Ethics in Correctional Practice Part 3 of 3

The therapeutic relationship in a correctional setting is greatly hindered by the limits to confidentiality. In non-correctional practice, the criminal justice system is rarely involved and for the most part the limitations to confidentiality do not hinder the therapeutic process.

However, in a correctional setting the court system is involved from the very start of the therapeutic procedure. Clearly, information regarding abuse and violence towards others would be reported in either situation. However, when a client's records are available to third party evaluation, as they are in a correctional setting, ones thoughts and motivations could be held against them (Stone, 1984).

In a non-correctional setting such information would normally not have been brought to the attention of the authorities, for they quite possibly would not have been an adequate violation of the limitations to confidentiality. Subsequently, the client may be unable to safely act in an honest manner during treatments. Such dishonesty can greatly hinder the ability for the client to be adequately helped during treatment, and may very well explain the high rate of failure with many correctional therapeutic interventions.

Surprisingly, neither the APA, CPA or FBP psychological guidelines make any recommendations regarding confidentiality of such disclosures in the correctional setting (American Psychological Association, 1992; Canadian Psychological Association, 1991; Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1987).

Disciplinary Roles The correctional psychologist's participation on disciplinary boards that involve any of their personal clients is a clearly unethical dual role. Fortunately, there is clear enough ethical guidelines to allow a psychologist's exclusion from such a situation (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1987). However, a psychologist's participation on such boards is arguably unethical even in the absence of a dual role.

Prison disciplinary boards are responsible for exacting actions that lead to an inmate's loss of privileges, transfer to a higher security prison (one arguably more dangerous), or solitary confinement. A psychologist's participation on boards that initiate some sort of punishment is highly questionable (Weinberger & Sreenivasan, 1994). However, there are no specific ethical guidelines within the literature to specify how a correctional psychologist should act when asked to participate on a prison disciplinary committee. Psychiatrists have successfully excluded themselves from such boards via their credo to do no harm (Weinberger & Sreenivasan, 1994). The CPA principles concerning the respect for the dignity of persons, as well as the APA's principles of respect for people's rights and dignity and concern for others welfare, would seem to apply in this situation. Psychologists, however, continue to carry out this role in what could arguably be a violation of their ethical code of behavior (American Psychological Association, 1992; Canadian Psychological Association, 1991; Weinberger & Sreenivasan, 1994).

Go To Page: 1 2