Objectivity Versus Beneficence in a Death Row Evaluation

S. Freeman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1203_7

2002-07-01

Ethics & Behavior

Abstract:I was approached by the federal public defender’s office to perform a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation on a death row inmate. Before hiring me, the team of attorneys and paralegals interviewed me about my opinion of the death penalty. This seemed to be at least as important as my credentials. My first response to them on the telephone, even before the interview, was that I felt it was unethical, and in my view immoral, for a psychiatrist to evaluate death row inmates’ competency to be executed. I agreed to be interviewed in person when the attorney told me it was not a competency evaluation. The defending attorney informed me that his client might be mentally ill and it could prevent his execution if it were true. During the team interview, they told me that if my decision were unfavorable to their client, they would want it verbally so they would not have to share it with the state. They would then try another route of appeals. They made it abundantly clear that they were all opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds. I told them I would give my honest opinion about their client and would have no problem giving it verbally so it would not be discoverable. Although I said this, I actually felt excited about possibly saving a man from execution. I was not completely aware of it at the time, but in retrospect, my objectivity was surely affected. To what degree, I still don’t know. According to the Ethical Guidelines for the Practice of Forensic Psychiatry (from the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 1991), “the impression that a psychiatrist in a forensic situation might distort his opinion in the service of