors, then that would firmly violate the APA's Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, specifically 1.02, Impartiality and Fairness (n.d.). Within that guideline, the empathy-bias (whether it be empathy with the affected child's parent, the parent themselves, or even the revulsion of the accused) violates that very core concept of being impartial since all bias, even empathy-bias, is the antithesis of that. Again, I go back to Shuman, et. al. (2010) and their assertion that plausible alternative explanations are a way to manage empathy-bias. Admittedly, my first attempt with the Grand Jury was half-hearted, but the process could be useful.

References

American Psychological Association. (n. d.). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. https://www.apadivisions.org/division-41/about/specialty/

Shuman, D. W., & Zervopoulos, J. A. (2010). Empathy or objectivity: The forensic examiner’s dilemma? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28(5), 585–602. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.953

Samantha

Hello Class,

Empathy-bias is an examiner’s view or mindset toward the examination purpose. These biases may present as conscious or unconscious actions. This can occur in evaluation, report writing, or witness statements (Shuman & Zervopoulos, 2010). As a professional, it is essential to acknowledge and understand our biases to prevent them from hindering an examination.

Legal Issue and Legislation/Case Law

Vacco v. Quill, 1997 highlighted the restrictions on an individual’s right to die, specifically physician-assisted suicide. It stated that there was a difference between an ill patient refusing life-sustaining treatment and a physician assisting in the suicide of the patient (Rehnquist & Supreme Court of The United States, 1996). This ruling provided the foundation for physician-assisted dying otherwise known as Death with Dignity laws.

There are currently 10 U.S. Jurisdictions that have Death with Dignity Laws and one that has no statute either way. Utah does not have a Death with Dignity Law, though attempts have been made to establish one. A poll conducted in 2015 showed that 58% of Utahns supported physician-assisted dying (Death with Dignity, 2021).

Personal Empathy-Bias

I support physician-assisted dying. This bias developed due to my grandmother suffering from a terminal illness. I watched her slowly waste away and I know she could have avoided pain if physician-assisted dying was legal in Utah. This bias has strengthened through the years due to suffering from a chronic pain illness. I firmly believe there is a point in a person’s health where they no longer experience life as they should, and they should have the ability to acquire help to end their suffering. This bias effects how I view death for the terminally ill, and how I would likely approach discussing aspects of death. I do not see this bias reversing as time progresses, I believe I will continue to support Dying with Dignity Acts as I firmly believe they help terminally ill patients.

Ethical Guidelines

The American Psychological-Law Society (n.d.) highlights important guidelines for the Forensic Psychologist. Responsibilities of the Forensic Psychologist is the first section discussed in the guidelines document. Integrity (1.01), Impartiality and Fairness (1.02), and Avoiding Conflicts of Interest (1.03) are represented in this section. These guidelines would be breeched if the Forensic Psychologist engages in biased behaviors. Another important guideline is Considering the Impact of Personal Beliefs and Experiences (2.07), which states that the practitioner recognizes and acknowledges their biases and how they impact their competency. The ability to remain impartial is important for a Forensic Psychologist and when unable to remain impartial, it is the Psychologists responsibility to remove themselves or adjust their obligations.

Useful Strategies

The first step in remaining ethical is to understand current and potential biases. I would address the biases I have and remove myself when I cannot remain impartial. For instance, I would need to know how to address clients who do not support physician-assisted dying without forcing my bias upon them. If I cannot remain impartial in these cases, I would need to remove myself from these situations to ensure that I maintain my ethical responsibilities.

References

American Psychological-Law Society. (n.d.). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. Retrieved November 18, 2016, from https://www.apadivisions.org/division-41/about/specialty/

Death with Dignity (2021) Retrieved November 29, 2021, from https://deathwithdignity.org

Rehnquist, W. H. & Supreme Court of The United States. (1996). U.S. Reports: Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793. [Periodical] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep521793/ .

Shuman, D. W., & Zervopoulos, J. A. (2010). Empathy or objectivity: The forensic examiner’s dilemma? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 28(5), 585-602. Doi:10.1002/bsl.953