tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post4248448418698621705..comments2024-03-20T19:17:02.285-07:00Comments on IN THE NEWS: Federal judge tosses hebephilia as basis for civil detentionKaren Franklin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/01032855743077403199noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-43262221666912926702012-02-15T09:56:08.915-08:002012-02-15T09:56:08.915-08:00Thanks for responding, Karen. I get the distinctio...Thanks for responding, Karen. I get the distinction explained in your first paragraph above, although some of what you said is a bit vague.<br /><br />I guess I am wondering what kind of treatment would be involved with someone without a formal diagnosis, as in this case. If Neuhauser's attraction is common and considered normal or natural (albeit criminal), what type of treatment would benefit him? Isn't this akin to a doctor prescribing medicine to a person without an ailment?<br /><br />Of course, there is always preventive treatment, but Boyle agreed that Neuhauser was not proven to be a high-risk offender in accordance with the Wollert/Lytton analysis, so preventive measures would seem unnecessary.<br /><br />The issue of imposed release conditions of parole (i.e. the general mandate for “avoiding minors”), which you said are standard for high-risk offenders, appears to apply the same way here as well, considering the judge concluded that Neuhauser was not proven to be a high-risk offender.<br /><br />By the way, I am not trying to challenge you with my ongoing queries on the issue; I am only trying to gain some understanding on the sentencing practice. I just cannot help but be confused by some of the apparent inconsistencies.<br /><br />As for rationality, yes, I was hoping that this would supersede moral turpitude, especially where objectivity is due. I guess morality weighs heavier than anything else. That must explain the seemingly inconsistent and contradictory behavior I quite frequently witness. For a while there, I was afraid it was me. Thank you very much for some clarity.<br /><br /><br />>>civil commitment statutes in some other countries do not require a mental disorder.<<<br /><br />Really? What is the rationale behind civilly committing someone who does not have a mental disorder? How is it justified?researcheronehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12576084808353132904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-2985609899059831992012-01-26T07:41:36.456-08:002012-01-26T07:41:36.456-08:00Hi researcherone,
One does not need to have a men...Hi researcherone,<br /><br />One does not need to have a mental disorder in order to benefit from treatment. A formal mental disorder is only required for civil commitment, not for treatment, and even that is only in the United States; civil commitment statutes in some other countries do not require a mental disorder. <br /><br />The release conditions are imposed as conditions of parole. They are pretty standard for high-risk sex offenders. As far as the age distinctions, you seem to be expecting rationality. That's asking a bit too much from a mindless bureaucracy, don't you think?Karen Franklin, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01032855743077403199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-18973369425507139722012-01-25T15:18:55.772-08:002012-01-25T15:18:55.772-08:00This is good news.
I am confused by something, th...This is good news.<br /><br />I am confused by something, though: If the judge tossed out hebephilia as a means for civil detention (essentially saying that Neuhauser has no mental disorder) and subsequently ordered the man's release, why must Neuhauser undergo "sex offender treatment"? Isn't this a contradiction? What kind of "treatment" must he undergo if he has no mental disorder? The same question applies regarding Neuhauser's requirement to maintain a distance from minors if he was not proven to be a future threat to them?<br /><br />I have noticed quite often that regardless of the age of the victims, those sentenced for SVP crimes must "avoid contact with minors," as if age is irrelevant. Why is this? Why not specify? For instance, if an offender has a pattern of sexual interaction with adolescent-aged individuals, wouldn't young children be safe, and vice versa? Does this common order, as general as it is, suggest that the court system sees no difference between sex involving adolescents and sex involving prepubescents? If so, this also contradicts the 'hebephilia' dismissal stated above, at least with regard to civil commitment proceedings.<br /><br />Can you please explain this to me?<br /><br />>>in particular, the fact that his first victim was by force and later victims willingly participated even though they could not give legal consent due to their age<<<br /><br />I also presume that the judge acknowledges that a youth's consent to sex makes a difference as far as recidivism and civil commitment go?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com