基于道德、法律、数据完整性和用户友好性考虑,重新设想审判评估和报告的能力

IF 0.7 4区 心理学 Q4 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice Pub Date : 2022-04-18 DOI:10.1080/24732850.2021.1991105
S. Rubenzer
{"title":"基于道德、法律、数据完整性和用户友好性考虑,重新设想审判评估和报告的能力","authors":"S. Rubenzer","doi":"10.1080/24732850.2021.1991105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The format and content of competency to stand trial reports are influenced by traditional practices of psychological assessment and report writing that are outmoded for forensic practice. Many such reports include irrelevant, prejudicial information that unnecessary invades the privacy of the examinee, in violation of APA ethical guideline 4.04, and may also contain much data that are unreliable and prejudicial. Traditional report formats are organized around the psychologist’s concerns and topic areas rather than what is most useful to the trier of fact and parties. This article discusses these issues and offers a rationale for radically revising the standard competency to stand trial (CST) report template to make it more focused and objective for readers, more ethically compliant, and with less prejudicial information that may compromise the objectivity of the trier of fact. It also substantially reduces the amount of time required of report-writing.","PeriodicalId":15806,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Re-Envisioning the Competency to Stand Trial Evaluation and Report Based on Ethical, Legal, Data Integrity, and User-Friendliness Considerations\",\"authors\":\"S. Rubenzer\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/24732850.2021.1991105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The format and content of competency to stand trial reports are influenced by traditional practices of psychological assessment and report writing that are outmoded for forensic practice. Many such reports include irrelevant, prejudicial information that unnecessary invades the privacy of the examinee, in violation of APA ethical guideline 4.04, and may also contain much data that are unreliable and prejudicial. Traditional report formats are organized around the psychologist’s concerns and topic areas rather than what is most useful to the trier of fact and parties. This article discusses these issues and offers a rationale for radically revising the standard competency to stand trial (CST) report template to make it more focused and objective for readers, more ethically compliant, and with less prejudicial information that may compromise the objectivity of the trier of fact. It also substantially reduces the amount of time required of report-writing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15806,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2021.1991105\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2021.1991105","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

出庭能力报告的格式和内容受到传统的心理评估和报告写作实践的影响,这些实践在法医实践中已经过时。许多此类报告包含不相关的、有偏见的信息,这些信息不必要地侵犯了考生的隐私,违反了APA道德准则4.04,并且可能包含许多不可靠的、有偏见的数据。传统的报告格式是围绕心理学家的关注点和主题领域组织的,而不是对事实和当事人最有用的内容。本文讨论了这些问题,并提供了从根本上修改标准受审能力(CST)报告模板的基本原理,以使其对读者更集中和客观,更符合道德规范,并减少可能损害事实审判客观性的偏见信息。它还大大减少了编写报告所需的时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Re-Envisioning the Competency to Stand Trial Evaluation and Report Based on Ethical, Legal, Data Integrity, and User-Friendliness Considerations
ABSTRACT The format and content of competency to stand trial reports are influenced by traditional practices of psychological assessment and report writing that are outmoded for forensic practice. Many such reports include irrelevant, prejudicial information that unnecessary invades the privacy of the examinee, in violation of APA ethical guideline 4.04, and may also contain much data that are unreliable and prejudicial. Traditional report formats are organized around the psychologist’s concerns and topic areas rather than what is most useful to the trier of fact and parties. This article discusses these issues and offers a rationale for radically revising the standard competency to stand trial (CST) report template to make it more focused and objective for readers, more ethically compliant, and with less prejudicial information that may compromise the objectivity of the trier of fact. It also substantially reduces the amount of time required of report-writing.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
53
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the Good Lives Model Among Students: The Role of Primary Goods and Self-Regulation in Achieving a Good Life An Examination of the Psychometric Properties of the Paraphilic Interests and Disorders Scale Use of the HCR-20 Version 3 with Women: A Narrative Synthesis Forensic Doctorate Trainee Views on an Expert by Experience (EbE)-Led Workshop: A Qualitative Exploration of Trainee Reflections Institutional Child Abuse: The Role of Disclosure, Risk, and Protective Factors in Understanding Trauma Responses
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1