From David@damartindale.com Sun Oct 6 11:19:53 2002 Received: from mailscan3.cac.washington.edu (mailscan3.cac.washington.edu [140.142.32.15]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.12.1+UW01.12/8.12.1+UW02.09) with SMTP id g96IJpFD122564 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 11:19:51 -0700 Received: FROM mxu3.u.washington.edu BY mailscan3.cac.washington.edu ; Sun Oct 06 11:19:50 2002 -0700 Received: from c001.snv.cp.net (h000.c001.snv.cp.net [209.228.32.114]) by mxu3.u.washington.edu (8.12.1+UW01.12/8.12.1+UW02.09) with SMTP id g96IJoMG018921 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 11:19:50 -0700 Received: (cpmta 11614 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2002 11:19:48 -0700 Received: from 12.89.146.176 (HELO david) by smtp.register-admin.com (209.228.32.114) with SMTP; 6 Oct 2002 11:19:48 -0700 X-Sent: 6 Oct 2002 18:19:48 GMT Message-ID: <00b601c26d65$c70ae660$6496590c@david> Reply-To: "David Martindale" From: "David Martindale" To: "SGFP revisions" Subject: revision suggestions Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 14:05:37 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 SGFP REVISIONS In I.B.1.b and in I.B.1.c., we declare that a forensic psychologist is one who regularly acts "with definable foreknowledge as a psychological expert on explicitly psycholegal issues. We declare that "individuals who provide only occasional services to the legal system and who do so without representing themselves as forensic experts may find these guidelines helpful", yet we indirectly suggest that any expectation that such individuals conform their professional conduct to the guidelines is unreasonable because they are, after all, only offering their services occasionally and are not endeavoring to equate their work with our work by "representing themselves as forensic experts." It seems to me that we are inadvertently establishing an exception to the generally accepted ethical principle that psychologists are obligated to learn how to do something before offering to do it. Throughout the current SGFP we articulate the responsibilities of forensic psychologists, yet we carve out this interesting exception for dilettantes. Do we really want to do this? We should, in my judgment, consider the SGFP applicable to any psychologist who, "when acting with definable foreknowledge", offers to function "as a psychological expert on explicitly psycholegal issues." The descriptive adjective that a psychologist places in front of the title "psychologist" is not relevant. A psychologist who professionally identifies himself or herself as a "clinical psychologist" but offers to perform the functions of a forensic psychologist should be expected to act in conformity with the guidelines. I reject the notion that people who only occasionally offer to perform forensic psychological services need not be responsive to the admonitions contained within the SGFP. On how many occasions may psychologists who do not identify themselves as forensic psychologists offer to perform forensic psychological services before the guidelines become applicable to them? I suggest that in each instance where reference is made to the obligations of forensic psychologists, we should, instead use the term "psychologists engaged in forensic psychological activities". If it is felt that the words "engaged in" unfairly includes psychologists who have gotten themselves roped into a forensic endeavor, we could, instead, used the phrase "psychologists who offer forensic psychological services". David David A. Martindale, Ph.D., ABPP (forensic) 1 Jenni Lane, Morristown, NJ 07960 Telephone & Fax: 973-984-7808 e-mail: david@damartindale.com .