Citation

Winters GM, Calkins C, Greene-Colozzi E, Jeglic EL. J. Forensic Psychol. Res. Pract. 2019; 19(2): 170-185.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2019, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/24732850.2018.1556541

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Forensic psychologists and psychiatrists are regularly called upon to conduct sexually violent predator (SVP) evaluations. Commonly, the DSM-5 diagnostic category of paraphilic disorders is used to establish whether an offender has a mental abnormality outlined by the SVP laws. Importantly, the use of paraphilic disorders to establish the mental abnormality criterion has given rise to several ethical concerns, including questions related to validity and reliability. The diagnoses of unspecified paraphilic disorder and other specified paraphilic disorder (including the nonconsent and hebephilia specifiers) have been especially controversial. Therefore, the present article will explore the use of paraphilic disorder diagnoses in the context of SVP evaluations, with emphasis on the other specified paraphilic disorder (OSPD) and unspecified paraphilic disorder (UPD) categories. Moreover, we provide relevant ethical considerations and recommendations for clinicians conducting SVP evaluations in light of the guidelines set forth by the American Psychological Association's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct and the American Psychological Association's Specialty Guidelines in Forensic Psychology.

Language: en

Keywords

ethical issues; hebephilia; nonconsent; paraphilic disorders; Sexually violent predator