Ethics in Criminal Justice Research Chapter 2 © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved

Ethical Issues in Criminal Justice Research Ethical - behavior conforming to the standards of conduct of a given group Matter of agreement among professionals Need to be aware of general agreements of ethical behavior among CJ “community” Some research designs may be impractical because of ethical issues © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved

No Harm to Participants Weighing potential benefits against possibility of harm is an ethical dilemma in research Possible harms of criminal justice research include: Physical harm Psychological harm Embarrassment Groups at risk include: Research subjects Researcher Third parties © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved

No Harm to Participants All research involves risks Researcher cannot completely guard against all possible harm Researcher should have firm scientific grounds for conducting research which could potentially present harm Harm to subjects is only justified if the potential benefits outweigh the potential harms © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved

Voluntary Participation CJ research often intrudes into subjects’ lives Participation must be voluntary This threatens generalizability Results only represent those who participated Often not possible with field observations E.g., observe people without them being aware they are being observed © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved

Anonymity and Confidentiality Anonymity – when researcher cannot identify a given piece of information with a given person Confidentiality – a researcher can link information with a subject, but promises not to do so publicly Research must make it clear to the responded whether the survey is anonymous or confidential © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved

Deceiving Subjects Generally considered unethical Use of deception must be justified Widom (1999) – child abuse and illegal drug use Telling research subjects the purpose of the study would have biased the results Inciardi (1993) – studying crack houses Advises researchers not to “go undercover” © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved

Analysis and Reporting Researchers have ethical obligations to scientific community Make shortcomings and/or negative findings known Tell the truth about pitfalls and problems you’ve experienced Report negative findings It is as important to know that two things are not related as to know that they are © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved

Legal Liability Researchers may expose themselves to criminal liability by: Failing to report observed criminal activity to the police Engaging in criminal activity Engaging in participant observation studies where crimes are committed Subpoenas violate confidentiality Legal immunity (42 U.S. Code §22.28a) © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved

Special Problems Disrupting operations of agencies during the course of an evaluation Becoming aware of staff misbehavior in agencies Research may produce crime or influence its location or target Crime may be displaced Withholding desirable treatments from control group © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved

Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment The Tuskegee syphilis experiment brought about a great deal of concern regarding the withholding of desirable treatment. During the experiment, penicillin was withheld from African American males suffering from syphilis even after it was well known that it would cure syphilis. Several of the men in the study died painful deaths from syphilis and many infected their spouses and children with the disease. The gross ethical violations in this study also led to the development of the Belmont Report and Internal Review Boards which will be discussed later. © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved

Promoting Compliance With Ethical Principles Belmont Report – six page report that prescribed a comprehensive set of ethical principles for protection of human subjects Respect for persons Beneficence Justice © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved

Promoting Compliance With Ethical Principles: Continued Codes of ethics Professional associations American Psychological Association American Sociology Association The National Academy of Science Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved

Institutional Review Board (IRB) Agencies and organizations that conduct research that conduct human subjects research have established IRBs Members make judgments about overall risks, and their acceptability Whether research procedures includes safeguards to protect safety, confidentiality, and general welfare of subjects © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved

Informed Consent Informed consent – informing subjects about research procedures and then obtaining their consent to participate Requires that subjects understand the purpose of research possible risks, side effects, possible benefits to subjects, and procedures used Satisfies voluntary consent Problems: Informing subjects of the purpose of the research Insuring subjects can understand © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved

Special Populations Special Populations – subjects to whom federal regulations apply special provisions Juveniles Often must also received parental consent Prisoners Cannot be subjected to greater harm than the general public can ethically be subjected Must inform them that refusal to participate will not affect work assignments, release decisions, or privileges Member of IRB must be prisoner representative Control subjects need to be randomly selected for most projects © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved

IRBs and Researcher Rights IRBs have become very cautious Restricts researchers abilities to increase knowledge Can help researcher balance harms and benefits and help overcome potential issues © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved

Ethical Controversies: Simulating a Prison Dispositional hypothesis – prisons are brutal and dehumanizing because of people in them Situational hypothesis – prison environment creates brutal and dehumanizing conditions independent of the people in them Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo – sought to test situational hypothesis by simulating a prison in 1971 © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved

The Experiment “Prison” constructed in basement of psychology building 24 healthy/psychologically normal subjects selected, offered $15 a day for their participation Asked to sign a contract that they would be confined, put under constant surveillance, and have their civil rights suspended – but would not be subject to physical abuse © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved

The Experiment Short-lived Terminated after six days (planned for two weeks) Subjects displayed “unexpectedly intense reactions” Five had to be released because they showed signs of acute depression or anxiety Guards became aggressive, prisoners became passive © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved

Researchers Sensitive to Ethical Issues 1 Obtained consent via signed contracts Those who developed signs of acute distress were released early Study was terminated prematurely Group therapy debriefing sessions were conducted, along with follow-ups, to ensure negative experiences were temporary © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved

Researcher Sensitivity to Ethical Issues 2 Subjects were not fully informed of the procedures Researchers were unsure as to how simulation would proceed Guards were granted the power to make up and modify rules – became increasingly authoritarian How might this study have been conducted differently? © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved