Abstract
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the civil commitment of sex offenders with paraphilia disorders in Kansas v. Hendricks and Kansas v. Crane. These proceedings have essentially created a cottage industry and generated two partisan advocacy expert camps (defense and prosecution). Both camps are challenged with the burdens of diagnosing paraphilias when considering the nebulous descriptive language within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR). This article will discuss shortcomings of the DSM as well as potential inherent clinician bias relevant to proferring diagnoses in SVP evaluations. The author will include a brief case study addressing diagnostic dilemmas within a framework that considers professional ethical issues, recognizing one' s forensic ideology and forensic identification with the retaining legal counsel, while attempting to minimize bias. The author will recommend that experts consider the functional abilities and behavioral symptoms of the sex offender as they relate to patterns of sex offending, there nature to sexual deviance, and there relationship to future sexual recidivism in addition to the diagnostic requirements and subsequent forensic limitations of the DSM-IV-TR.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
