Why call someone by what we don't want them to be? The ethics of labeling in forensic/correctional psychology

Labeling a person by their past behavior or a criminal conviction is commonplace throughout forensic and correctional psychology. Labels including ‘offender’ and ‘sex offender’ infiltrate academic writing and conference presentations, names of professional organizations and treatment programmes and, at times, traverse therapeutic work. That such labels are frequently used and rarely advocated against suggests that helping professionals either (i) don't recognize labeling as an ethical issue, or (ii) don't consider it their role to challenge. The current paper aims to encourage critical reflection on the use of labels in forensic and correctional psychology. Key concerns are illustrated through a focus on labels commonly assigned to individuals who have sexually abused, where labeling is especially prolific. The scope of labeling is reviewed, and implications for rehabilitation and reintegration discussed. Next, an analysis of the ethics of labeling individuals on the basis of criminal convictions, past behavior or psychological phenomena is presented. It is argued that the use of such labels contradict core ethical principles including beneficence and nonmaleficence, respect for the dignity of all persons, and responsibilities to society. A de-labelling movement for forensic/correctional psychology and related fields is proposed.     

The crime of the century? The case for the Holocaust

With the twentieth century now ended the Holocaust is surelya leading contender for the title of ``The Crime of the Century.'Although a massive literature exists on the Holocaust, very littleof this literature has been produced by criminologists. Somereasons for this relative neglect are identified and a case ismade for the claim that criminology can contribute to anunderstanding of the Holocaust and that the Holocaust cancontribute to the development of a more profound criminology. Thispaper draws upon an integrative criminological approach toconstruct a framework for understanding the Holocaust. This multi-disciplinary framework links philosophical, sociolegal,sociological, behavioral and criminological dimensions todiscriminate between unique and non-unique aspects of the Holocaustas a case of genocide and as crime. The paper closes with someobservations on the relevance of the Holocaust for challengesconfronting a twenty-first century criminology.     

Who should determine what is best for children in state custody who object to psychotropic medication?

This article explores a child's right to refuse medical treatment, in contrast to giving the state or the parents this choice. The article specifically explores a child's right to refuse psychotropic drugs, which are more limiting of personal liberty than physical restraints and can have long-lasting side effects. With a focus on children's competence and the significant side effects of psychotropic drugs, the author concludes that caseworkers do not know the best interests of children in state custody and thus adolescents should be allowed to make their own decisions about psychotropic medications.     

The bones in the Abbey: are they the murdered princes? A review of the evidence

In 1674, the skeletons of two children were found in the Tower of London. They were believed to represent the remains of the "Princes in the Tower" (who had disappeared in 1483), and were reinterred as such in Westminster Abbey. Popular belief and conventional historical tradition held that the princes had been murdered by their uncle, King Richard III, to clear his path to the throne. In 1933, the bones in the Abbey were disinterred and examined, with the conclusion that they were indeed those of the princes. One skull was also thought to show evidence of death by suffocation, supporting another feature of popular legend. Later reviews of the investigation, however, revealed significant errors and omissions. This report summarizes the inconsistencies present in the scientific record and suggests that reexamination of the remains with improved techniques in both carbon dating and forensic science would provide a much more accurate analysis, thus helping to clarify the historical record.     

The legitimacy of vaccine critics: what is left after the autism hypothesis?

The last dozen years have seen a massive transnational mobilization of the legal, political, and research communities in response to the worrisome hypothesis that vaccines could have a link to childhood autism and other developmental conditions. Vaccine critics, some already organized and some composed of newly galvanized parents, developed an alternate world of internally legitimating studies, blogs, conferences, publications, and spokespeople to affirm a connection. When the consensus turned against the autism hypothesis, these structures and a committed membership base unified all the organizations in resistance. This article examines the relationship between mobilization based on science and the trajectory of legitimacy vaccine criticism has taken. I argue that vaccine critics have run up against the limits of legitimate scientific argument and are now in the curious position of both doubling down on credibility-depleting stances and innovating new and possibly resonant formulations.