Date of Conferral

1-29-2026

Date of Award

January 2026

Degree

Ph.D.

School

Psychology

Advisor

Teaonna Watson

Abstract

When defendants are sentenced to death due to the nature of the crime, psychologists may be asked to participate in these cases, performing tasks such as conducting competency evaluations. Because the American Psychological Association (APA) Ethics Code states that psychologists cannot participate in activities that violate human rights, an ethical debate has emerged regarding whether they should participate in capital cases. The present study examined psychologists’ opinions on capital punishment and their interpretation of the APA Ethics Code, which does not specifically define what constitutes a violation of human rights. The theoretical framework for the study is the ethical decision-making theory, which has two approaches: rationalist-based (which assumes that judgment is reached through reason) and non-rationalist-based (which assumes that judgment is reached through emotion and intuition). Opinions regarding capital punishment can develop due to many factors, such as religious affiliation, race, age, geographic location, fear of crime, and beliefs about alternative forms of punishment. The present study is a generic qualitative study. Six psychologists who participated in or have participated in capital cases were interviewed. The results indicated that most of the participants were opposed to the death penalty, and most were unsure if participating in capital cases is a violation of human rights, and believed the APA Ethics Code is often insufficiently detailed in its instructions. The findings of this study could help policymakers and the authors of the APA Ethics Code determine what information would be the most beneficial to include in instructions for psychologists.

Download

Included in

Psychology Commons

Share

 
COinS