Balancing Justice and Loyalty: Ethical Dilemma in Prison Psychology
The Alabama Department of Corrections psychologist is confronted with a complex ethical dilemma. The psychologist is committed to protecting disabled prisoners’ rights and providing adequate medical care. Psychologist, on the other hand, depends on their job to make ends meet, and speaking out against abusive prison conditions could cost them their job. To solve this problem, the Southern Poverty Law Center and Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program’s complaint uses Kidder’s four typologies to determine whether the alleged behavior is morally permissible. A more nuanced understanding of the psychologist’s situation and ethical implications can be gained by examining justice versus mercy, truth versus loyalty, individual versus community, and short-term versus long-term typologies.
Applying Kidder’s four typologies to the moral dilemma presented in this situation can help evaluate the moral permissibility of the conduct purported in the complaint. In the typology of justice versus mercy, the need for fairness and impartiality clashes with the desire for compassion and empathy. According to Feldman and Nadiv (2021), in Kidder’s typology, justice versus mercy refers to the conflict between upholding fairness and punishing wrongdoers, and demonstrating compassion and leniency toward those who have made mistakes. It is the ethical dilemma of balancing compassion and forgiveness with justice and fairness. In this scenario, the Eighth Amendment and federal law, which is justice, mandate that inmates, including those with disabilities and severe mental and physical illnesses, receive adequate medical care. On the other hand, mercy might be the desire to prioritize the psychologist’s employment and family needs. However, failing to provide adequate medical care to inmates can lead to life-threatening conditions and their human rights will be violated. Therefore, justice should be prioritized over mercy, and the psychologist should address the problem by taking necessary actions, such as pointing out the injustice within the prison.
Understanding an ethical dilemma in prison psychology requires careful legal and moral evaluation. If your coursework involves analyzing justice, loyalty, or inmate rights, our team can guide you step-by-step. Explore our specialized law homework help services to get expert assistance in crafting compelling, well-researched papers. We’ll help you present strong arguments, meet academic standards, and excel in your assignments.
In addition, in the typology of truth versus loyalty, the desire to tell the truth and to maintain honesty contests the need to be faithful to one’s employer. The truth versus loyalty typology includes a contention between honesty and devotion to a particular individual. Feldman and Nadiv (2021) argue that the truth versus loyalty typology forces people to choose between being honest and remaining loyal to the people they care about in case of a dilemma. It can be a challenging dilemma since individuals might jeopardize relationships to become honest. To be loyal, they must keep quiet about something they know to be false or harmful. The psychologist must give precise and honest information to the ADAP, per their professional ethics. In contrast, loyalty to the ADOC may necessitate concealing or modifying information to safeguard their employees. Therefore, since it is the psychologist’s ethical responsibility to do so, the truth should take precedence over loyalty in this circumstance.
Similarly, the individual versus community typology illustrates how an individual’s interests can conflict with the community’s interests as a whole. The main challenge in this typology is resolving a problem that benefits both the individual and the community. Khan and Chandel (2021) asserted that the individual versus community typology is a value of selflessness. It requires balancing satisfying individual necessities and wants and progressing toward benefiting the general community. In this case, the psychologist must balance their duty to advocate for inmates’ health, who are members of the larger community, and the individual interest to keep their job. Hence, in this instance, the community’s interests should precede individual needs, and the psychologist should report the problem encountered by the inmates in prison.
Additionally, short-term versus long-term typology addresses the conflict between short-term advantages and long-term disadvantages. This ethical decision-making framework distinguishes between short-term thinking, focusing on immediate benefits and threats, and long-term thinking, considering the potential outcomes of actions over a more extended period. According to Khan and Chandel (2021), individuals and organizations can use this idea of weighing the short-term and long-term consequences when making decisions that align with their values and objectives. In this situation, the psychologist faces a contention between short-term gains, such as job security, and long-term consequences, such as infringing on the inmate’s rights. Even if it means jeopardizing job security, the psychologist must prioritize the long-term consequences and act in the inmates’ best interests by reporting the Eighth Amendment violations to the appropriate authorities. Therefore, the short-term benefits should not take precedence over the long-term consequences, and the psychologist should advocate for the disabled inmates’ rights instead of securing his job.
In sum, a psychologist in Alabama’s state prisons must choose between several moral choices. Inmates must receive adequate medical care as part of justice, and their rights should not be violated. On the other hand, mercy and loyalty may make an individual prioritize protecting their job to take care of their family over telling the truth. In addition, there is a conflict between the individual and the community interests because the psychologist’s interests may not coincide with those of prisoners. Finally, whether speaking out against the ADOC’s practices will have positive or negative long-term effects poses this scenario’s short-term versus long-term dilemma. Despite these challenges, justice, truth, and prioritizing community interest as a long-term benefit must always come first. Even if it means putting oneself in danger, speaking out against the ADOC’s practices and advocating for change is essential. Hence, the best thing to do is to maintain the Eighth Amendment and the standards of human nobility, regardless of whether it might require forfeiting one’s solace and security.
References
Feldman, Y., & Nadiv, N. (2021). A Behavioural Ethics Approach to Employment Law and Workplace Norms. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 37(2/3). https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/International+Journal+of+Comparative+Labour+Law+and+Industrial+Relations/37.2/IJCL2021010
Khan, M., & Chandel, N. (Eds.). (2021). Inculcation of Values: Modern Perspectives. Blue Hill Publications.