Special Topics In Criminology: Ethics In Victim Services

Final Paper

Amanda Rutherford

Special Topics in Criminology: Ethics in Victim Services (CCJ4938)

Professor Krista Flannigan

April 26th 2017 In order to protect victim’s from becoming victimized even further by their advocates, a set of ethical standards were created. There are nineteen standards separated into four sections: Scope of Services, Coordinating with the Community, Direct Services, and Administration and Evaluation. The third section sticks out to me the most due to how thorough it is. The name is pretty self-explanatory; it has ten standards that teach advocates how to behave ethically when directly dealing with their clients. The second standard in this section states “The victim assistance provider recognizes

It is simple sentence, but I can imagine that this is definitely not simple to uphold in every situation. Sometimes an advocate can vehemently disagree with what their client chooses to do; however, unless it goes against another ethic or a rule of the agency or even a law, advocates must support their clients wishes. Even though this is just one standard, each of the theories of ethics can interpret how to follow it differently. Deontological theory is heavily rooted in duty and obligation. Under this theory, an advocate would follow the NVASC Standard 3.2 simply because that is the commitment advocates make to their clients. Under this theory, there are hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Categorical imperatives are rules that are not relative to the situation at hand; they must always be obeyed. A categorical imperative

Its conception was due to other theories that basically claimed that women could not develop their moral thinking as high as men could. Just because girls and women think differently from boys and men does not make their way of thinking lesser. A big part of this theory is acting in ways to keep a relationship of any kind. Applying this to standard 3.2, advocates would prioritize the wants and needs of the clients because they want to maintain a positive relationship with their client. However, the relationship between the advocate and their particular company and the relationship between the client and the company should also be considered. For example, an advocate working for a prosecutor has less confidentiality than other advocates. Certain details shared by a victim must be reported by the advocate. Reporting against the victim’s wishes could harm the relationship between the victim with the advocate and the office, and could potentially make the client end the relationship. The prosecutor and the advocate would maintain their relationship. Not reporting would keep things the same with the client and their advocate, but could potentially harm the relationship the advocate has with their office if their lack of disclosure was discovered. There is usually not just one pair of people to consider in making decisions under this theory. Wanting to maintain relationships with people and making the best choices to do so