Court essays

Ethical concerns are very relevant when working with these different populations: nonviolent, violent, and trauma victims. Psychologists should remain aware of the relationships they have with their clients as well as make sure to stay competent in their work. When working in the prison setting, you will face many challenges due to the prison having its own culture, language, and formalities (Kupersanin, 2001). Some ethical concerns psychologists may face when treating nonviolent offenders within the legal system restrictions would be trust and confidentiality. It would be hard for the psychologists to establish trust being that the inmates would possibly be distant and not want to express their feelings. One thing that all of the populations have in common is the loss of privacy in which they suppress their emotions. Clients may not want to disclose significant and personal information to the psychologist unless they are reassured that no one else will obtain this information (Mailloux, 2014).

There is something else psychologists should understand when working with these target populations that will affect a conflict between their duties as psychologists and the ethical obligations that they owe to each person and how to professionally find a solution to these conflicts. For example, s psychologists can be faced with a dilemma when a violent offender attempts to escape and has made a plan to do so. If the psychologist fails to report this information, he or she will be faced with legal ramifications. Ethical concerns that follow when treating trauma victims would be to focus on suicide risk as well as helpful or hurtful treatments. For example, it would be in the psychologist’s best interest to address the issues of childhood trauma which can cause suicidal behaviors, and then work to prevent those behaviors. To create a space of integrity when working with all of these populations, it is in the best interest of the psychologist to provide safeguarding so the clients will feel that they can interact without feeling scared and be able to gain insight(Mailloux, 2014).

Impact of Supreme Court Cases

There have been several Supreme Court Cases that have impacted the development and implementation of treatment programs for these three target populations. The court cases that I have chosen to assess would be Lopez v. Davis (2001), Kansas v. Crane (2002), and Maryland v. Craig (1990). Lopez v. Davis (2001) addressed whether all, or merely some, of the federal prisoners who were convicted of nonviolent offenses and who have successfully completed a Bureau of Prisons (BOP) drug treatment program are eligible for a sentence reduction, Kansas v. Craig hit on the issue of a dangerous sexual offender’s confinement as civil rather than criminal and held that the confinement criterion embodied in the statute’s words — ‘mental abnormality or personality disorder’ — satisfied substantive due process, and Maryland vs. Craig discussed the issue of stress that could have been placed on several young children who did not want to testify in the courtroom in the presence of the defendant.

Supreme Court Cases: Non-violent

The instance of Lopez v. Davis affected treatment programs for nonviolent offenders who have especially abused drugs. In 1995, the Bureau of Prisons distributed a standard to represent ‘early discharge reasons’. Just detainees who didn’t carry out an ‘act of violence’ would be qualified for the program. Christopher A. Lopez applied for the program but was denied. Lopez had been sentenced for ownership with the purpose to publicize while having a gun at the hour of his offense. The Bureau of Prisons proposed that this was a ‘wrongdoing of brutality’. Lopez appealed and BOP expressed how they had the choice to accept or deny and this incorporated the information that a detainee must meet the two statutory essentials for sentence decrease—conviction of a nonviolent offense and effective quality of medication treatment—at that point early discharge might be allowed(Lopez v Davis, 2001)This case impacts treatment since it has given nonviolent offenders the chance to locate an option in dissimilarity to remaining in jail for extensive stretches of time. The individualized treatment will likewise allow the guilty party to access new methodologies to shield them from mishandling medications and entering the system once more.

Supreme Court Cases: Violent

For those individuals who have committed sexually violent acts will likely fall under Kansas v. Crane. This case helped in deciding how sexual criminals are subjected to treatment based on their crimes. This viably makes it harder for states to commonly submit violent sexual criminals after they have served their jail terms (Kansas v Crane, 2002). This incorporates commanded aftercare treatment for people sentenced for this kind of fierce wrongdoing. This is upsetting progress as far as proceeding with treatment and implementing aftercare follow-up for guilty parties who have carried out savage sexual offenses.

Supreme Court Cases: Trauma

Treatment for trauma has been impacted due to the case of Maryland v. Craig. The children, in this case, were subjected to testify on a video so that they would not have to relive the trauma they endured. If the children would have been in the courtroom, they would have recalled every part of their traumatic experience and that could impact their treatment socially since they are working on strategies to help them cope. Trauma victims should have the option to deny any factor that may impact their treatment.