Forensic Psychology (Essay Sample)

Forensic Psychology
Name
Institution
Date
Do you think race-norming is a significant answer to difference biases, or is it a way to lower the standards for traditionally underrepresented groups? Support your answer with scholarly literature and resources
Race - norming is a practice that was officially banned due to raising concerns of its applications. It is basically the grading of test candidates based on their race regardless of the fact that all applicants from different races take the same test.
In my opinion, this process has no mandate of correcting difference in race biasness. Race biasness would have occurred if a different method is used to carry out the test. An instance that would represent an implication of race bias is the use of different tests on different racial groups. However, using the same test on all candidates shows the equality among all the applicants from different races.
On the contrary, using different grading criteria on different races shows a sign of underestimation, rather than trying to rectify racial indifference. When all members agree to undertake the same test, it is a clear indication of their commitment to the conditions of the test. Choosing to give particular groups more lenient grading terms shows an underestimation of the capability of the race.
The consideration of this leaves the whole race under the trauma of discrimination by the other races. Even if the individual would qualify for the application due to the leniency in their grading, they would have it difficult when it would come to commanding respect from their colleagues. The fact that everybody believes that they passed a test out of sympathy is enough to enslave them to discrimination and underestimation of their capability, even if they would truly be capable under the standard grading terms. Race norming is, therefore, not the best way to reduce biasness during a test that involves applicants from different races (Gottfredson, 1994).
Compare and contrast the two concepts of affirmative action and reverse discrimination. How do they differ, and what do they have in common? Give an example of each to support your answer.
Affirmative action is a concept spearheaded by many presidents of the presidents of the United States. It is a protective rule that ensures that each member of the public gets equal treatment when it comes to the application for jobs and the general treatment of employees at the work place. On the other hand, reverse discrimination is a policy that favours the lesser racial groups when it comes to employment in various job sectors (Moon, 2013).
There are various differences between affirmative action and reverse discrimination. Affirmative action is a policy that ensures that all members of the public are entitled to equal treatment when it comes to job applications and treatment at work places. For instance, everybody has the equal right to be employed for any job as long as they pass the test required for the job and they have the required qualifications. On the other hand, Reverse discrimination only caters for the minority races when it comes to job applications. For instance, the foreign races in America such as the Hispanic would be given priority such as lower grading qualifications in order to ensure that they obtain a job advantage over the native races such as the White Americans (Moon, 2013).
The two concepts also have various similarities. Both of them focus n securing opportunities for particular groups of people. Although they have differences regarding their terms of consideration, the two concepts have the same objectives and targets. Another similarity lies in the fact that both concepts try to strike a balanced between the existing racial groups in terms of f gaining job opportunities (Moon, 2013).
Name and describe the five (5) categories of persons who, as the primary objects of discrimination, receive protection by the courts. Give an example of each.
According to the law, there are various groups of people who cannot be subject to discrimination. The law has legally outlined the categories of individuals who are to be free from discrimination in any regard. One of the highly considered categories is the religious group to which n individual belongs. Religion is regarded as personal choice and has t be respected. For this reason, any individual is not to be denied any opportunity due to his religion. For instance, an individual cannot be denied a job because he is Muslim, everybody whether Muslim Christian or any other religion is entitled to equal job rights (Klug Et al. 2003).
National origin of an individual is another important category. As long as an individual is legally present in a particular location, he is entitled to any opportunity without discrimination. For instance, a Kenyan citizen who has legally acquired citizenship in America can content for any job opportunity without discrimination, as long as he has the required qualifications (Klug Et al. 2003).
The sex to which a person falls is also an important considered category when it comes to categories protected from discrimination. Whether someone is male or female is not supposed to undermine his chances of getting a particular opportunity. Every individual under any sex is freely entitled to any chance by the law (Klug Et al. 2003).
Whether an individual is pregnant or not does not need to interfere with their chances to contest for opportunities. However, most people have violated this policy especially in the private sector. Most people would prefer to hire individuals who are not pregnant with the notion that they are more effective than people who are pregnant (Klug Et al. 2003).