SVP verdict overturned for prosecutorial misconduct -- again

Prosecutor impugned defense witness in hebephilia case

In a highly unusual development, a California appeals court has overturned the civil commitment of a convicted sex offender for the second time in a row due to egregious prosecutorial misconduct.

The prosecutor in the most recent trial engaged in a "pervasive pattern" of misconduct and "flagrantly" violated the law by implying that jurors would become social pariahs if they did not vote to civilly commit sex offender Dariel Shazier, the appellate court wrote.

Prosecutor Jay Boyarsky, now the second in command of the district attorney's office in Santa Clara County (San Jose), also improperly impugned the reputation of the forensic psychologist who testified for the defense, according to the scathing opinion by the Sixth District Court of Appeal.

Prosecutor Jay Boyarsky

"This is not a case in which the prosecutor engaged in a few minor incidents of improper conduct. Rather, the prosecutor engaged in a pervasive pattern of inappropriate questions, comments and argument, throughout the entire trial, each one building on the next, to such a degree as to undermine the fairness of the proceedings. The misconduct culminated in the prosecutor flagrantly violating the law in closing argument, telling the jury to consider the reaction of their friends and family to their verdict, implying they would be subject to ridicule and condemnation if they found in favor of defendant."

This was the second civil commitment verdict against Dariel Shazier to be overturned on appeal due to prosecutorial misconduct. The license of the previous prosecutor, Benjamin Field, was suspended in 2010 based on his severe misconduct in several cases, including Shazier's 2006 trial. In the first of Shazier's three trials, a jury deadlocked as to whether the convicted sex offender qualified for civil detention as a sexually violent predator.

The case revolves around the controversial diagnosis of hebephilia. Shazier served nine years in prison for sexual misconduct with teenage boys. At the end of his sentence, in 2003, the district attorney began efforts to commit him indefinitely to a locked hospital based on his risk of reoffense. At Shazier's most recent trial, two state evaluators testified that he suffered from hebephilia, thereby making him eligible for civil commitment. However, they admitted that hebephilia was highly controversial and had only come into vogue with the advent of civil commitment laws.

Incendiary questioning of defense expert witness

The appellate court chastised the prosecutor for stepping far over the line in his questioning of a psychologist who was called by the defense to rebut the diagnosis of hebephilia. Psychologist Ted Donaldson testified that hebephilia is not a legitimate mental disorder, and that socially unacceptable or immoral conduct does not constitute a mental illness.

On cross-examination, Boyarsky questioned Donaldson about previous cases in which he had testified that sex offenders were not mentally disordered. Naturally, Donaldson had not brought the files from all of his old cases to court with him. This, the appellate court wrote, gave the prosecutor an excuse to recite inflammatory facts from select cases, which the defense correctly complained "were only brought up to incite the passions and prejudice of the jury."

The appellate court also chastised Boyarsky for impugning Donaldson's character. In his closing argument, the prosecutor described Donaldson as "completely biased and not helpful," called his opinion "laughable," and implied that he was biased because he had repeatedly testified for the defense:

"He has got a streak that would make Cal Ripken jealous. Cal Ripken the baseball player and the Iron Man that played in something like 4,000 straight games. Dr. Donaldson’s streak of 289 straight times testifying exclusively for the defense. Now he would like to tell you that is not his fault, because he offered to teach the State of California all his wisdom. His brilliance has yet to be fully appreciated by this society. It is appreciated by defense attorneys who pay him...."

Boyarsky also improperly attacked a psychiatric technician at Atascadero State Hospital (where Shazier was undergoing sex offender treatment while awaiting the outcome of his case) who testified for the defense. The appellate court critiqued "rhetorical attempts to degrade and disparage" that witness during cross-examination. The justices highlighted Boyarsky's question: "Mr. Ross, you don't know what you’re talking about, do you?"

"Here, the prosecutor’s questioning … was clearly argumentative, and was not intended to glean relevant information. 'An argumentative question is a speech to the jury masquerading as a question. The questioner is not seeking to elicit relevant testimony. Often it is apparent that the questioner does not even expect an answer. The question may, indeed, be unanswerable. . . . An argumentative question that essentially talks past the witness, and makes an argument to the jury, is improper because it does not seek to elicit relevant, competent testimony, or often any testimony at all.'(People v. Chatman (2006) 38 Cal.4th 344, 384.)"

The appellate opinion strongly rebuked trial judge Alfonso Fernandez for overruling repeated objections by defense attorney Patrick Hoopes. "Defense counsel objected to all of the prosecutor's improper questions, statements and arguments. We observe that not one of counsel's well-taken objections was sustained by the court. The court erred in overruling these objections."

Who’s grooming who?

In a humorous twist, Boyarsky was also reprimanded for misusing the loaded term "grooming" during his closing argument.

During the trial, a government expert had testified that Shazier "groomed" his victims by slowly manipulating them into situations in which he could violate sexual boundaries with them.

The prosecutor tagged off this in his closing argument, warning the jury that Shazier had "groomed" them during his testimony. "The grooming behavior, the manipulation, it still continues," Boyarski stated.

The appellate court agreed with the defense that this statement was "intended to inflame the jury, making them each feel like victims in the case." The justices went even further, noting that Shazier was not necessarily the one doing the grooming:

"During trial, Dr. Murphy defined grooming as a 'slow, steady manipulation to get a person in a compromising position or violate boundaries without awareness.' The irony here is that the prosecutor's conduct toward the jury throughout the trial closely fit Dr. Murphy's definition of grooming."

The unanimous appellate ruling is HERE. San Jose Mercury News coverage is HERE; the San Francisco Chronicle's, HERE.

Training: Controversies in sexually violent predator evaluations

I am excited to announce that the American Psychology-Law Society has accepted a panel that I put together on "Emergent controversies in civil commitment evaluations of sexually violent predators." I hope some of you will join me at the annual conference in Portland, Oregon on March 7-9.

The symposium will address three areas of controversy in the sex offender civil commitment field:

• Mental abnormality and psychiatric diagnosis in court (my topic)

• Recidivism risk assessment (addressed by my esteemed colleague Jeffrey Singer)

• Volitional control (Frederick Winsmann, clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School, will present a promising new assessment model)

Here's the symposium abstract:

Over the past three decades, Sexually Violent Predator litigation has emerged as perhaps the most contentious area of forensic psychology practice. In an effort to assist the courts, a cadre of experts has proffered a confusing array of constantly changing assessment methods, psychiatric diagnoses, and theories of sex offending. Now, some federal and state courts are beginning to subject these often-competing claims to greater scrutiny, for example via Daubert and Frye evidentiary hearings. This symposium will alert forensic practitioners, lawyers and academics to some of the most prominent minefields on the SVP battleground, revolving around three central areas of contestation: psychiatric diagnosis, risk assessment, and the elusive construct of volitional control. The presenters will review recent scholarly literature and court rulings addressing: (1) the reliability and validity of psychiatric diagnoses in sexually dangerous person litigation, (2) forensic risk assessment tools and how risk data should be reported to triers of fact, and (3) how best to address the issue of volitional impairment, a Constitutionally required element for civil commitment. The focus will be on how to assist the courts while remaining within the limits of scientific knowledge and our profession's ethical boundaries.

The conference schedule hasn't been issued yet so I don’t know which day our panel is presenting, but I will keep you posted when I find out, probably in January. In the meantime, if you are looking to pick up Continuing Education (CE) credits, the pre-conference workshops are a good way to get some high-quality forensic training:

• The ever-informative Randy Otto on "Improving Clinical Judgment and Decision Making in Forensic Psychological Evaluation," with a heavy focus on identifying and reducing bias (full-day workshop) 

• Paul J. Frick on "Developmental Pathways to Conduct Disorder: Implications for Understanding and Treating Severely Aggressive and Antisocial Youth" (full-day workshop)

• Amanda Zelechoski on "Trauma-Informed Care in Forensic Settings" (full-day workshop)

• Kathy Pezdek on "How to Present Statistical Information to Judges and Jurors" (half-day workshop)

• Steven Penrod on "Things That Jurors (and Judges) Ought to Know About Eyewitness Reliability" (half-day workshop)

Portland is a lovely city, especially in the spring, so register now, and mark your calendars for what is sure to be a lively and educational event.

Judge bars Static-99R risk tool from SVP trial

Developers staunchly refused requests to turn over data

For several years now, the developers of the most widely used sex offender risk assessment tool in the world have refused to share their data with independent researchers and statisticians seeking to cross-check the  instrument's methodology.

Now, a Wisconsin judge has ordered the influential Static-99R instrument excluded from a sexually violent predator (SVP) trial, on the grounds that failure to release the data violates a respondent's legal right to due process.

The ruling may be the first time that the Static-99R has been excluded altogether from court. At least one prior court, in New Hampshire, barred an experimental method that is currently popular among government evaluators, in which Static-99R risk estimates are artificially inflated by comparing sex offenders to a specially selected "high-risk" sub-group, a procedure that has not been empirically validated in any published research. 

In the Wisconsin case, the state was seeking to civilly commit Homer Perren Jr. as a sexually dangerous predator after he completed a 10-year prison term for an attempted sexual assault on a child age 16 or under. The exclusion of the Static-99R ultimately did not help Perren.  This week, after a 1.5-day trial, a jury deliberated for only one hour before deciding that he met the criteria for indefinite civil commitment at the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center.*

Dec. 18 note: After publishing this post, I learned that the judge admitted other "actuarial" risk assessment instruments, including the original Static-99 and the MnSOST-R, which is way less accurate than the Static-99R and vastly overpredicts risk. He excluded the RRASOR, a four-item ancestor of the Static-99. In hindsight, for the defense to get the Static-99R excluded was a bit like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

The ruling by La Crosse County Judge Elliott Levine came after David Thornton, one of the developers of the Static-99R and a government witness in the case, failed to turn over data requested as part of a Daubert challenge by the defense. Under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1993 ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, judges are charged with the gatekeeper function of filtering evidence for scientific reliability and validity prior to its admission in court.

Defense attorney Anthony Rios began seeking the data a year ago so that his own expert, psychologist Richard Wollert, could directly compare the predictive accuracy of the Static-99R with that of a competing instrument, the Multisample Age-Stratified Table of Sexual Recidivism Rates," or MATS-1. Wollert developed the MATS-1 in an effort to improve the accuracy of risk estimation by more precisely considering the effects of advancing age. It incorporates recidivism data on 3,425 offenders published by Static-99R developer Karl Hanson in 2006, and uses the statistical method of Bayes's Theorem to calculate likelihood ratios for recidivism at different levels of risk.

The state's attorney objected to the disclosure request, calling the data "a trade secret."

Hanson, the Canadian psychologist who heads the Static-99 enterprise, has steadfastly rebuffed repeated requests to release data on which the family of instruments is based. Public Safety Canada, his agency, takes the position that it will not release data on which research is still being conducted, and that "external experts can review the data set only to verify substantive claims (i.e., verify fraud), not to conduct new analyses,"  according to a document filed in the case.

Thornton estimated that the raw data will remain proprietary for another five years, until the research group finishes its current projects and releases the data to the public domain.

While declining to release the data to the defense, Hanson agreed to release it to Thornton, the government's expert and a co-developer of the original Static-99, so that Thornton could analyze the relative accuracy of the two instruments. 

The American Psychological Association's Ethics Code requires psychologists to furnish data, after their research results are published, to "other competent professionals who seek to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis" (Section 8.14).

At least three five researchers have been rebuffed in their attempts to review Static-99 data over the past few years, for purposes of research replication and reanalysis. As described in their 2008 article, Hanson's steadfast refusals to share data required Wollert and his colleagues, statisticians Elliot Cramer and Jacqueline Waggoner, to perform complex statistical manipulations to develop their alternate methodology. (Correspondence between Hanson and Cramer can be viewed HERE.) Hanson also rejected a request by forensic psychologists Brian Abbott and Ted Donaldson; see comments section, below.


Since the Static-99 family of instruments (which include the Static-99, Static-99R, and Static-2000) began to be developed more than a decade ago, they have been in a near-constant state of flux, with risk estimates and instructions for interpretation subject to frequent and dizzying changes.

It is unfortunate, with the stakes so high, that all of these researchers cannot come together in a spirit of open exchange. I'm sure that would result in more scientifically sound, and defensible, risk estimations in court.

The timing of this latest brouhaha is apropos, as reports of bias, inaccuracy and outright fraud have  shaken the psychological sciences this year and led to more urgent calls for transparency and sharing of data by researchers. Earlier this year, a large-scale project was launched to systematically try to replicate studies published in three prominent psychological journals.

A special issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science dedicated to the problem of research bias in psychology is available online for free (HERE).

*Hat tip to blog reader David Thompson for alerting me that the trial had concluded. 

APA rejects "hebephilia," last standing of three novel sexual disorders

To hear government experts on the witness stand in civil detention trials in recent months, the novel diagnosis of "hebephilia" was a fait accompli, just awaiting its formal acceptance into the upcoming fifth edition of the influential Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

They were flat-out wrong.

In a stunning blow to psychology's burgeoning sex offender processing industry, the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association rejected the proposed diagnosis outright, not even relegating it to an appendix as meriting further study, its proponents' fall-back position.

The rejection follows the failure of two other sexual disorders proposed by the DSM-5's paraphilias subworkgroup. These were paraphilic coercive disorder (or a proclivity toward rape) and hypersexuality, an inherently hard-to-define construct that introduced the committee members' value judgments as to how much sex is within acceptable limits.

After abandoning those two disorders, the subworkgroup clung tenaciously to a whittled-down version of its proposed expansion of pedophilia to cover sexual attraction to early pubescent youngsters (generally in the age range of 11-14), ignoring widespread opposition from both within and outside of the APA.

The buzz is that senior psychiatrists in the APA were unhappy with the intransigence of psychologists in the subworkgroup who communicated the belief that if they just stuck to their guns, they could force the ill-considered proposal into the new manual, despite a lack of scientific support.

All three proposed sexual disorder expansions were widely critiqued by mental health professionals, especially those working in the forensic contexts in which they would be deployed. They led to a spate of critical peer-reviewed publications (including a historical overview of hebephilia by yours truly, published in Behavioral Sciences and the Law), and an open letter to APA leadership from more than 100 professionals, including prominent forensic psychologists and psychiatrists in the U.S. and internationally.

The unequivocal rejection sends a strong signal of the American Psychiatric Association's continuing reluctance to be drawn into the civil commitment quagmire, where pretextual diagnoses are being invoked as excuses to indefinitely confine sex offenders who have no genuine mental disorders. In marked contrast with the field of psychology, psychiatry leaders have expressed consistent concerns about the use of psychiatric labels to justify civil detention schemes.

Next time around, the APA might want to do a better job selecting committee members in the first place. The "paraphilias subworkgroup" was heavily biased in favor of hebephilia because of its domination by psychologists from the Canadian sex clinic that proposed the new disorder in the first place, and is the only entity doing research on it. But what a waste of time and energy to create a committee that comes up with wild and wacky proposals that are only going to end up getting shot down when the rubber meets the road.

Backpedaling on paradigm shift

As regular readers of this blog know, the DSM-5 developers' grand ambitions to bring forth a revolutionary "paradigm shift" produced alarm among mental health professionals and consumer advocacy groups both in the United States and internationally. The British Psychological Society, the UK's 50,000-member professional body, issued a strongly worded critique, and a coalition of psychological associations garnered more than 14,000 signatures on a petition opposing the wholesale lowering of diagnostic thresholds for disorder.

Yesterday's news release marked an about-face, with the APA now stressing that diagnostic changes in the DSM-5 were intended to be "very conservative."

"Our work has been aimed at more accurately defining mental disorders that have a real impact on people’s lives, not expanding the scope of psychiatry," said David J. Kupfer, MD, chair of the DSM-5 Task Force.

Consistent with this, several of the proposed changes that generated the most widespread alarm were rejected. The Board of Trustees rejected the highly controversial "attenuated psychosis syndrome" that could have created an epidemic of false positives, stigmatizing eccentric young people and lowering the threshold for prescribing potentially harmful antipsychotic drugs. It also backed away from an equally controversial, and complex, revamping of the personality disorders. These conditions, as well as a contentious Internet gaming disorder, will all be placed in "section 3" of the new manual as conditions meriting further study.

Allen Frances, the DSM-IV Task Force chair and a high-profile critic of the DSM-5 project, called the spin that the DSM-5 will have minimal impact on psychiatric diagnosis and treatment "misleading":

"This is an untenable claim that DSM 5 cannot possibly support because, for completely unfathomable reasons, it never took the simple and inexpensive step of actually studying the impact of DSM on rates in real world settings…. Except for autism, all the DSM 5 changes loosen diagnosis and threaten to turn our current diagnostic inflation into diagnostic hyperinflation. Painful experience with previous DSM's teaches that if anything in the diagnostic system can be misused and turned into a fad, it will be. Many millions of people with normal grief, gluttony, distractibility, worries, reactions to stress, the temper tantrums of childhood, the forgetting of old age, and 'behavioral addictions' will soon be mislabeled as psychiatrically sick and given inappropriate treatment."

Among the controversial diagnostic changes that will go forward in the DSM-5, due to be published in mid-2013:

• Asperger’s syndrome is being eliminated as a separate disorder (it will be folded into an autism spectrum disorder)
• Depression is being expanded to include some grief reactions
• A brand-new "disruptive mood dysregulation disorder" has critics fearing psychiatric labeling of children who have temper tantrums

Two other sets of changes have particular relevance to forensic practitioners. Substance abuse disorders have been reframed as "behavioral addictions," which Frances warns could be a "slippery slope" leading to "careless overdiagnosis of internet and sex addiction and the development of lucrative treatment programs to exploit these new markets."

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) will be included in a new chapter on trauma and stress-related disorders, with four distinct diagnostic clusters instead of the current three, and "more attention to the behavioral symptoms that accompany PTSD." Some worry that the reconfigured PTSD may lend itself to misuse of the hot-button diagnosis in forensic cases.

Yesterday’s APA news release outlining the changes can be found HERE. My hebephilia resource page is HERE.

Forensic psychiatrists reject hebephilia - yet again!

Will American Psychiatric Association heed professional consensus?

Twenty years ago, Humbert Humbert went to prison for a series of sexual assaults on his 12-year-old stepdaughter, whom he famously nicknamed "Lolita." Now, as his lengthy prison term draws to a close, Wisconsin is petitioning to have the 60-year-old literature professor indefinitely detained as a Sexually Violent Predator.

The venue for last week's trial of Vladimir Nabokov's fictional protagonist was the annual convention of the American Association of Psychiatry and Law (AAPL) in Montreal. The central question, decided by audience vote, was whether the controversial diagnosis "hebephilia" qualified as a legitimate mental disorder justifying Mr. Humbert's indefinite civil detention.

The rousing theatrical performance featured an all-star cast of attorneys and psychologists, presided over by Toronto Judge Maureen D. Forestell. New Jersey Assistant Attorney General Mark Singer served as prosecutor. His expert witness was prominent psychiatrist Richard Krueger, a member of the paraphilias subworkgroup that has proposed adding "hebephilia" to the next edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). A hebephilic qualifier would extend pedophilia to men with sexual preferences for children who have entered puberty, such as the fictional Lolita.

Defending Mr. Humbert was preeminent Wisconsin attorney Robert LeBell. His expert was Washington psychologist Richard Wollert, who has published peer-reviewed articles on SVP-related topics and testifies for the defense in civil commitment proceedings. Appearing as the court's expert was prominent Canadian psychiatrist John Bradford, an advisor on paraphilia (or sexual deviance) to the DSM-IV, past president of the AAPL and clinical director of the Sexual Behaviors Clinic in Ottawa.

After a spirited and sometimes heated trial, the 131-member audience was given electronic clickers and voted overwhelmingly -- 82 percent -- against including hebephilia as a diagnosis in the DSM-5, due out in mid-2013. A majority also voted against even including the controversial diagnosis in a DSM-5 appendix as a condition meriting further study.

Third time's the charm?

This marks at least the third time in two years that respected professional bodies have voted against the idea of hebephilia as a new mental disorder. At a 2010 vote in Oslo, Norway, members of the International Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders (IATSO) were near-unanimously opposed to the newly proposed sexual paraphilia. U.S. forensic psychiatrists followed suit a month later at the 2010 AAPL conference, overwhelmingly voting against hebephilia as well as two other proposed paraphilias, "paraphilic coercive disorder" (aka rape) and hypersexuality, both since scrapped.

Earlier this year, more than 100 professionals, including prominent forensic psychologists and psychiatrists in the U.S. and internationally, sent an open letter to the DSM-5 revisers, urging them to nix hebephilia. Since then, at least two peer-reviewed articles have been published deconstructing its legitimacy, one in the respected Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases ("Hebephilia and the Construction of a Fictitious Diagnosis" by forensic psychologists Paul Good and the late Jules Burstein) and the other a broad review ("Hebephilia as mental disorder?") by scholars Bruce Rind and Richard Yuill in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.

Rind and Yuill said they undertook their extensive review of the historical and cross-cultural evidence after hebephilia proponent Raymond Blanchard (a member of the DSM-5 paraphilias subworkgroup) and his colleagues at Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health brushed aside numerous published criticisms of the proposed disorder (see Table 1). Building on their earlier research, Rind and Yuill argue that hebephilia -- generally defined as sexual attraction to young pubescents in the age range of 11 to 14 -- is a biologically normal trait found to varying degrees in both human males and our closest mammalian relatives, such as higher apes. They blast hebephilia as a bold example of naked moral values masquerading as science:

"Blanchard et al. … did not invoke comparative evidence…. They did not invoke any evidence…. They declared it a disorder by fiat, bypassing scientific analysis in favor of a pre-given conclusion supportable only because it is, for the current time and place, culturally resonant. Had their pronouncement been the opposite (i.e., hebephilia is functional), their article would never have been accepted in a peer-reviewed journal without massive evidential backing. Strongly resonant opinion can facilely pass through without the kind of scrutiny demanded of non-resonant views."

Why hebephilia still clings to life, despite so much opposition and so little scientific support, is beyond me. It's like an unwanted house guest who just refuses to take the hint and pack his suitcase.

The evidence at trial 

In attacking the government's diagnosis of his client, defense attorney LeBell focused on the dearth of empirical studies on the condition, other than by researchers at a single Toronto clinic, and the likelihood of "false positive" diagnoses in legal cases.

The wording of the proposed new diagnosis has been changed again and again over the past couple of years. In its current iteration, pedophiles are defined as those who have "an equal or greater sexual arousal from prepubescent or early pubescent children than from physically mature persons, as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors." (The requirements that the fantasies or urges be "recurrent" or "intense" have been removed, broadening the potential pool of sufferers.) Hebephiles are now defined as those with sexual attractions to "pubescent children" in Stages 2 to 3 of Tanner's pubertal stages (e.g., early development of pubic hair and breasts).

Defense expert Wollert testified that the problem of "false positives" -- people incorrectly identified as having a condition -- was extraordinarily high even in the controlled setting of the research laboratory. This problem would be much more acute in the forensic trenches where the hebephilia diagnosis is being deployed, he testified.

One insurmountable problem would be reliably identifying a sexual abuse victim's Tanner stage of pubertal development. Complicating this issue, testified the court's expert, John Bradford, Tanner Stages are highly variable. Because they reflect hormonal developments rather than specific ages, one could not assume a specific Tanner stage based on the age of a victim. About two years ago, alarming research indicated that girls are entering puberty far earlier than in previous generations; this month, a large study by the American Academy of Pediatrics identified a similar trend in boys.

Wisconsin psychiatrist Lynn Maskel, who organized and moderated the mock trial, labeled hebephilia a "weed diagnosis in the botanical garden of DSM."

"The question is not if sex with pubescent year old girls illegal, or if it is immoral," she told the audience of forensic psychiatrists. "The question to the psychiatric field is: Is it a disorder? And if it is, does this translate, for the expert witness, into a requisite mental disorder found in the specific SVP statute?"

Meanwhile, back in the real courtroom trenches …

In my seminal review, published in 2010 in Behavioral Sciences and the Law, I traced hebephilia's sudden emergence and rapid spread in legal discourse to the advent of Sexually Violent Predator laws, which require that the individual being considered for civil detention have a mental disorder that makes him qualitatively different from the garden-variety offender.

Since that article's publication, the introduction of hebephilia in U.S. courts has continued unabated, despite the lack of an official imprimatur by the American Psychiatric Association. In a string of SVP cases brought under the Adam Walsh Act, federal judges in North Carolina have ruled that the faux diagnosis is not a legitimate basis for civil detention.

However, other courts have been less circumspect. For example, just yesterday, in a narrow, 4-3 opinion, New York's high court upheld the civil commitment of a repeat sex offender named "Shannon S." based on the purported conditions of "paraphilia NOS" and "hebephilia." Mr. S. had engaged in a series of forcible rapes of adolescent girls, ages 13 through 16.

As the dissenters conceded, Shannon S. was a "very bad actor" and "the community may well be safer if he is kept behind bars."

"But, they added, "to put him there on the fiction that he has some sort of mental condition other than a tendency to commit the crimes for which he was convicted (and has served his time) is and should be constitutionally unacceptable."

Judge Robert Smith, writing for the minority, labeled as "absurd" the premise that attraction to adolescent girls is abnormal, as the government's two experts testified: "What is abnormal about appellant, and others who commit statutory rape by having sex with girls below the age of consent, is not that they find the girls attractive, but that they are willing to exploit them for their sexual pleasure -- in other words, they commit statutory rape."

Smith labeled hebephilia and the similarly disputed diagnosis of "paraphilia not otherwise specified" (rape) as "junk science devised for the purpose of locking up dangerous criminals." While such a practice might seem appealing from a public safety viewpoint, it creates "dangers of abuse," he eloquently warned:

"Many sex offenders are, or could reasonably be found to be, dangerous, and in common parlance they all have mental abnormalities: Mentally normal people do not commit sex crimes. Thus, unless 'mental abnormality' is defined with scientific rigor, such statutes could become a license to lock up indefinitely, without invoking the cumbersome procedures of the criminal law, every sex offender a judge or jury thinks likely to offend again.

"Some will intuitively respond: Not a bad idea. But it is a very bad idea, because not even a concern for public safety should be allowed to trump certain fundamental rules. Among them are that criminals can be confined only for crimes they have committed, after their guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a procedure in which they receive the many protections that our Constitution gives to those accused of crime, and that even when convicted they can be incarcerated for no more than the term of the maximum sentence provided by law. If the present sentences for sex offenders are too short, the Legislature should make them longer, but it should not, and constitutionally cannot, simply substitute civil for criminal proceedings as a means of keeping dangerous criminals off the streets."

As Judge Smith seems to recognize, it's a slippery slope. Bogus psychiatric diagnoses for sex offenders now, political dissidents (or others) tomorrow. That's the way they rolled in the former Soviet Union, after all.

Pretextual court rulings aside, the paraphilias subworkgroup has had more than two years to produce evidence for the reliability and validity of hebephilia, and it has not done so.

It is clear to most observers that hebephilia is not accepted by the relevant professional community. What remains unclear is whether the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association will get the message in time to prevent yet another in a veritable maelstrom of public-relations disasters and historical mistakes.

* * * * *

Additional resources: My resource page on hebephilia is HERE.

Of related interest: DSM-5  field trials discredit the American Psychiatric Association, by Allen Frances, Huffington Post, 10/31/2012

Happy Halloween!

Another one bites the dust: Hollow SVP prosecution no match for jurors' common sense

15 minutes.

After a five-week trial, that's how long it took a jury in a rural Northern California county to decide that an openly gay man who had served two years in prison for a forcible oral copulation of an acquaintance back in 2003 did not merit civil commitment as a sexually violent predator.

The prosecution's case featured a lone government psychologist whose opinion rested on a hollow combination of homophobia, bogus psychiatric diagnoses and trumped-up risk estimates. The psychologist cited archaic (and discredited) Freudian theory to claim that the ex-offender's crime at age 23 was evidence of an "oral incorporation" fixation caused by a domineering mother and an absent biological father. As a legal basis for civil commitment, he cited the bogus disorder of "paraphilia not otherwise specified-nonconsent,” and he used the Static-99R actuarial tool to present a highly inflated estimate of risk.

Testifying for the defense were four psychologists, including two retained by the defense, a government evaluator who had changed her mind (or "flipped," in the current parlance) and the man's treating psychologist at Coalinga State Hospital, who testified in no uncertain terms that "Mr. Smith," as I will call him, is neither mentally disordered nor likely to reoffend.

The defense team had barely left the courthouse when the court clerk summoned them back, saying the jury had reached a verdict. Their astonishingly fast decision hints that the jurors agreed that this case was an egregious example of overzealous prosecution and a waste of their valuable time.

Prior to being screened for possible civil commitment, Mr. Smith had been on parole in the community for 14 months without getting into any trouble whatsoever. Indeed, he was busy doing good works. His sexually violent predator screening stemmed from an entirely accidental parole violation connected with his charity work for a local gay rights organization. He had a special parole condition forbidding any contact with children. When a fellow member of the executive board brought his child to an awards ceremony, Mr. Smith was exposed to "incidental contact as one might have while shopping at a market," in the words of the parole hearing officer. Unfortunately for Mr. Smith, this was just one month after California voters enacted Jessica's Law, which allows for civil commitment of sex offenders who have only one qualifying victim rather than the previous minimum of two.

The prosecutor's strategy, as is typical in weak cases, was to hurl as many prejudicial, pseudoscientific labels as possible in Mr. Smith's direction, and hope a few might stick and scare jurors into voting for civil commitment: Psychopath, antisocial, homosexual, paraphilic, high risk, etc.

While licensed as a psychologist, the government's expert had not done what clinical psychologists are trained to do: Psychological testing, individualized case formulation, etc. Rather, as he boldly admitted on the witness stand, he relied on an assistant to cull through Mr. Smith's hospital records and pull out negative behavioral reports for him to review. Wow! Can you spell B-I-A-S?

In my testimony, which stretched over the course of three days, I stressed that Mr. Smith was neither sexually deviant nor likely to reoffend. His risk of sexual reoffense, I testified, was no greater than that of any other garden-variety sex offender. (The base rate of sexual recidivism among convicted sex offenders in California -- similar to the rest of the United States -- hovers around 6 percent or less.) I explained how growing up gay in a homophobic family and community causes sexual identity confusion that can lead to sexual acting out and other delinquent behavior in adolescence and early adulthood, and how Mr. Smith had changed as he matured and accepted his sexuality. I further debunked the accuracy of the Static-99R "actuarial" risk estimates assigned in this case, and the pretextually applied diagnoses of "paraphilia not otherwise specified-nonconsent" (which I've blogged about repeatedly) and antisocial personality disorder, a red herring that was invoked despite Mr. Smith's exceptionally good conduct in the community and while in prison.

Stacking the deck

The prosecutor tried to stack the deck by striking from the jury all gay people or those who admitted having relatives or close friends who are gay; he also challenged those with advanced educational degrees. I guess he thought it would be easier to pull the wool over the eyes of an uneducated jury. It just goes to show that times have changed: Even in a rural county, antigay discrimination is no longer considered acceptable, and jurors don't need PhD's to recognize bias and pseudoscience when they hear it.  

The verdict was likely a bitter-sweet moment for Mr. Smith, who had spent more than four years incarcerated at Coalinga awaiting trial. Luckily, he has close friends to stay with while getting on his feet.

This is my third SVP case in a row that evaporated when finally exposed to the light of day. Like Mr. Smith's case, one of the other two also featured prominent antigay bias; the other targeted an immigrant. In neither case were the men either pedophiles or rapists.

I suppose I should feel pleased to see such gross miscarriages of justice thwarted. Instead, I find myself horrified by the unfettered power wielded by rogue psychologists, assigned to a case by luck of the draw. Whereas many government evaluators reserve "positive" findings for the rare sex offenders who are truly deviant and at high risk to reoffend, others are just hacks who are raking in obscene amounts of public funds while making little effort to truly understand these men, their motivations, their circumstances, or their pathways to desistance.

Especially frightening is the unconscious bias that creeps into SVP prosecutions. The constructs of "mental disorder" and "risk for reoffense" are malleable, lending themselves to use as pretextual weapons of prejudice wielded against gay men, racial minorities (especially African American men) and immigrants.

Clearly, people shouldn't get away with sexual misconduct. But none of these men had. All had pleaded guilty and served their time, only to be ambushed at the end of their prison terms with misguided efforts to indefinitely detain them based on purported future risk.

As it turned out, each case was about as solid as a house of cards. It didn't take gale-force winds like Hurricane Sandy's to flatten them.

Evaluators flipping like pancakes

The "flipping" of government evaluators illustrated this weak foundation. In two of the three cases, after reading the more thorough and individualized reports of the defense-retained experts, government psychologists abruptly changed their minds and decided that their previously proffered diagnoses of "paraphilia not otherwise-nonconsent" were invalid.

On the one hand, I applaud the openness and ethical backbone such a change of heart signals. But these "flips" also demonstrate the whimsical, nonscientific nature of the commitment process. The longer I work in these trenches, the more I realize that the random assignment of evaluators and attorneys (on both sides) exerts as much influence on the outcome as does the true level of future risk to the community that an ex-offender poses.

Indeed, the real reason Mr. Smith -- clearly not a sexual predator to anyone with a whit of commons sense -- was taken to trial, at a total cost to the citizenry of hundreds of thousands of dollars, was not because of his high risk, but because of a rigid prosecutor who was blind to the writing on the wall.

In contrast, the government dismissed the other two cases (one in the Midwest and one in the South) on the eve of trial. One case involved a gay man who had a brief sexual interlude with a teenage male relative; the other involved an immigrant who had gone on two dates with an underage teen girl he met on an online dating site (his misconduct never went beyond petting). Both had served substantial prison terms. But, again, garden-variety sex offenders, not the depraved, sex-crazed monsters likely envisioned by jurors when they are told they will be deciding a "sexually violent predator" case.

Bottom line: Should a random clinical psychologist, earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year churning out boilerplate pseudoscientific garbage, be allowed to decide the fates of others?

At least in this one case, 12 discerning and conscientious jurors answered that question with a resounding "NO."


ON OTHER,TOTALLY UNRELATED NOTES: If you're looking for an intelligent movie in theaters now (always a challenging search), ARGO earns a qualified thumbs-up from me; my review is HERE. (If you find the review helpful, please click on "yes" at the bottom.) I've also just finished reading a thoroughly researched and well-written cultural biography of John Brown, Midnight Rising, that positions his raid on Harper's Ferry as a seminal moment in the lead-up to the Civil War. Tony Horwitz previously wrote Conservatives in the Attic, which -- as the descendant of Southerners -- I found spot-on.

Static-99R risk estimates wildly unstable, developers admit

The developers of the widely used Static-99R risk assessment tool for sex offenders have conceded that the instrument is not accurate in providing numerical estimates of risk for sexual recidivism for any specific offender.

The startling admission was published in the current issue of Criminal Justice and Behavior.

Examining the data from the 23 separate groups (totaling 8,106 offenders) that cumulatively make up the instrument’s aggregate norms, the researchers found alarmingly large variability in risk estimates depending on the underlying sample. The problem was especially acute for offenders with higher risk scores. A few examples:

• At a low Static-99R score of "2," an offender’s predicted sexual recidivism rate after 10 years ranged from a low of 3 percent to a high of 20 percent, depending on the sample.

• A score of "5" led to a recidivism estimate after five years of 10 percent in a large, representative sample of Swedish sex offenders, but a 250 percent higher risk, of 25 percent, in one U.S. sample. The absolute differences for more extreme scores were even larger.

• Conversely, the Static-99R score that would predict a 15 percent likelihood of recidivism after five years ranged from a low-risk score of "2" to a high-risk score of "8," an enormous difference (greater than two standard deviations).

The study’s authors -- Karl Hanson, Leslie Helmus, David Thornton, Andrew Harris and Kelly Babchishin -- concede that such large variability in risk estimates "could lead to meaningfully different conclusions concerning an offender’s likelihood of recidivism."

Overall risk lower than previously found

Despite the wide variations in rates of offending, the absolute recidivism rate for the typical sex offender in the combined samples was low overall. The rate of recidivism among typical sex offenders after five years was only 7 percent or less (with a range of 4 to 12 percent), lower than had been reported in a previous meta-analysis. The 10-year risk ranged from 6 to 22 percent for the typical offender.

The research team speculates that the risk inflation in earlier analyses may have been an artifact of characteristics of the underlying samples, with data from higher-risk offenders more likely to be preserved and available for study. We know that a sister instrument, the MnSOST-R, produced inflated estimates of risk due to oversampling of high-risk offenders.

Will risk inflation continue?

MC Escher, "Hand with Reflecting Sphere"

The Static-99R has a very modest ability to discriminate recidivists from non-recidivists. Its so-called "Area Under the Curve" statistic of around .70 means that, if you were to randomly select one known recidivist and one non-recidivist from a group of offenders, there is about a 70 percent probability that someone who will reoffend will have a higher score than someone who won’t.

Such information about a test’s relative accuracy may be helpful when one is choosing which method to employ in doing a risk assessment. But there are a number of problems with relying on it when reporting one's assessment of a specific individual.

First of all, even that level of reliability may be illusory. A study that is currently in progress is finding poor inter-rater agreement on scores in routine practice, especially at the higher risk levels.

Second, with base rates of recidivism hovering around 6 to 7 percent, even under optimal conditions it is very difficult to accurately predict who will reoffend. For every person correctly flagged as a recidivist based on a high Static-99R score, at least three non-recidivists will be falsely flagged, according to research by Jay Singh and others, as well as published error-rate calculations by forensic psychologists Gregory DeClue and Terence Campbell.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, telling a judge or jury how an offender compares with other offenders does not provide meaningful information about the offender’s actual risk. Indeed, such testimony can be highly misleading. For example, told that "Mr. Smith scored in the 97th percentile," judges and jurors may understandably believe this to be an estimate of actual risk, when the less frightening reality is that the person's odds of reoffending are far, far lower (probably no greater than 16 percent), even if he scores in the high-risk range. Seeing such statements in reports always flashes me back to a slim little treatise that was required reading in journalism school, How to Lie With Statistics.

Rather, what the trier of fact needs is a well calibrated test, such that predicted probabilities of recidivism match up with actual observed risk. The newly developed MnSOST-3 is promising in that regard, at least for offenders in Minnesota, where it was developed. In contrast, the popular Static-99 tools have always overestimated risk.

When the Static-99 premiered, it featured a single table of misleadingly precise risk figures. High scorers were predicted to reoffend at a rate of 52 percent after 15 years, which made it easy for government evaluators to testify that an offender with a high score met the legal criteria required for civil commitment of being "likely" to reoffend.

The instrument’s developers now admit that this original risk table "turned out to be a gross simplification."

Indeed, with each of a series of new iterations over the past few years, the Static-99's absolute risk estimates have progressively declined, such that it would be difficult for the instrument to show high enough risk to support civil detention in most cases. However, in 2009 the developers introduced a new method that can artificially inflate risk levels by comparing an offender not to the instrument's aggregate norms, but to a specially created "high risk" subsample (or "reference group") with unusually high recidivism rates.

Some evaluators are using this method on any offender who is referred for possible civil commitment. For example, I was just reviewing the transcript of a government expert's testimony that he uses these special high-risk norms on offenders who are referred for "an administrative or judicial process." In some cases, this amounts to heaping prejudice upon prejudice. Let's suppose that an offender is referred in a biased manner, due to his race or sexual orientation (something that happens far more often than you might think, and will be the topic of a future blog post). Next, based solely on this referral, this individual's risk level is calculated using recidivism rates that are guaranteed to elevate his risk as compared with other, run-of-the-mill offenders. This method has not been peer reviewed or published, and there is no evidence to support its reliability or validity. Thus, it essentially amounts to the claim that the offender in question is at an especially high risk as compared with other offenders, just "because I (or we) say so." 

The admission of poor stability across samples should make it more difficult to claim that this untested procedure -- which assumes some level of commonality between the selected reference group and the individual being assessed -- is sufficiently accurate for use in legal proceedings. Given some of the sketchy practices being employed in court, however, I am skeptical that this practice will be abandoned in the immediate future.

The article is: "Absolute recidivism rates predicted by Static-99R and Static-2002R sex offender risk assessment tools vary across samples: A meta-analysis" by Leslie Helmus, R. Karl Hanson, David Thornton, Kelly M. Babchishin and Andrew J. R. Harris. Click HERE to request a copy from Dr. Hanson. 

Mysterious mental illness epidemics hit sexual predators in Arizona, Illinois

European sex offenders largely spared pejorative conditions

First responders racing to scene of a pedophilia outbreak

A survey of Sexually Violent Predator cases in eight U.S. states has revealed striking disparities in psychiatric disorders.

Almost two-thirds of the worst-of-the-worst sex offenders in Arizona suffer from pedophilia, and more than half have bad cases of a strange-sounding new disease called "paraphilia not otherwise specified." That is almost double the rate of pedophilia cases in Minnesota (with 35 percent) and, similarly, much higher than the rate of paraphilia not otherwise specified in Wisconsin (37 percent).

Meanwhile, a whopping 94 percent of sex offenders in Illinois suffer from personality disorders, most commonly antisocial personality disorder and an oddball affliction called "personality disorder not otherwise specified." That’s more than double the rate of personality disorders in Wisconsin, where only 41 percent of sex offenders have any personality disorder, mostly antisocial personality disorder.

The cause of the strange outbreaks remains shrouded in mystery. Could the dry climate in the U.S. Southwest produce more pedophiles? Perhaps the Chicago winds lend themselves to an infiltration of antisocial characters? Or, there is always the possibility of circumscribed contagions within the containment facilities for sex offenders in these two geographically discreet states (as in Legionella pneumophila).

Quarantining suspected antisocial virus carriers returning from court

The researchers who discovered the pattern attribute some of the variation to sampling differences. The Florida and Texas samples may have lower rates of mental illness, they write, because those samples included men who were referred for civil commitment but found not to meet criteria. In contrast, the samples from the other states consisted of men who were either civilly committed or on their way to being committed, having lost probable cause hearings in court.

The researchers are Shan Jumper, clinical director of a detention facility in the personality disorder-ridden state of Illinois and a leader of a national consortium of SVP facility administrators, and colleagues Mark Babula of Ohio and Todd Casbon of Indiana.

The three surveyed the SVP population in Illinois and compared their results with previously collected data from Arizona, California, Florida, Minnesota, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin. The study appears in the current issue of the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology.

On average, pedophilia was the most common diagnosis among SVPs, assigned in 49% of cases nationwide. This was followed by paraphilia not otherwise specified (47%), antisocial personality disorder (43%), and personality disorder not otherwise specified (36%). Other sexual paraphilias, or abnormal sexual predilections, such as voyeurism, exhibitionism and sexual sadism, were assigned far less frequently.

Illusory differences?

All kidding aside, I would be willing to bet that there’s not a whole lot of genuine difference among the detained sex offenders in one state as compared with another. If that is so, then the dramatically different rates of diagnosis among the eight states is further evidence that these diagnoses – invoked as a legal basis for involuntary detention – are being applied arbitrarily, even whimsically, and lack sufficient reliability or validity.

Further support for evaluator differences as accounting for the large discrepancies is the fact that rates of these mental disorders are far lower in European countries that do not require mental illness as a basis for preventive detention of dangerous sex offenders. In one German survey, for example, about one-third of men who were civilly detained had molested children yet only 7 percent were diagnosed with pedophilia, suggesting the diagnosis is reserved for those with a demonstrable sexual orientation toward children.

The intriguing question of why forensic evaluators in certain of the 20 U.S. states with Sexually Violent Predator statutes are more likely to assign a given diagnosis than are their counterparts in other states remains a mystery.

The irony of the "NOS" label

With the advent of SVP laws, "NOS" categories of paraphilia (sexual deviance) and personality disorder have steadily gained popularity among sex offender evaluators in the United States.

The irony of assigning the label of "not otherwise specified" as if it is a bona fide mental disorder meriting involuntary detention largely escapes notice. But what an evaluator is actually conceding in assigning that descriptor is that the individual does NOT meet the minimal criteria for any established mental disorder, as catalogued in the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual, the DSM-IV-TR.

If you flip through the personality disorders section of the DSM, you will notice all manner of symptoms. Stop any random stranger on the street, and he or she is likely to manifest at least a few. For example, consider these:

• Angry reactions to perceived attacks on character or reputation (paranoid personality)
• Use of physical appearance to draw attention to oneself (histrionic personality)
• Envy of others (narcissistic personality)
• Feelings of inadequacy (avoidant personality)
• Difficulty disagreeing with others for fear of losing their support (dependent personality)
• Reluctance to delegate unless others conform to one's standards (obsessive compulsive personality)

The label of "personality disorder not otherwise specified" is given to individuals who are thought to have some smattering of symptoms of one or more personality disorders, but do not meet the full criteria for any. Most often, this label carries the specifier, "antisocial traits." What this actually means is that the individual does not meet even the minimal criteria for a diagnosis shared by a large proportion -- anywhere from 40 to 60 percent -- of garden-variety criminals in prison. (Of course, to qualify for a personality disorder, the person must suffer distress or impairment in functioning as a result of his symptoms. But, in a tautology, evaluators often say that this condition is met by the mere fact of arrest and incarceration.)

Harkening back to the original justification for SVP laws, the US Supreme Court stressed, in the landmark cases of Hendricks (1996) and Crane (2002), that the goal of civil commitment was to isolate a handful of mentally disordered predators who were qualitatively different from the run-of-the-mill criminal. How a diagnosis that essentially admits that the individual does not even qualify for an established disorder can meet that threshold is beyond me.

Click HERE to request the article, “Diagnostic Profiles of Civilly Committed Sexual Offenders in Illinois and Other Reporting Jurisdictions: What We Know So Far,” from the first author.

Assessing “volitional control” in sex offenders

When I review government reports in sexually violent predator cases, I find that most focus on two things: (1) the person's risk of future sexual violence, and (2) whether that risk is related to a psychiatric disorder.

But this misses a critical piece of the puzzle. In order for a civil commitment based on future danger to be Constitutional under Kansas v. Crane, the former sex offender must also demonstrate a serious difficulty controlling his behavior.

It's understandable that some evaluators shy away from addressing this issue of so-called "volitional control." After all, it is not easy to measure. Far easier to assume a circular tautology, in which a failure to control one's behavior is advanced as evidence of inability to exert self control. But, as the American Psychiatric Association famously noted in a 1983 statement opposing conclusory opinions on volitional control in insanity cases:

"The line between an irresistible impulse and an impulse not resisted is probably no sharper than that between twilight and dusk."

Into this breach jumps psychologist Frederick Winsmann of Boston. In an article in the current issue of Sex Offender Treatment, he proposes a model for how to assess volitional control in sexually violent predator evaluations.

Credit: The Bad Chemicals

Winsmann theorizes that poor self control emanates from two related processes: (1) behavioral impulsivity, and (2) impaired decision-making. He recommends that evaluators incorporate screening measures that tap into these two processes, such as the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale and tests of executive (frontal lobe) functioning like the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test or the Iowa Gambling Task.

While this approach is a welcome step in the right direction, it must be recognized that tests of impulsivity and frontal lobe functioning are just indirect measures of the volitional impairment that is theorized to underlie some sexual offending.

Indeed, Winsmann stresses that these tests should be approached as part of a larger idiographic framework of understanding the person as a unique individual, and that poor test performance does not in and of itself establish volitional impairment. For example, scores may be lowered by poor cognitive abilities. (I have also seen cognitively normal people with fine self control do poorly on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test due to high anxiety.)

The full article is available for free online (HERE).

Sex offender news roundup

As always, there are lots of developments on the sex offender front. I haven't had time to blog about each individually, so here are a few brief reports with links.

State and federal civil commitment continues to unravel

Piggy-backing off of USA Today's recent expose, Prison Legal News takes an in-depth look at the status of the federal sex offender civil commitment process. As I’ve reported here on various occasions, federal judges in North Carolina are being thoughtful in their application of the “Sexually Dangerous Person” law (18 USC 4248). Rather than simply rubber-stamping government reports as truth, the judges “have shown a willingness to carefully sift through the facts” and the relevant law in each individual case.

Increasingly, federal judges are agreeing with the findings of private psychologists and defense experts in civil commitment cases, which has put the DOJ in the unusual position of losing more contested hearings than it wins. Courts have repeatedly found that the federal government failed to meet its burden of proof that prisoners certified for civil commitment are sexually dangerous or have a high risk of reoffending, as required by 4248.

Gratifying for independent forensic professionals is the fact that judges are finding outside psychologists more objective and reliable than psychologists on the payroll of the Board of Prison Terms, whose reports are “sometimes questionable.” Notes PLN reporter Derek Gilna, the judges are “consistently realizing that independent psychologists are “more objective, thorough and nuanced in their observations and findings.”

Despite its string of losses, the federal government is still holding ex-convicts for years after they complete their prison terms, pending civil commitment hearings. That’s “a chilling reminder of the power of the DOJ to arbitrarily deprive prisoners of their freedom,” writes Gilna.

Challenge to Minnesota commitment gains ground

Meanwhile, another federal judge has issued a court order mandating changes in the civil commitment system in Minnesota, after detainees brought a class action challenge. That state’s civil detention program is infamous around the world for its failure to release inmate “patients” even after years of sex offender treatment; it was on that basis that Britain recently rejected a U.S. bid to extradite an accused child molester.

Reports the Star Tribune:

Moose Lake detention facility

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan [has] ordered state Human Services Commissioner Lucinda Jesson to convene a task force of experts to recommend options less restrictive than the state's prison-like treatment centers and to suggest changes in how offenders are selected for civil commitment, as well as how they might earn release from the program. The order came during pretrial discussions in a class-action lawsuit brought by patients who argued that their indefinite detention after completing their prison sentences is unconstitutional. Critics of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) hailed Boylan's order as an unprecedented and significant step toward changing a system that has been a magnet for controversy since its creation in 1994 with the construction in Moose Lake of a sprawling campus surrounded by razor wire.

The 63-page class action complaint can be found HERE.

New book: The Myth of Sex Addiction

I’ve been meaning to blog about this topic; I’ve got a half-finished post stashed away somewhere. But now I don’t have to: David Ley has written a whole book about it (proving that sometimes procrastination pays off).

In The Myth of Sex Addiction, Ley presents the cultural history, moral judgments and junk science underlying this disorder that has recently arisen in the public’s imagination. As described in the book’s summary:

David Ley

He exposes the subjective values embedded in the concept, as well as the significant economic factors that drive the label of sex addiction in clinical practice and the popular media. Ley outlines how this label represents a social attack on many forms of sexuality--male sexuality in particular--as well as presenting the difficulty this label creates in holding people responsible for their sexual behaviors. Going against current assumptions and trends, Ley debunks the idea that sex addiction is real. Instead, he suggests that the high-sex behaviors of some men is something that has been tacitly condoned for countless years and is only now labeled as a disorder as men are being held accountable to the same rules that have been applied to women. He suggests we should expect men to take responsibility for sexual choices, rather than supporting an approach that labels male sexual desire as a "demonic force" that must be resisted, feared, treated, and exorcised.  

In a review in the online newsletter of the influential Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA), David Prescott calls the book indispensable for individuals engaged in the assessment and/or treatment of sex offenders, because "our clients typically do not have the luxury of selecting a treatment provider and can quickly find themselves in legally tenuous situations should they hold different beliefs than their therapist."

Study: Sexting not risky or psychologically problematic

Here’s another myth-buster: Sexting is not associated with sexually risky behavior or other problems.

That's according to a study published online in the Journal of Adolescent Health. More than four out of ten youngsters in a large U.S. sample of 3,447 had engaged in sexting, the researchers found. There was no association between sexting and either psychological well-being or engagement in sexual risk behaviors. The study flies in the face of alarmist hype over this increasingly ubiquitous phenomenon of the electronic age.

Sex offender recidivism through a therapeutic jurisprudence lens

Legal scholars Michael Perlin and Heather Cucolo of New York Law School have turned their focus to the effects of sex offender laws on rehabilitation and community reintegration. Their new article, published in the fall issue of the Temple Political and Civil Rights Law and also available online, suggests public policy changes that would minimize re-offense rates while still protecting human rights. As summarized in the abstract:

[The article] highlights the failure of community containment laws and ordinances by focusing on (1) the myths/perceptions that have arisen about sex offenders, and how society incorporates those myths into legislation, (2) the lack of rehabilitation offered to incarcerated or civilly committed offenders, resulting in inadequate re-entry preparation, (3) the anti-therapeutic and inhumane effect of the laws and ordinances created to restrict sex offenders in the community, and (4) the reluctance and resistance of courts to incorporate therapeutic jurisprudence in seeking to remediate this set of circumstances. It concludes by offering some modest suggestions, based on the adoption of a therapeutic jurisprudence model of analysis.

The only odd thing about the article is that its title is not derived from Bob Dylan lyrics, as Perlin's articles usually are. That must have been the influence of his co-author.

Alarmist study amps up sex offender fears

At the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, here's yet another piece of alarmist reporting:

"Nearly one in six convicted sex offenders is using sophisticated techniques invented by identity thieves" in order to escape registration requirements, blurts a news story that received quite a bit of press a bit ago.

My first reaction: ONLY one-sixth? After all, how many of us would want to wear a scarlet letter everywhere we went, a letter that effectively banished us from housing, jobs, school, community -- basically, from any kind of normal life.

Don Rebovich, the lead researcher in this study, who heads the ominously named Center for Identity Management and Information Protection (CIMIP) at Utica College, hyped former sex offenders' attempts to navigate around registration laws as "a growing societal problem."

"We have to dig deeper to find out why this is happening," he said.

Really?! If he cannot figure it out without further digging, he must not know how to walk in another's shoes. We’re talking about onerous laws that severely restrict where ex-offenders can live and require them to broadcast the addresses of any employment or school they attend. Laws that incite the prurient interests of nosy neighbors. Laws that invade the privacy of loved ones. Laws that have even led to a string of vigilante murders. People on these registries are motivated by the desire to protect family members, shield themselves from nosy neighbors, and get jobs.

Even the New York Daily News, certainly no sympathizer toward ex-offenders, notes in its coverage of the study that the various attempts to evade scrutiny "don't mean the offenders aren't checking in regularly with their parole officers. Actual absconder rates -- the percentage of sex offenders who get released and disappear -- are extremely low."

Ironically, as highlighted in the Perlin and Cucolo article referenced above, a growing body of empirical research suggests that registration laws do nothing to protect the public or reduce recidivism. Indeed, they may foster recidivism, by isolating former sex offenders and destroying all hope of leading productive, law-abiding lives.

Frank Kuni, New Jersey sexual registry entry

Meanwhile, what was the heinous crime of the so-called “poster child” for violating the registration rules -- the worst violator they could find?

Frank Kuni of New Jersey did not commit a new sex crime. Rather, he changed his name in order to land a job. With the US Census Service, no less. In other words, as one article put it, he had the audacity to try to "slip back into society" and become a productive citizen.

Further resources:

I  recommend the Prison Legal News article, Federal Sex Offender Civil Commitment Process Under Fire, for those interested in an in-depth report on recent federal decisions. Prison Legal News has lots of other cutting-edge news coverage, as well; I recommend browsing the site and signing up if you find the information useful. There is a free email alert option. 

My blog list of online sexting resources can be found HERE. 

Preventing Sex-Offender Recidivism Through Therapeutic Jurisprudence Approaches and Specialized Community Integration by Heather Cucolo and Michael L. Perlin can be freely downloaded from the Social Science Research Network site. 

My 2007 blog post on sex offender banishment, Exiles in their own land: Sex offenders and the history of banishment in Western culture, is HERE.  

Hat tips: Bruce, Sandi, Ken Pope