One aspect of cases involving civil commitment of sexually violent predators is to distinguish a sexually violent predator from a typical recidivist. I recommend that this be done on a case-by-case basis without any a priori requirement that a person meet criteria for a certain type of diagnosis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CauleyD. (2007). The diagnostic issue of antisocial personality disorder in civil commitment proceedings: A reply to DeClue. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 35(4), 475–497
2.
DeClueG. (2006) Paraphilia NOS (nonconsenting) and Antisocial Personality Disorder. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 34, 495–514
3.
Kansas v. Crane, 334 U.S. 407 (2002).
4.
SreenivasanS.WeinbergerL. E.GarrickT. (2003). Expert testimony in sexually violent predatory commitments: Conceptualizing legal standards of “mental disorder” and “likely to reoffend.”Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31, 471–485
5.
VognsenJ.PhenixA. (2004). Antisocial personality disorder is not enough: A reply to Sreenivasan, Weinberger, and Garrick. iournal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 32, 440–442
