This case involved a suit of 41 plaintiffs against the Internal Revenue Services (IRS). The plaintiffs alleged that the organization had been discriminatory to them in their tax exemption applications; the organization had been discriminatory due to the applicants’ political affiliations. Their names contained words like patriots or tea party. These events occurred during the Obama administration. Numerous conservative groups had been subjected to unnecessary bureaucracy. Most of these groups felt they were being punished due to their political underpinnings.
Investigations were carried out to ascertain the authenticity of these claims. The Justice Department decided against preferring charges on the IRS official who oversaw tax exemption. It reported that it had found no proof of institutional bias. The department had only been subject to mismanagement and poor decision-making. The IRS official involved had alleged that the issue had arisen from the glut of applications received from 2010 to 2012. This practice has extended to left-wing tax applicants.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In one of the court cases filed in the Washington District, the judge determined that the IRS officials in this department had been delinquent in their duty. They had failed to take action to ensure the expeditious approval of tax-exemption applications. The court found Lois Lerner culpable as she failed to inform her superiors on the bottlenecks experienced by conservative-leaning applicants.
The case is set to be terminated. The Justice Department has proposed settlement terms for the over 400 conservative groups. The deal provided no monetary compensation for the litigants. It includes an acknowledgment and apology for the actions of the IRS. In the deal, each party is supposed to bear its litigation costs. The deal has not been finalized. It is subject to approval by the court (Zapotosky, 2017).
The psychologist involved in the case should display high levels of integrity. He/ she should make statements that are accurate. Honesty is a fundamental part of their testimony. They should strive to give evidence that is unequivocal. This avoids misrepresentation of the facts. The strength of psychologists’ testimony is based on the veracity of their previous statements. Proof of previous distortion of facts may result in the invalidation of their testimonies. They are expert witnesses. The expert opinion is based on professional opinion without the infusion of additional bits based on personal nuances. The psychologist has been enlisted by the defense. Their testimony may serve to bolster the defense’s case. However, in case the complainants’ legal team asks a question that may strengthen their case, it is imperative that the psychologist responds truthfully. Their foremost duty is to aid the court in resolving the dispute by providing factual opinion.
The psychologist should believe in the principle of justice. Each person is entitled to fairness and justice. They should all benefit equally from the services provided by psychologists. Political and religious leaning should not form an obstacle to the dispensation of services by psychologists. The case mentioned above is a classic example as it involves political leanings. The defendant’s psychologist may decide to provide false opinion to the court based on their animus towards the conservative groups. The converse may also happen. The hallmark of an expert witness or any professional is their ability to delineate their beliefs or leanings in the performance of their work. This ensures equal treatment of every individual. This leads to the development of proper standards that boost their gravitas in courts of law.
The psychologist should respect people’s rights and dignity. Hence, they should take into account people’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and disability. Each individual has a right to privacy and confidentiality. This principle is the hallmark of the case. The complainants claim they were biased based on their political leanings. Their testimony should be made in consideration of the privacy of individuals. This resonates with the principle of non-maleficence. Psychologists’ work should always strive to ensure that no one is harmed in the course of their work, emotionally or physically. They understand the gravity of emotional injury to people. As a result, they should avoid disparaging the plaintiffs’ reputation to solidify their case. This may inadvertently expose them to civil suits due to the breach of this duty.
They should show high levels of fidelity and responsibility. In the performance of their duties, they need to establish trust with those working with them. They should also be aware of their professional and scientific responsibilities to the communities where they work. For instance, in this case, the psychologist may have to undertake a psychological review of the IRS official accused of bias. This would try to detect whether any personal leanings were involved in the commission of the allegations. This implies that he/ she has to develop a relationship based on trust. This trust should not be undermined in the court by divulging intimate details of their conversations/ interviews. If the official is found to be incompetent, the psychologist should be able to explain to the official why he or she needs to step down. It is a delicate balance that should ensure that all the parties benefit.
In conclusion, psychology primarily involves a duty to the court in expert testimonies. However, this should not be done in isolation of personal and social factors. It should be ensured that minimal harm is experienced by the parties involved. Personal opinions should never override a psychologist’s professional duty.
Reference
Zapotosky, M. (2017, October 25). Justice Department agrees to settle lawsuits over IRS scrutiny of tea party groups . Retrieved from Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-justice-department-irs-tea-party-20171025-story.html
