An analysis of the argument that clinicians under-predict sexual violence in civil commitment cases.

This paper presents the results of an analysis that evaluated the assumptions and arguments set forth in a recent paper (Doren, 1998), which concluded that clinicians under-predict the risk that candidates for commitment as dangerous sex offenders will recidivate. This analysis indicates that such a conclusion is untenable because almost all of the assertions on which it is based might be disputed in one way or another. These flaws undermine the paper's value as a source of secondary authority in hearings pertaining to the commitment of dangerous sex offenders. Nonetheless, its publication will probably be beneficial for professional practice in this arena because it raises several important issues that stand in need of resolution.