Legal and Ethical Obligations in Social Research: The Limited Confidentiality Requirement

Beginning of article

We responded to three critiques of our study on the effects of 60 days in administrative segregation in the last issue of this journal, and believed that we had responded to all possible attempts at "knowledge destruction" (Andrews and Bonta 1998). We were wrong. Palys and Lowman reached new levels of knowledge destruction when they accused Carleton University, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), and our research of breaching legal and ethical standards.

We are concerned about their unsubstantiated allegations, but even more disturbed about the misleading course of action they propose to the readers of this journal. Although, to our knowledge, they possess no legal training, they nonetheless provided legal advice (recommending a course of action based on an analysis of the law) (Palys and Lowman 2000).(2) Their legal analysis selectively employs passages of jurisprudence and ethical codes which support their views to the detriment of their audience. We would, therefore, like to complete their analysis and highlight some important legal and ethical provisions that were clearly overlooked.

With respect to the federal correctional legal framework and the penitentiary environment, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA 1992: ss. 4(a) and 5(a)) stipulates that CSC is responsible for the care and custody of prisoners and that the protection of society is the paramount consideration in the corrections process. The fact that CSC has a positive obligation to ensure that the penitentiary environment is safe and secure is also expressed throughout the CCRA, the regulations, and CSC policy. For many reasons, it remains a significant corporate challenge for CSC to meet this obligation: the penitentiary environment remains a dangerous place. The …