Restorative Justice–Informed Moral Acquaintance
| Author | Tony Ward,Theresa A. Gannon,Clare-Ann Fortune |
| Published date | 01 January 2015 |
| Date | 01 January 2015 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0093854814550026 |
| Subject Matter | Modes of Rehabilitation |
research-article2014
RestoRative Justice–infoRmed moRal
acquaintance
Resolving the dual Role Problem in correctional
and forensic Practice
TONy WARD
Victoria University of Wellington
THERESA A. GANNON
University of Kent
CLARE-ANN FORTUNE
Victoria University of Wellington
The issue of dual roles within forensic and correctional fields has typically been conceptualized as dissonance—experienced
by practitioners—when attempting to adhere to the conflicting ethical requirements associated with client well-being and
community protection. In this article, we argue that the dual role problem should be conceptualized more broadly to incor-
porate the relationship between the offender and their victim. We also propose that restorative justice (RJ) is able to provide
a preliminary ethical framework to deal with this common ethical oversight. Furthermore, we unite the RJ framework with
that of Ward’s moral acquaintance model to provide a more powerful approach (RJ-informed moral acquaintance) aimed at
addressing the ethical challenges faced by practitioners within forensic and correctional roles.
Keywords: restorative justice; ethics; dual role problem moral acquaintance
Practitioners1 working in the forensic and correctional fields face profound ethical chal-
lenges revolving around their unique constellation of professional roles (Haag, 2006;
Ward, 2013; Weinberger & Sreenivasan, 1994). On one hand, by virtue of key governing
ethical codes, practitioners are obligated to seek the best for their clients. The concept of
what is best is usually expressed in terms of enhancing offenders’ levels of well-being and
meeting their core interests. On the other hand, there is a strong mandate to protect the inter-
ests of the community by ensuring that offenders’ risk for further reoffending is reduced
(Andrews & Bonta, 2010). The role conflict confronting practitioners is frequently referred
authoR’s note: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tony Ward, Victoria
University of Wellington, Wellington, P.O. Box 600, New Zealand; e-mail: Tony.Ward@vuw.ac.nz.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2015, Vol. 42, No. 1, January 2015, 45 –57.
DOI: 10.1177/0093854814550026
© 2014 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
45
46 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
to as the dual role problem. Failure to grasp the degree to which role conflicts and their con-
trasting suite of duties and practices ethically blunt a practitioner’s responsiveness can dam-
age the offender client and result in loss of clinician integrity. Specific examples of when
dual relationship difficulties can emerge include conflict between a duty of truthfulness to
the court concerning a defendant’s mental state and/or personality versus what is truly in his
or her best interests, being asked to evaluate a sex offender for possible civil detention, when
sentenced individuals are ordered to attend and complete treatment against their will, and
when practitioners are asked to participate in security-related tasks such as assisting in cell
searches while employed as psychologists or psychiatrists (Haag, 2006; Ward, 2013).
Robertson and Walter (2008) have usefully defined the dual role problem as
. . . a quandary in which a psychiatrist [or other practitioner] faces the dilemma of conflicting
expectations or responsibilities, between the therapeutic relationship on the one hand and the
interests of third parties on the other. (pp. 228-229)
To make matters worse, ethical pressure can also occur between professional codes of prac-
tice, individuals’ personal moral codes, and universal values such as human rights (Arrigo, 2013;
Ward, 2013). The resulting moral distress experienced by correctional practitioners can be over-
powering and threaten to fracture their sense of personal integrity and professional identity (see
Gannon & Ward, 2014). Fracture may occur because the boundaries of permissible practice are
in part defined by conceptions of professional roles, and if roles vary then the boundaries (i.e.,
the edge of permissible practice; Gutheil & Brodsky, 2008) may be drawn in different places and
at times be mutually inconsistent. The resulting cognitive dissonance is hard to resolve, so prac-
titioners either retreat into one of the roles and its respective code (see below) or else oscillate
between different roles in an erratic and ethically problematic way (Ward, 2013).
In our view, there are three particularly significant points to be made about the dual role
problem. First, it has its origins in value pluralism, which specifies that there are a number
of distinct values within a society or community, none of which can be established as norma-
tively superior to the others (Engelhardt, 1986). If not openly and reflectively addressed,
value pluralism can undermine professional ethical codes and by doing so, trap practitioners
into an insular conception of the nature of practice with offenders, and the broader commu-
nity (Arrigo, 2013). Second, despite appearances, the dual role problem is actually tripartite
in nature insofar as there are three relevant stakeholders with their corresponding relation-
ships: (a) the practitioner and the offender, (b) the practitioner and the community/criminal
justice system (including the victim), and (c) the offender and the criminal justice system,
community, and victim(s). The dual role problem, as it is often conceptualized, only appears
to deal with the first two sets of relationships (Greenberg & Shuman, 1997; Ward, 2013). In
our view, this is a mistake which impedes progress toward a universally accepted resolution
to the dual role dilemma. Third, there is no underlying ethical theory, framework, or set of
principles in correctional and forensic practice that can be utilized to address the dual role
problem or any of the other significant ethical issues evident in the field. While theorists such
as Ward (2013) have developed procedural frameworks that incorporate varying ethical per-
spectives and values in the form of the moral acquaintance model, this framework is unable
to adequately capture the full complexity of ethical issues evident in the field.
In this article, we attempt to address the major challenges associated with the dual role
problem in forensic and correctional practice outlined above through (a) using the core
Ward et al. / DUAL ROLE PROBLEM 47
principles and assumptions of restorative justice (RJ) and (b) using RJ principles to further
inform Ward’s (2013) moral acquaintance model and produce an ethical framework that is
able to more convincingly address the key problems faced by practitioners within the cor-
rectional and forensic fields. RJ sets out the necessary conditions for an effective response
to crime based on the fundamental premise that repair of community relationships is para-
mount. RJ’s overall aim is to repair the damage caused by crime by asking offenders to
recognize and publicly acknowledge the harm they have done, demonstrate remorse, and
display a willingness to make reparation and undergo sanctions if appropriate (Johnstone,
2014). Furthermore, RJ seeks to heal the victim and to restore the offender to full social
standing. It assumes a relational ethic in which all human beings are equal moral stakehold-
ers and where individuals have a responsibility to sustain and repair relationships damaged
by crime. RJ is a grassroots, bottom-up movement comprised of a network of practices and
initiatives, and is loosely held together by a patchwork of core ideas and principles rather
than any overarching coherent theory. Essentially, RJ is pragmatic in nature and focuses on
concrete initiatives such as sentencing circles, offender–victim mediation, or family confer-
ences. Nevertheless, RJ principles have the potential to address pressing ethical dilemmas.
In this article, we use the core underlying ideas of RJ to provide an overarching ethical
framework to resolve the dual role problem. It should be noted, however, that RJ has been
justifiably criticized for some of its theoretical and practice claims concerning interventions
such as family conferences, victim–offender mediation, offender rehabilitation, and sen-
tencing conferences (Arrigo, 2004; Arrigo & Schehr, 1998; Ward & Langlands, 2009).
First, we examine recent attempts to resolve the dual role problem and note their strengths
and shortcomings. Second, we briefly outline the central assumptions and principles of RJ
and argue for its general utility as an ethical framework for forensic and correctional prac-
titioners. Third, we integrate the RJ conception developed earlier with Ward’s (2013) recent
moral acquaintance model (described later in this article) of ethical reasoning in the context
of value pluralism and evaluate the degree to which it can satisfactorily address the dual role
problem. Finally, we conclude with implications for future practice.
aPPRoaches to the dual Role PRoblem
Ethical solutions to the dual role problem evident in the correctional and forensic litera-
tures essentially follow the relationship trajectories described above: (a) the practitioners’
relationship with the offender, (b) the practitioner’s relationship to the community and
criminal justice system (including the victim), and to a lesser extent (c) the offender’s rela-
tionship to the community and criminal justice system...
To continue reading
Request your trial