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.
Without this context, the accuracy of risk assessments is undermined. Imagine assessing a teenager with a history of shoplifting incidents that never led to probation. Such a pattern might indicate impulsivity, a significant risk factor for future offending. Omitting these details creates a blind spot, potentially leading to recommendations that are either too lenient or too punitive.
This directive raises profound ethical questions for psychologists. Professional guidelines, such as those set by the American Psychological Association, emphasize the principles of integrity, justice and beneficence. Additionally, Maryland’s regulatory framework mandates that psychologists maintain professional competence and adhere to ethical standards. It further stipulates that evaluations must be accurate and complete, grounded in all relevant data.
When psychologists are instructed to omit key information, they face a troubling dilemma. Should they adhere to these professional and legal obligations or comply with the DJS directive? This conflict places psychologists in an untenable position, forcing them to choose between their ethical duties and the policies of the very system that relies on their expertise.
Courts depend on psychologists to provide an unbiased, evidence-based perspective. By limiting what psychologists can include, DJS risks turning these evaluations into incomplete narratives. Judges are left with an inaccurate basis for decisions, introducing unnecessary uncertainty into proceedings that could profoundly affect a young person’s future. A judge making determinations based on partial information isn’t practicing justice — it’s engaging in guesswork.
Some may argue that this policy protects youth from being unfairly labeled or judged. However, the practical impact may be different. Risk assessments aren’t designed to punish — they’re meant to inform decisions about interventions that can help prevent recidivism. Without a complete picture of a youth’s background, psychologists may be unable to recommend the appropriate level of care, support or supervision.
Furthermore, omitting past charges can harm the credibility of psychological evaluations. Courts and attorneys expect these reports to be comprehensive and objective. When key information is missing, it undermines confidence in the findings, potentially calling into question the psychologist’s expertise and the fairness of the process.
The broader implications for Maryland’s juvenile justice system are troubling. Policies like this create systemic barriers to transparency and collaboration. By excluding critical details, the system denies itself the opportunity to craft effective interventions. Youth justice should not be about shielding young people from accountability; it should be about balancing fairness with the need to address risks and provide rehabilitation.
What’s the solution? DJS and psychologists must work together to refine this policy. One approach might involve allowing psychologists to include prior charges with appropriate context, ensuring these details inform evaluations without unfairly stigmatizing the youth. For example, psychologists could explain how these charges contribute to a broader understanding of the youth’s behavior while cautioning against over-reliance on any single factor. Such nuance allows the court to make well-informed, balanced decisions.
Maryland’s approach to youth justice should be grounded in ethical integrity, transparency and collaboration. While well-meaning, the current DJS policy inadvertently undermines these principles, compromising both the process’s fairness and the outcomes’ quality.
Let’s trust our psychologists to do what they are trained for — to offer the courts a complete, accurate picture of the youth before them. Anything less not only does a disservice to the psychologists and the courts but also fails the youth whose futures depend on these evaluations. If we are serious about promoting fairness and rehabilitation, we must ensure that our policies support — not hinder — the pursuit of justice.
Lauren Maxwell is a psychologist in Prince George’s County.