Week 2 Discussion Example

Week 2 Discussion Example Week 2 Discussion – Coursework Example The US legal Adversarial Functions Project The US legal system is adversarial through the interpretation of laws and advising the government institutions. This implies that the legal system undertakes the role of scrutinizing different segments of the constitution to avoid conflicts and breach of pertinent privileges. The US legal system also undertakes the adversarial duty is by guiding the government and private agencies on their roles in protecting the laws (Kagan, 2011). For instance, the US legal system can advise the executive concerning foreign policies or treaties. It can also offer advise the legislature on the constitutional sections that require amendments or repeals. The US legal system performs in adversarial matters through arbitrary functions between conflicting parties. This should involve a neutral approach to the matter with a view of reaching a professional and amicable solution (Kagan, 2011). A forensic psychology professional should be trustworthy to ensure that they correct injustices in the legal system. It is always appropriate to point out areas that may cause constitutional breaches by being truthful and accurate. The other attribute that would be helpful for forensic psychology professionals is being cautious (Kubicek, 2010). This is because some matters may require keen consideration of matters before disclosing them to the public domain. A forensic psychology professional should know the right timing of disclosing information to the public. This helps in avoiding confrontation or demonstration by the members of the public. It is vital to participate in forensic adversarial duties with adequate knowledge of law and legal matters (Kubicek, 2010). It is unprofessional to undertake forensic psychology examination by an individual who does not understand the tenets of the law.ReferencesKagan, R. A. (2011). Adversarial legalism: The American way of law. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Kubicek, T. L. (2010). Adversarial justice: Americas court system on trial. New York: Algora Pub. Week 2 Discussion Example Week 2 Discussion – Coursework Example Weighing Chief Concerns al Affiliation) Weighing Chief Concerns According to Brown, the dilemma between selectingindividuals who will be good officers and weeding out potentially bad officers is an issue concerning Pre-Employment Psychological Evaluation (PEPE). The police chief should act in a manner that would not compromise the duties of the current police officers. However, it would be prudent if the police chief decided to select individual who will be good officers by employing the PEPE process. Kitaeff, (2011) argues that ethical concerns may compromise an attempt to weed out potentially bad officers, in addition to weakening the service in terms of human capital. Dr. Shayleigh Johnson, a police psychological professional, ought to understand all the job analytic information applicable to the intended position. In addition, before administering any psychological instruments, she should disclose information regarding the goals of the evaluation. According to Brown, (2010), the psychologist should employ a written test battery that would serve as an aptitude test measuring the skills for all applicants. Dr. Johnson would then conduct face-to-face interviews with the applicants to verify the results obtained from the written test battery and clinical assessment (Brown, 2010). Disclosure would involve obtaining an informed consent and explaining the limits of confidentiality. The forensic examiner ought to explain to the applicants that the recruiting agency is the client and how they intend to use the information obtained from the evaluation. The limits of confidentiality would involve outlining individuals authorized to access the psychological information obtained and evaluation results. Brown, (2010) convincingly argue that a fitness-for-duty evaluation (FFDE) analysis the ability of an employee to apply both mental and physical capabilities to perform the duties as set in the employment contract. The FFDE initiates by validating its objectives through disclosing all the relevant information to the applicant. Such information includes obtaining an informed consent and explaining the responsibility of the examiner towards upholding confidentiality. In addition, the examiner may conduct various psychological tests to obtain objective information from the applicant. The examiner may utilize intelligence tests to measure the applicant’s intelligence. In addition, occupational tests may provide information regarding the applicant’s interests in known careers. The examiner provides a detailed report of the findings and debriefs the applicants. The FFDE may indicate that some applicants are fit for duty while others require further assessment. The report should indicate applicants whose mental and physical abilities match the skills required for the job and those who require rehabilitation and counseling (Brown, 2010). ReferencesBrown, J. (2010). The Cambridge handbook of forensic psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge Universit y Press. Top of FormBottom of FormKitaeff, J. (2011). Handbook of police psychology. New York: Routledge.