As mentioned previously, the idea that pedophilia is a mental illness on par with schizophrenia or other strongly biologically caused illnesses of the mind is weak. Yet that hasn't stopped many from suggesting otherwise. And when it comes to the civil commitment of sex offenders, the Supreme Court has concluded that a link between a mental abnormality and volitional control is necessary to justify commitment.
To establish whether someone is a sexual predator, courts almost always rely on psychological experts to ascertain whether the criteria are met. Even if states retain considerable leeway in defining the mental abnormalities and personality disorders that make an individual eligible for commitment, the experts must utilize behavioral science to arrive at their conclusions. After all, that's why the courts entertain behavioral experts in these matters instead of, say, automotive experts. Like most areas of science, behavioral science experts use tests to help them formulate their opinions; and in the area of sex offender assessments, the tests used vary widely and are applied in a variety of clinical and legal situations. But the sheer ease in which these same tests can confirm a mental abnormality in one case and suggest a high risk for recidivism among someone without mental illness in another says a lot about the strange marriage between behavioral science and criminal law.
In State v. Langenkamp, 2008 Ohio 1136; 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 1017 (March 17, 2008) the Court of Appeals of Ohio upheld determination that the defendant was a sexual predator for the purposes of classification for his criminal sentence and future residency registration requirements. Since this was not a civil commitment matter, the mental abnormality issue of Kansas v. Hendricks, et al. was not an issue. Indeed, the prosecutor stated:
The Court has in the record Dr. Martin's report from Forensic Psychiatry Center for Western Ohio dated 12/28/06, which we had a motion hearing on. Dr. Martin found that there was no mental illness or retardation of the Defendant.
But that didn't prevent the experts and the court from giving considerable weight to the various psychological tests used to assess the defendant, including the discredited Rorschach Inkblot Test. Of course, psychological tests can be used for a variety of purposes and are not limited only to the diagnosis of formal mental illnesses. Yet the same tests used in Langenkamp are employed ubiquitously in civil commitment determinations to assert the presence of an underlying mental illness in satisfaction of the mental abnormality prong the various statutes require.
Perhaps this is of no consequence since legal determinations are about legal definitions, which include criminal behavior. And as the facts in Langenkamp suggest, one need not be an expert to ascertain that much of the defendant's life history is repugnant to its very core and his propensity for recidivism seems his penchant. Yet when the law invokes behavioral science to support the notion of mental abnormalities in need of care and treatment in civil commitments contexts while also using those same concepts to support enhanced criminal sanctions then one can truly understand how "the science of psychiatry... informs but does not control ultimate legal determinations."
Update:
Corey Yung has some reactions to this post, including this astute observation:
There are definitely sex offenders who are mentally ill, but that is true of any criminal population. However, society doesn't label all thieves "kleptomanics" because a subset of the thief population are, in fact, kleptomaniacs. Treating all sex offenders as "sick" or "ill" is a mistake that courts, legislators, and policy groups often make.
Leave a comment