Imagine you’re tasked with assessing a young person’s risk of future criminal behavior — a decision that could determine their path in life. Imagine being told to exclude critical pieces of their history because of a policy directive. This is the ethical quandary Maryland psychologists face when conducting evaluations to determine whether to transfer defendants from criminal to juvenile court.
The Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) mandates that psychologists omit past legal charges from these evaluations unless the youth was placed on probation for those charges. At first glance, this policy might seem well-intentioned — an effort to prevent undue bias against youth — but it creates significant problems in practice.
Psychological evaluations, particularly those involving risk assessments, require a holistic understanding of a youth’s background. These assessments are not arbitrary judgments; they rely on structured tools that draw on evidence-based factors. Behavioral patterns, family dynamics, education history and prior legal involvement are critical to forming an accurate picture. Excluding past legal charges, even when they did not result in probation, leaves these assessments incomplete and vulnerable to misinterpretation…