Criminal Justice Research and Methodology
Question One
In the research One Year Longitudinal Study of the Psychological Effects of Administrative Segregation inmates involved were at a risk of developing an array of psychological symptoms associated with the security housing unit (SHU) syndrome (O’Keefe et al.,2010). The authors did identify the potential harm of the research to the subjects since their objectives for the research coincided with the potential harms. All the subjects who were approached were informed on what the research entails. The subjects were informed to subject their consent to participate in the research (O’Keefe et al.,2010). Out of the 302 inmates approached 55 of them refused to participate in the research or withdrew their consent later on (O’Keefe et al.,2010). Patients were tested at a 3-month interval along the year and this allowed the researches to monitor and manage the inmates so as to prevent aggravation of mental illness in inmates who were already suffering from the illness (O’Keefe et al.,2010). Despite inmates with no mental illness being involved the main focus was on the inmates who had already suffer from mental illness.
Question Two
The ethical issue in question is beneficence (do not harm).In this case reporting police officers to public officers creates harm to the probationers in that they may end up in jail. Police have the responsibility of monitoring the life of probationers to ensure that they observe all the conditions stipulated on their probation. If police officers were not conducting the visits the probationers are at risk of getting their probation agreements cancelled by the judge who issued them. The researchers were however legally binded to report such cases. On reporting the cases the researchers are also at a risk of breaking confidentiality of the probationers because if the public officials conduct their investigation the researchers will have to reveal the identity of the probationers.
Question Three
Based on the transcript, the researchers were faced with two main ethical obligations which were confidentiality and informed consent (Cavanaugh and Walsh, 1). Researchers are obligated to have a participant’s informed consent while conducting any research however; this may depend on the research. For example, a research conducted on gay men in bars, the researcher had the informed consent of the bar owners and not the subjects (Cavanaugh and Walsh, 1). This is because informing the subjects about the research would distort the atmosphere and in turn affecting the research (Cavanaugh and Walsh, 1). Researchers are also obligated to observe confidentiality of the subject involved in the research. However there are researches where the researcher might have the moral obligation of breaking confidentiality. For example a research involving pedophiles, the researcher might be forced by another to reveal the identity of the subjects even if they have the certificate of confidentiality. There have been cases where researchers have been jailed just because they refused to reveal the identity of their sources. Humanity should always rise beyond ethical obligation.