Antisocial personality disorder is not enough: a reply to Sreenivasan, Weinberger, and Garrick.

This commentary seeks to extend the recent article by Sreenivasan et al, which supports the contention that case law history allows for the commitment of a sexually violent predator/sexually dangerous person (SVP/SDP) based on a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder and absent a paraphilic condition. We argue that a clear sexual disorder must be present before a person can be found to be an SVP/SDP. A diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder is not enough.