Application of Ethical Theories in Ethical Reasoning

Forensic Mental Health

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the practicalities of capacity, confidentiality, and consent concerning the Family Responsibilities Commission and how these three compare to the forensic context that is probation and parole in Australia. The paper will seek to highlight the similarities and the differences that exist within these two contexts.

With regards to the Family Responsibilities Commission, the practicality of confidentiality is that everything is private. This is because the Family Responsibilities Commissions Act of 2008 states that a person is not allowed by the law to record, disclose or use any confidential information that is attained by such an individual by being involved in the administration of the Act. There is preservation of confidentiality such that an individual is not mandated in any way to disclose any information that is deemed confidential by a court or a tribunal. In addition, an individual is not mandated in any way to produce any record of any information that is deemed confidential to a court or a tribunal (Family Responsibilities Commissions Act, 2014).

Concerning the practicality of consent, taking into account the work setting of the Family Responsibilities Commission, consent is not required because of the mandatory clauses that are provided for in the institution. This aspect is completely dissimilar when compared to probation or parole. The same aspect corresponds with capacity. The practicality of capacity is not needed or is not taken into consideration because of the fact that there are mandatory clients.

In this particular paper, the term probation or parole is used to give reference to a kind of non-custodial outlook.Onethat is enforced or carried out by a judge or judicial officer as a replacement for imprisonment, and which, as a minimal condition forces the addressee of the disposition (also referred to as the probationer to place himself or herself), considering the casemay well be, to direction under the patronages of the probation service. The practicality of informed consent, which the Victorian provisions give the impression of support puts forward that here is a person, of free choice, an understanding of what partaking involves, and by consequence that the reprobate has a right to decline to act in accordance with the recommended order. The manifestation of disinclination on the part of the indicted negatives the court's authority to command probation (Leivesley, 1983).

As for probation or parole, the aspect of capacity is different. This is because in accordance to the law in Australia, the evaluation and assessment of the appropriateness of the offender to the scheme is undertaken about his or her capacity. This implies the capacity of the offender to be able to undertake community service work instead of undergoing a psychological or mental assessment (Mackay, 1995).

In addition, probation takes into consideration the practicality of capacity in the sense of mental reasoning of the offender and their level of mental or thinking capacity. For instance, those with proper capacity in terms of reform are usually given an earlier parole period and if the case being taken into consideration was not as harmful or serious in the eyes of the judge or magistrate. On the other hand, the practicality of confidentiality is completely dissimilar to that of the Family Responsibilities Commission (Kopelman, 1990).