Enhanced interrogations: The expanding roles of psychology in police investigations in Canada.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In accordance with their collective ethical principles, the American Psychological Association (APA) joined forces with the American Psychiatric Association in 1985 to denounce the use of torture; their position statement recognised that psychological knowledge could be misused to interrogate detainees inhumanely, violating a primary obligation to respect human dignity (APA, 2015c). Thirty years later, the APA has been implicated in the development and application of torture and coercive of national security targets. In August, 2015, the group announced that its chief executive officer, deputy CEO, and communications chief were no longer associated with the APA; in the 542-page independent Hoffman report all three were found to have worked in conjunction with the Pentagon and the CIA by contributing to coercive interrogation practices (Hoffman et al., 2015; American Psychological Association, 2015b). This reportedly transpired through the contribution of psychological knowledge to enhance torture techniques (e.g., sensory deprivation) for intelligence gathering, the manipulation of ethical guidelines to conceal such practices (Soldz, 2008), and the alignment of such guidelines with policies implemented by the Department of Defence (Hoffman et al., 2015).These deplorable revelations have leftthe psychology community engaging in much self-reflection and head scratching: what were the APA psychologists in leadership positions thinking when participating in this type of activity? After the damning report emerged, a somewhat understandable but obvious knee-jerk reaction occurred; the APA convened in Toronto and voted in support of a new policy barring psychologists from participating in national security altogether (APA, 2015c). Was this an appropriate decision? While APA members appear to have committed an egregious ethical violation by contributing to coercive interrogation practices, should psychologists never be permitted to contribute to the interrogation of individuals suspected to represent security threats? After the publication of the Hoffmann report, APA President-elect Susan McDaniel provided elaboration around this issue (APA, 2015c); her letter stated that although psychologists in the APA are now strictly forbidden from being involved in specific national security interrogations, they are permitted to be involved in general policy guidance concerning humane interrogations (McDaniel & Kaslow, 2015, para. 4).McDaniel's clarification acknowledges that psychologists may have useful knowledge regarding interrogation practices at a policy level. However, it fails to apply to the broad scope of psychological consultations; it could potentially be interpreted to mean that we have few meaningful nor positive direct contributions to make to criminal investigation or intelligence gathering, and/or that we cannot be expected to act ethically in such contexts. Yet, in recent years, the roles of psychologists as consultants in criminal investigations have been expanding in many ways (see Porter & Wrightsman, 2014). The first author, who is consulted on a regular basis by Canadian law enforcement and courts, hoped to take this opportunity to reflect upon the evolving roles and responsibilities of psychologists in criminal investigations. Canadian psychologists should acknowledge the ethical shortcomings demonstrated by the APA and reevaluate their own practices to ensure that they are not only providing the most suitable consultation, but also abiding to their obligations as acting psychologists. If consulting psychologists in Canada ensure that their work in any type of criminal or terrorism investigations is being applied appropriately, our field has much to offer in facilitating criminal investigations. Given these circumstances, it is an appropriate time to examine the practical and ethical issues confronting forensic psychologists who act as consultants in criminal investigations, and, accordingly, suggest the most effective and ethical practices and directions for future research. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».