The Hoffman Report: Psychologists and Torture. An Ethical Precaution for Psychologists

IF 0.5 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
K. Kryuchkov
{"title":"The Hoffman Report: Psychologists and Torture. An Ethical Precaution for Psychologists","authors":"K. Kryuchkov","doi":"10.17759/cpp.2020280109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present paper introduces the readers to the Hoffman report — an independent attorney report on American Psychological Association (APA) officials’ participation in institutionalizing and developing torture techniques that were used to interrogate the prisoners of the secret Department of Defense prisons (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, etc.). People in charge of the APA were shown to have changed the ethical standards and APA regulations in such a way as to enable psychologists to participate in the so-called enhanced interrogations. We present the context of the report and the key findings and conclusions. We discuss the reaction of the psychological community and cite a number of papers that analyze the report from the theoretical and empirical standpoint, and reflect on the causes of the events. This situation can be viewed as a precaution for Russian psychologists likewise in making ethical decisions. Conclusion: Ethical codes do not constitute ethics per se nor do they protect from possible ethical violations, partly because abusers often are not just those who know the codes, but also those who write them.","PeriodicalId":43458,"journal":{"name":"Konsultativnaya Psikhologiya i Psikhoterapiya-Counseling Psychology and Psychotherapy","volume":"277 1","pages":"148-165"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Konsultativnaya Psikhologiya i Psikhoterapiya-Counseling Psychology and Psychotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17759/cpp.2020280109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The present paper introduces the readers to the Hoffman report — an independent attorney report on American Psychological Association (APA) officials’ participation in institutionalizing and developing torture techniques that were used to interrogate the prisoners of the secret Department of Defense prisons (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, etc.). People in charge of the APA were shown to have changed the ethical standards and APA regulations in such a way as to enable psychologists to participate in the so-called enhanced interrogations. We present the context of the report and the key findings and conclusions. We discuss the reaction of the psychological community and cite a number of papers that analyze the report from the theoretical and empirical standpoint, and reflect on the causes of the events. This situation can be viewed as a precaution for Russian psychologists likewise in making ethical decisions. Conclusion: Ethical codes do not constitute ethics per se nor do they protect from possible ethical violations, partly because abusers often are not just those who know the codes, but also those who write them.
霍夫曼报告:心理学家和酷刑。心理学家的道德预防
本文向读者介绍霍夫曼报告——一份关于美国心理学会(APA)官员参与制度化和发展酷刑技术的独立律师报告,这些酷刑技术被用于审讯国防部秘密监狱(关塔那摩、阿布格莱布等)的囚犯。美国心理咨询协会的负责人被证明已经改变了道德标准和美国心理咨询协会的规定,使心理学家能够参与所谓的强化审讯。我们将介绍报告的背景以及主要发现和结论。我们讨论了心理学界的反应,并引用了一些论文,从理论和实证的角度分析了该报告,并反思了事件的原因。这种情况可以被视为俄罗斯心理学家在做出道德决定时的一种预防措施。结论:道德准则本身不构成道德,也不能防止可能的道德侵犯,部分原因是滥用者往往不仅是那些知道这些准则的人,而且是那些编写这些准则的人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
28.60%
发文量
12
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信