Adli Psikolojik Görüşmelerde Empati: Nesnelliğin Sınırlarında Denge Arayışı – Geleneksel Bir Derleme

Öz

Adli psikoloji uygulamaları değerlendiricinin hem bireye hem topluma karşı eşzamanlı sorumluluklar taşıdığı, bu nedenle etik ilkelerin zaman zaman çatışma noktasına gelebildiği çok katmanlı ve hassas bir meslek alanı olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Adli uygulamalardaki empati kullanımı bu bağlamda dikkatle ele alınması gereken, denge gerektiren önemli bir etik konu olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Adli psikolojik değerlendirmelerde empatinin ölçüsüz ve kontrolsüz bir şekilde kullanılması, mesleki sınırların bulanıklaşmasına ya da değerlendiricinin nesnelliğini yitirmesine yol açabileceği endişesini beraberinde getirmektedir. Bununla birlikte, empatiyi tamamen dışlamak yerine, kontrollü ve bilinçli bir empatik yaklaşımın bilgi toplama sürecini kolaylaştırabileceği ve değerlendirilen bireyin güven duygusunu destekleyerek açık ve doğru ifadelerin elde edilmesine katkı sunabileceği ileri sürülmektedir. Bu noktada empatinin ölçüsüz kullanımı ve tamamen dışlanması arasında kalan “şefkatli mesafe” dengesinde, değerlendirici ile değerlendirilen birey arasında hem insani duyarlılığı hem de profesyonel sınırları sürdürebilecek bir empatik yaklaşımın uygulanmasının etik açıdan mümkün olduğu düşünülmektedir. Gelecekteki çalışmalar için empatinin adli psikolojik değerlendiricilerin karar verme süreçleri ve tarafsızlığı üzerindeki etkisinin daha fazla araştırılması, özellikle adli-kültürel bağlamda empati kullanımının Türkiye gibi çok kültürlü ülkelerde incelenmesi önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Empati
• şefkatli mesafe
• adli psikolojik görüşme
• adli psikolojik değerlendirme

Empathy in Forensic Psychological Interviews: Seeking Balance at the Limits of Objectivity- A Traditional Review

Öz

Forensic psychology is a multi-layered and sensitive professional field in which the evaluator has simultaneous responsibilities to both the individual and society; therefore, ethical principles can sometimes come to a point of conflict. In this context, the use of empathy in forensic applications is considered an important ethical issue that requires careful consideration and balance. The immoderate and uncontrolled use of empathy in forensic psychological assessments raises the concern that it may lead to the blurring of professional boundaries or the evaluator's loss of objectivity. However, it is suggested that instead of completely excluding empathy, a controlled and conscious empathetic approach can facilitate the information-gathering process and contribute to obtaining open and accurate statements by supporting the evaluated individual's sense of trust. At this point, in the balance of "compassionate distance," which lies between the immoderate use and complete exclusion of empathy, it is considered ethically possible to implement an empathetic approach that can maintain both human sensitivity and professional boundaries between the evaluator and the evaluated individual. For future studies, it is recommended that the effect of empathy on the decision-making processes and impartiality of forensic psychological evaluators be further investigated, and that the use of empathy in the forensic-cultural context be examined in multicultural countries such as Turkey.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Empathy
• compassionate distance
• forensic psychologic interview
• forensic psychologic evaluation

Kaynakça

1. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. https://doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1060
2. American Academy of Psychiatry and Law. (2005). Ethical guidelines for the practice of forensic psychiatry. https://www.aapl.org/docs/pdf/ETHICSGDLNS.pdf
3. American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/forensic-psychology
4. American Psychological Association. (2023). Empathy. In APA Dictionary of Psychology. Retrieved April 28, 2025, from https://dictionary.apa.org/empathy
5. Appelbaum, P. S. (1997). A theory of ethics for forensic psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 25(3), 233-247.
6. Barber Rioja, V. ve Rosenfeld, B. (2018). Addressing linguistic and cultural differences in the forensic interview. The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 17(4), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2018.1495280
7. Benuto, L. T. ve Garrick, J. (2016). Cultural considerations in forensic interviewing of children. In W. O’Donohue & M. Fanetti (Eds.), Forensic interviews regarding child sexual abuse (pp. 351-364). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21097-1_20
8. Blair, R. J. R. (2005). Responding to the emotions of others: Dissociating forms of empathy through the study of typical and psychiatric populations. Consciousness and cognition, 14(4), 698-718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2005.06.004

9. Blumgart, H. L. (1964). Caring for the patient. New England Journal of Medicine, 270(9), 449–456. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM196402272700906
10. Brodsky, S. L. ve Wilson, J. K. (2013). Empathy in forensic evaluations: A systematic reconsideration. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 31(2), 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2042
11. Candilis, P. J. ve Neal, T. M. (2014). Not just welfare over justice: Ethics in forensic consultation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 19(1), 19-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12038
12. Cuff, B., Brown, S., Taylor, L. ve Howat, D. (2016). Empathy: A review of the concept. Emotion Review, 8(2), 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914558466
13. Dehlin, M. ve Lundh, L. G. (2018). Compassion fatigue and compassion satisfaction among psychologists: Can supervision and a reflective stance be of help?. Journal for Person-Oriented Research, 4(2), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.17505/jpor.2018.09
14. Derin, G. ve Öztürk, E. (2018). Dissosiyatif bozukluklar ve sınırda (borderline) kişilik bozukluğunda ruhsal travma. Bartın Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(3), 29-42.
15. Erden, G. ve Ergin, E. (2017). Klinik adli psikoloji: Değerlendirme bağlamında uluslararası ve ulusal uygulamalar. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Psychology Special Topics, 2(1), 63–79.
16. Gerdes, K. E. ve Segal, E. (2011). Importance of empathy for social work practice: Integrating new science. Social work, 56(2), 141-148. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/56.2.141
17. Glancy, G. D., Chatterjee, S. ve Miller, D. (2021). Ethics, empathy, and detached concern in forensic psychiatry. The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law,, 49(2), 246-253. https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.200106-20
18. Greenberg, S. A. ve Shuman, D. W. (1997). Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28(1), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.28.1.50
19. Griffith, E. E. H. (1998). Ethics in forensic psychiatry: A cultural response to Stone and Appelbaum. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 26(2), 171–184.
20. Heilbrun, K., Rogers, R. ve Otto, R. K. (2002). Forensic assessment: Current status and future directions. In J. R. P. Ogloff (Ed.), Taking psychology and law into the twenty-first century. (pp. 119–146). Sipringer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47944-3_4
21. Hoffman, M. L. (1990). Empathy and justice motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 14(2), 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991641
22. Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G. ve Slobogin, C. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (3rd ed., pp. 43–80). Guilford Press.
23. Miller, W. R. ve Rollnick, S. (2012). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed., pp. 37 – 68). Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2014.894351
24. Munro, D., Bore, M. ve Powis, D. (2005). Personality factors in professional ethical behaviour: Studies of empathy and narcissism. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57(1), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530412331283453
25. Norko M. A. (2005). Commentary: compassion at the core of forensic ethics. The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33(3), 386–389.
26. Okonofua, J. A., Saadatian, K., Ocampo, J., Ruiz, M. ve Oxholm, P. D. (2021). A scalable empathic supervision intervention to mitigate recidivism from probation and parole. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(14), https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2018036118
27. Olinick, S. (1984). A critique of empathy and sympathy. In Listening and interpreting: The secrets of the psychotherapeutic relationship (pp. 41–64). Analytic Press.
28. Öztürk, E. ve Derin, G. (2020). Psikotravmatoloji. Aydın İnsan ve Toplum Dergisi, 6(2), 181-214. https://doi.org/10.17932/IAU.AIT.2015.012/ait_v06i2003
29. Özturk, E. (2022a). Cyber dissociative experiences and mass consciousness control: The age of cyber dissociation from the perspective of dissoanalytic theory. Novel Forensic Research, 1(1), 26–30 . https://doi.org/10.5455/NOFOR.2022.09.05
30. Öztürk, E. (2022b). Dissoanalysis as a modern psychotraumatology theory: denial trauma and mass dissociation versus dissociative revolution and psychocommunal therapy. Medicine Science, 11(3), 1359-85. https://doi.org/10.5455/medscience.2022.08.176
31. Öztürk, E. ve Erdoğan, B. (2022). On the psychodigital components of cyber traumatization and dissociation: A psychosocial depiction of cyber societies as dissociogenic. Medicine Science. https://doi.org/10.5455/medscience.2021.12.411
32. Riess, H. (2017). The science of empathy. Journal of Patient Experience, 4(2), 74–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/2374373517699267
33. Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045357
34. Rogers, C. R. (1975). Empathic: An unappreciated way of being. The Counseling Psychologist, 5(2), 2–10.
35. Scott, K., Boccaccini, M. T., Trupp, G., Murrie, D. C. ve Hawes, S. (2022). Evaluator empathy in risk assessment interviews. Law and Human Behavior, 46(5), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000492
36. Sen, P., Gordon, H., Adshead, G. ve Irons, A. (2007). Ethical dilemmas in forensic psychiatry: two illustrative cases. Journal of medical ethics, 33(6), 337–341. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2006.017806
37. Shuman, D. W. (1993). The use of empathy in forensic examinations. Ethics & Behavior, 3(3–4), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.1993.9652109
38. Shuman, D. W. ve Zervopoulos, J. A. (2010). Empathy or objectivity: The forensic examiner's dilemma? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28(5), 585–602. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.953
39. Stone, A. A. (1984). The ethical boundaries of forensic psychiatry: A view from the ivory tower. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 12(3), 209–219.
40. Şar, V. ve Öztürk, E. (2007). Functional dissociation of the self: A sociocognitive approach to trauma and dissociation. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 8(4), 69-89.
41. Tekin, S., Irwanda, D. ve Bull, R. (2025). Cross-Cultural perceptions of police interview techniques: A Comparative study of Indonesian and Dutch respondents. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-025-09763-5
42. Tetley, A., Jinks, M., Huband, N. ve Howells, K. (2011). A systematic review of measures of therapeutic engagement in psychosocial and psychological treatment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67(9), 927–941. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20811
43. Turgoose, D. P. (2015). Empathy and compassion fatigue in specialist police officers working with victims of rape and sexual assault: Assessment and brief training intervention [Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi] University College London.
44. Vera, L. M., Boccaccini, M. T., Laxton, K., Bryson, C., Pennington, C., Ridge, B., ve Murrie, D. C. (2019). How does evaluator empathy impact a forensic interview? Law and Human Behavior, 43(1), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000310
45. Vredeveldt, A., Given-Wilson, Z. ve Memon, A. (2023). Culture, trauma, and memory in investigative interviews. Psychology, Crime & Law. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2023.2209262
46. Ward, T. (2010). Punishment or therapy? The ethics of sexual offending treatment. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 16(3), 286-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2010.483822
47. Wemmers, J. A. (2013). Victims’ experiences in the criminal justice system and their recovery fromcrime. International review of victimology, 19(3), 221-233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269758013492755