Dr. Frances is Professor Emeritus, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2020 Jun;48(2):191-194. doi: 10.29158/JAAPL.200020-20. Epub 2020 May 8.
Supreme Court rulings supporting the constitutionality of sexually violent predator (SVP) statutes require that evaluators determine whether the rapist has a mental disorder (which justifies psychiatric commitment) or is just a common criminal (who cannot be preventively detained psychiatrically), but they offer no guidelines on making this crucial distinction. Until recently, state evaluators ignored the crucial fact that rape as a mental disorder has been roundly rejected by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) four times in the past 45 years (in DSM-III, DSM-III-R, DSM-IV, and DSM-5). The most common diagnosis in SVP cases was "other specified paraphilia, nonconsent," which was based on a misunderstanding and misuse of the DSM definition of "paraphilia." Sreenivasan and colleagues suggest antisocial personality disorder as an appropriate standalone diagnosis to replace "paraphilia" and report it has been allowable in 19 states, although it has been disallowed in New York state courts and in the federal courts. My contrasting view is that antisocial personality disorder is not an appropriate diagnosis in SVP cases because it overlaps almost completely with common criminality, holds only a very marginal place in psychiatric diagnosis, never serves as grounds for civil psychiatric commitment, and is never considered a valid psychiatric excuse to avoid prison for rape and therefore is not a legitimate psychiatric excuse for preventive incarceration after the criminal sentence has been served.
最高法院的裁决支持性暴力掠夺者(SVP)法规的合宪性,要求评估人员确定强奸犯是否患有精神障碍(这证明了精神病学承诺的合理性)还是只是普通罪犯(不能预防性地进行精神病学拘留),但他们没有提供关于做出这一关键区分的指导方针。直到最近,州评估人员才忽略了一个关键事实,即在过去的 45 年中,精神障碍性强奸已被《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》(DSM)四次否决(在 DSM-III、DSM-III-R、DSM-IV 和 DSM-5 中)。SVP 案件中最常见的诊断是“其他特定性癖障碍,不同意”,这是基于对 DSM 中“性癖障碍”定义的误解和滥用。Sreenivasan 及其同事建议将反社会人格障碍作为一种合适的独立诊断来取代“性癖障碍”,并报告说它已经在 19 个州被允许,尽管它在纽约州法院和联邦法院被禁止。我持相反的观点,认为反社会人格障碍在 SVP 案件中不是一个合适的诊断,因为它几乎完全与普通犯罪重叠,在精神病学诊断中只占有非常边缘化的地位,从未作为民事精神病学承诺的理由,也从未被视为因强奸而避免入狱的有效精神病学借口,因此不是在刑事判决后预防性监禁的合法精神病学借口。