Evidence-Based Reviews

Paraphilic disorders and sexual criminality

Current Psychiatry. 2022 June;21(6):20-27 | doi: 10.12788/cp.0252

References

1. Federoff JP. The paraphilias. In: Gelder MG, Andreasen NC, López-Ibor JJ Jr, Geddes JR, eds. New Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press; 2012:832-842.
2. Grubin D. Medical models and interventions in sexual deviance. In: Laws R, O’Donohue WT, eds. Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment and Treatment. 2nd ed. Guilford Press; 2008:594-610.
3. Guidry LL, Saleh FM. Clinical considerations of paraphilic sex offenders with comorbid psychiatric conditions. Sex Addict Compulsivity. 2004;11(1-2):21-34.
4. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
5. Balon R. Paraphilic disorders. In: Roberts LW, Hales RE, Yudofsky SC, eds. The American Psychiatric Association Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry. 7th ed. American Psychiatric Association Publishing; 2019:749-770.
6. Sadock BJ, Sadock VA, Ruiz P. Paraphilic disorders. Kaplan and Sadock’s Synopsis of Psychiatry. 11th ed. Wolters Kluwer; 2015:593-599.
7. First MB, Halon RL. Use of DSM paraphilia diagnosis in sexually violent predator commitment cases. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2008;36(4):443-454.
8. Specht v Patterson, 386 US 605 (1967).
9. Ra EP. The civil confinement of sexual predators: a delicate balance. J Civ Rts Econ Dev. 2007;22(1):335-372.
10. Felthous AR, Ko J. Sexually violent predator law in the United States. East Asian Arch Psychiatry. 2018;28(4):159-173.
11. Allen v Illinois, 478 US 364 (1986).
12. Kansas v Hendricks, 521 US 346 (1997).
13. Kansas v Crane, 534 US 407 (2002).
14. McKune v Lile, 536 US 24 (2002).
15. United States v Comstock, 560 US 126 (2010).
16. Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, HR 4472, 109th Cong (2006). Accessed April 25, 2022. https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/4472
17. Tucker DE, Brakel SJ. Sexually violent predator laws. In: Rosner R, Scott C, eds. Principles and Practice of Forensic Psychiatry. 3rd ed. CRC Press; 2017:823-831.
18. Wash. Rev. Code. Ann. §71.09.020(8)
19. Bradford J, de Amorim Levin GV, Booth BD, et al. Forensic assessment of sex offenders. In: Gold LH, Frierson RL, eds. The American Psychiatric Association Publishing Textbook of Forensic Psychiatry. 3rd ed. American Psychiatric Association Publishing; 2017:382-397.
20. Mellor E, Duff S. The use of pornography and the relationship between pornography exposure and sexual offending in males: a systematic review. Aggress Violent Beh. 2019;46:116-126.
21. Failure To Register, 18 USC § 2250 (2012). Accessed April 25, 2022. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2011-title18/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap109B-sec2250
22. Hirschtritt ME, Tucker D, Binder RL. Risk assessment of online child sexual exploitation offenders. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2019;47(2):155-164.
23. Blasko BL. Overview of sexual offender typologies, recidivism, and treatment. In: Jeglic EL, Calkins C, eds. Sexual Violence: Evidence Based Policy and Prevention. Springer; 2016:11-29.
24. Thibaut F, Cosyns P, Fedoroff JP, et al; WFSBP Task Force on Paraphilias. The World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) 2020 guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of paraphilic disorders. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2020;21(6):412-490.
25. Holoyda B. Paraphilias: from diagnosis to treatment. Psychiatric Times. 2019;36(12).

Paraphilic disorders are more common in men than in women; the 2 most prevalent are voyeuristic disorder and frotteuristic disorder.⁶ The incidence of paraphilias in the general outpatient setting varies by disorder. Approximately 45% of individuals with pedophilic disorder seek treatment, whereas only 1% of individuals with zoophilia seek treatment.⁶ The incidence of paraphilic acts also varies drastically; individuals with exhibitionistic disorder engaged in an average of 50 acts vs only 3 for individuals with sexual sadism.⁶ Not all individuals with paraphilic disorders commit crimes. Approximately 58% of sexual offenders meet the criteria for a paraphilic disorder, but antisocial personality disorder is a far more common diagnosis.⁷

Sexual psychopath statutes: Phase 1

In 1937, Michigan became the first state to enact sexual psychopath statutes, allowing for indeterminate sentencing and the civil commitment/treatment of sex offenders with repeated convictions. By the 1970s, more than 30 states had enacted similar statutes. It was not until 1967, in Specht v Patterson,⁸ that the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause was violated when Francis Eddie Specht faced life in prison following his conviction for indecent liberties under the Colorado Sex Offenders Act.

Specht was convicted in 1959 for indecent liberties after pleading guilty to enticing a child younger than age 16 into an office and engaging in sexual activities with them. At the time of Specht’s conviction, the crime of indecent liberties carried a punishment of 10 years. However, Specht was sentenced under the Sexual Offenders Act, which allowed for an indeterminate sentence of 1 day to life in prison. The Supreme Court noted that Specht was denied the right to be present with counsel, to confront the evidence against him, to cross-examine witnesses, and to offer his own evidence, which was a violation of his constitutionally guaranteed Fourteenth Amendment right to Procedural Due Process. The decision led most states to repeal early sexual psychopath statutes.⁸

Sexually violent predator laws: Phase 2

After early sexual psychopath statutes were repealed, many states pushed to update sex offender laws in response to the Earl Shriner case.⁹ In 1989, Shriner was released from prison after serving a 10-year sentence for sexually assaulting 2 teenage girls. At the time, he did not meet the criteria for civil commitment in the state of Washington. On the day he was released, Shriner cut off a young boy’s penis and left him to die. Washington subsequently became the first of many states to enact sexually violent predator (SVP) laws. Table 2¹⁰ shows states and districts that have SVP civil commitment laws.