Academy of Healing Arts Massage Sexually Violent Predators Position Paper no plagiarize, spell check, and check your grammar. Please use the references bel

Academy of Healing Arts Massage Sexually Violent Predators Position Paper no plagiarize, spell check, and check your grammar. Please use the references below. double space. Sexually violent predators are among the most feared and the most ridiculed individuals in our society. Some states have enacted legislation to allow civil commitment of sexually violent predators once they have been released from prison. After conducting your own research, form an opinion on this topic and present an argument reflecting your position for or against the civil commitment of sexually violent predators in a 1,400-4-persuasive essay. Cite at least three professional sources to support your argument. Your paper should be formatted in APA 6th edition. References Alleyne, J. E., Joshi, K. G., & Gehle, M. E. (2016). Expert witness testimony in civil commitment hearings for sexually dangerous individuals. Journal Of The American Academy Of Psychiatry And The Law, 44(2), 265-267. Lieb, R. & Matson, S. (1998). Sexual predator commitment laws in the United States: 1998 update. Retrieved from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/sexcomm_98.pdf Wrighten, S. A., Al-Barwani, M. B., Moran, R. R., McKee, G. R., & Dwyer, R. G. (2015). Sexually violent predators and civil commitment: is selection evidence based? Journal Of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 26(5), 652-666 Legal Digest
did not outweigh any mitigating circumstances, then
Mr. Saranchak would have been sentenced to life
imprisonment. The circuit court found that the earlier PCRA court had misapplied the law by opining
that Mr. Saranchak’s mental health history would
not have swayed even one juror under the case’s facts
and Mr. Saranchak therefore was not prejudiced.
The circuit court pointed out that Mr. Saranchak
was not required to establish prejudice by showing
that one juror would have been swayed, but instead,
that he only had to show a reasonable probability that
the outcome would have been different absent counsel’s errors. The court found that the presentation of
Mr. Saranchak’s mental health history to the jury
could have been a vital mitigating factor that would
have supported a sentence of life imprisonment. Accordingly, the Third Circuit Court overturned the
death sentence.
sentence. Failure to attempt to humanize a capital
defendant through mitigating evidence pointing to
his personal circumstances, including problematic
psychological and developmental histories, precludes
a jury from weighing the entire picture as the law
intended during the penalty phase.
Disclosures of financial or other potential conflicts of interest: None.
Expert Witness Testimony in
Civil Commitment Hearings
for Sexually Dangerous
Individuals
Jennifer E. Alleyne, MD
Fellow in Forensic Psychiatry
Kaustubh G. Joshi, MD
Discussion
The Saranchak court weighed the importance of
mental health evidence in the guilt and penalty
phases of trial. Failure to present a defendant’s history of mental problems alone during either trial
phase will not automatically render a conviction or
sentence defective, since courts will weigh the probable impact of such evidence against the factual circumstances of a particular case. A defendant exhibiting signs indicating mental health problems, as in
this case, should have prompted a full psychiatric
evaluation, especially in the setting of a capital case.
Such an evaluation may not provide a viable defense
or grounds to suppress a confession at the guilt phase,
but it is difficult to argue that the evaluation would
not be beneficial to a capital defendant during the
penalty phase. Further, sole reliance on an evaluation
limited to the question of competence to stand trial
to determine the need for further evaluation is problematic, even if a defendant is not forthcoming about
his personal history.
There may be numerous reasons why a defendant
or his family would not disclose the defendant’s mental health history or dysfunctional family dynamics,
including stigma or shame. However, that lack of
disclosure does not absolve counsel from the responsibility of investigating a defendant’s mental health
when other sources point to such a history. Mitigation offers the defense an opportunity to humanize a
capital defendant, countering the prosecution’s
charge to present aggravating factors to secure a death
Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry
Associate Director, Forensic Psychiatry Fellowship
University of South Carolina School of Medicine
Columbia, SC
Marie E. Gehle, PsyD
Chief Psychologist
South Carolina Department of Mental Health
Columbia, SC
The North Dakota Supreme Court Considers
the Admission of Contested Expert
Testimony during Commitment Proceedings
In In re Loy, 862 N.W.2d 500 (N.D. 2015), Garrett Alan Loy appealed his civil commitment as a
sexually dangerous individual directly to the North
Dakota Supreme Court, in part, on the basis of his
assertion that the court erred in admitting the testimony of two expert witnesses and that the state did
not prove by clear and convincing evidence that he
was a sexually dangerous individual.
Facts of the Case
In 2005, Mr. Loy pleaded guilty to a charge of
gross sexual imposition, resulting in the revocation of
his probation from a prior 2004 conviction for a
similar charge. He was ordered to serve two consecutive terms of 10 years of incarceration suspended to
5 years and to complete an intensive sex offender
treatment program while incarcerated, which he did
in 2012. Before his release, Mr. Loy was evaluated
under the sexually dangerous individual statute, and
Volume 44, Number 2, 2016
265
Legal Digest
the North Dakota Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation did not recommend civil commitment. However, the evaluator was concerned that
Mr. Loy was at high risk to reoffend after release; she
recommended treatment to help him gradually reintegrate into society.
The state filed a petition to commit Mr. Loy as a
sexually dangerous individual. Dr. Lynne Sullivan
submitted an evaluation on behalf of the state. Before
the commitment hearing, Mr. Loy was deemed indigent and given a court-appointed attorney. He motioned for an independent evaluation, and the court
appointed Dr. Gregory Volk. Mr. Loy later hired a
private attorney. Because he was able to hire private
counsel, the district court required Mr. Loy to provide a financial affidavit. He had $2,800 in assets and
was ordered to pay $2,700 toward the expense of the
independent evaluation. Mr. Loy moved to replace
the court-appointed evaluator with his own independent evaluator, but his motion was denied.
At the time of the hearing, Dr. Sullivan’s psychology license was under probation. Mr. Loy moved to
exclude her testimony, arguing that she was not a
qualified expert. The court denied his motion. Dr.
Sullivan testified that Mr. Loy had “hypersexuality”
and other specified paraphilic disorder (hebephilia)
and opined that he was at high risk of engaging in
further acts of sexually predatory conduct.
Dr. Volk testified that Mr. Loy met criteria for
other specified paraphilic disorder (hebephilia), unspecified depressive disorder, and other specified personality disorder; he opined that Mr. Loy was of
moderate to high risk to reoffend, but that Mr. Loy
could be successfully released into the community if
he was actively engaged in treatment and adequate
levels of supervision were maintained. At the commitment hearing, Dr. Volk testified that Mr. Loy
failed to pay him $2,700, as ordered by the court. He
testified that this failure to pay indicated a likelihood
of disobeying a court order. Mr. Loy moved to have
Dr. Volk’s testimony excluded for alleged bias, but
was denied.
The district court determined that there was clear
and convincing evidence that Mr. Loy is a sexually
dangerous individual. The district court specifically
stated that his failure to pay Dr. Volk was not a
pivotal factor in the court’s finding. The court
amended its prior order, deleting the requirement
that he pay for the independent evaluation.
266
Mr. Loy appealed to the North Dakota Supreme
Court. He argued that the district court erred in
allowing the testimonies of Drs. Sullivan (due to the
probationary status of her license) and Volk (due to
his alleged bias against Mr. Loy) as expert witnesses.
He also argued that the district court erred in determining that the state had proved by clear and convincing evidence that he was a sexually dangerous
individual. This argument was based on Dr. Sullivan’s lack of an in-person interview of Mr. Loy, her
failure to reach a diagnosis with a specific psychological examination, her alleged erroneous diagnosis of Mr. Loy, and Dr. Volk’s evaluation supporting Mr. Loy’s transition back into society.
Ruling and Reasoning
In a three-to-two decision, the North Dakota Supreme Court held that the district court did not err in
allowing the testimonies of Drs. Sullivan and Volk. It
also held that the court did not err in determining
that there was clear and convincing evidence that
Mr. Loy was a sexually dangerous individual.
The North Dakota Supreme Court ruled that the
probationary status of Dr. Sullivan’s license did not
nullify her license. Thus, she met the statutory standard (under N.D. Cent. Code § 25-03.3-01(4),
(2007)) and the evidentiary standard (under N.D.R.
Evid. 702) required to testify as an expert witness.
The state supreme court found that the probationary
status of her licensure spoke to the credibility, not the
admissibility, of her testimony, and that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in admitting her as
a qualified expert witness.
The North Dakota Supreme Court also found
that the requirement that Mr. Loy pay for Dr. Volk’s
evaluation was made in error. The majority found
this error to be harmless. The state supreme court, in
In re O.H.W., 775 N.W.2d 73 (N. D. 2009), had
held that alleged professional ethics violations, including conflicts of interest, have bearing on the
credibility of the testimony, but not on admissibility.
It ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Dr. Volk as a qualified expert
witness and it gave deference to the district court’s
assessment of witness credibility.
The North Dakota Supreme Court opined that
Dr. Sullivan’s lack of an in-person interview did not
bar her issuing a diagnosis, but that the absence of a
face-to-face interview affected credibility, not admissibility. Both experts diagnosed Mr. Loy with mental
The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
Legal Digest
disorders that would make him likely to engage in
further acts of sexually predatory conduct. They
agreed that he had difficulty controlling his sexual
impulses and also agreed in the results of the examinations conducted according to methodology accepted in the profession. The state supreme court
opined that the district court’s determination was
not erroneous.
In dissent, two justices agreed with the majority
that the district court’s order requiring Mr. Loy to
partially pay for Dr. Volk’s evaluation was based on
“an erroneous view of the law,” but disagreed that
this was a harmless error under the circumstances.
They stated that ordering Mr. Loy to pay for a
portion of the independent evaluation was an obligation the court should not have imposed in the first
place. They found that these errors (allowing biased
testimony and an erroneous interpretation of the
law) may have been individually harmless; however,
the errors were so intertwined and interrelated, and
the cumulative effect so tainted the process that it
required reversal.
Discussion
Sexually dangerous individual (or sexually violent
predator) laws across the country follow a general
scheme. The individual has been convicted of certain
sexual offenses and has a mental abnormality or
personality disorder that makes him likely to commit
similar crimes in the future. Whether decided by a
judge or jury, the result is frequently the indefinite
commitment of the person. Because the questions at
hand are generally outside the expertise of the trier of
fact, the testimony of qualified expert witnesses is
crucial. Therefore, the admissibility and credibility
of mental health testimony are often heavily scrutinized during the proceedings.
Mr. Loy sought to find Dr. Sullivan’s and
Dr. Volk’s testimonies inadmissible on different
grounds. Having a license on probation, giving testimony that creates an alleged bias, or, for example,
routinely testifying for one side versus the other does
not automatically render the witness unqualified or
the testimony inadmissible. In most jurisdictions,
the case law and statutes governing the admission of
expert witness testimony allow for its use if the witness has some degree of expertise in the field in which
he will testify and if the testimony helps the trier of
fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact at
issue.
Inherent in the civil commitment of sexual offenders are complex concerns regarding psychiatric
diagnoses, risk assessment, and volitional impairment. The trier of fact depends on expert testimony
to understand and decide these questions. If the expert has a skeleton in the closet, has an imperfection
in his qualifications, or holds an alleged bias, the trier
of fact should appropriately weigh the credibility of
that testimony when rendering a decision. Such testimony is not automatically inadmissible. A court’s
discretion in admitting expert witness testimony will
not be reversed unless the district court abuses its
discretion in admitting expert testimony. Finally, in
most jurisdictions, the court’s assessment of witness
credibility is granted deference.
Disclosures of financial or other potential conflicts of interest: None.
Child Testimony and Best
Interests of the Child in Child
Custody or Visitation Cases
Sandeep K. Gude, MD
Fellow in Forensic Psychiatry
Kaustubh G. Joshi, MD
Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry
Associate Director, Forensic Psychiatry Fellowship
University of South Carolina School of Medicine
Columbia, SC
Marie E. Gehle, PsyD
Chief Psychologist
South Carolina Department of Mental Health
Columbia, SC
The Supreme Court of Kentucky Considered
Whether the Trial Court Can Refuse to
Permit Children to Testify in Child Custody
or Visitation Cases and Whether the Trial
Court Appropriately Applied the BestInterests-of-the-Child Standard to Each Child
in Determining Child Custody
In Addison v. Addison, 463 S.W.3d 755 (Ky.
2015), Kevin and Lydia Addison were involved in a
child custody dispute. They both appealed to the
Kentucky Supreme Court. Mr. Addison appealed
the Kentucky Court of Appeals’ decision that the
trial court erred in refusing to permit the children
to testify. Ms. Addison contended that the trial
court failed to apply the best-interests-of-the-child
Volume 44, Number 2, 2016
267
The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 2015
Vol. 26, No. 5, 652–666, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2015.1040439
Sexually violent predators and civil commitment: is selection
evidence based?
Shayna A. Wrightena*, Marlene B. Al-Barwanib, Robert R. Moranc,
Geoffrey R. McKeed and R. Gregg Dwyere
a
Department of Biology, Francis Marion University, Florence, SC, USA; bCollege of
Social Work, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA; cDepartment of
Biostatistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA; dForensic
Psychological Services, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA; eCommunity
and Public Safety Psychiatry Division, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral
Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
(Received 3 December 2014; accepted 31 March 2015)
Sexual offenses represent an alarming proportion of crimes committed
yearly. To address these concerns, several states, including South Carolina
(SC), have enacted laws requiring sexually violent predators (SVPs) to be
civilly committed to treatment. To date, no published study has examined
sexual offenders recommended for treatment in SC. This study used a specially designed statewide database (SC-SVP research database) to determine which offender and offense characteristics were associated with
increased likelihood of being recommended for civil commitment. Factors
correlated with being more likely to be recommended included: being of a
younger age at time of evaluation, prior sex convictions, having related
and unrelated victims, a higher number of victims, frequent substance use,
and a history of suicide attempts. Prior sex convictions, having both related
and non-related victims, and a higher total number of victims align with
characteristics associated with sexual recidivism. Frequent substance abuse
and a history of suicide attempts do not mirror previous ?ndings regarding
sexual recidivism. These ?ndings present new information regarding the
civil commitment process of offenders being committed to the SC-SVP
treatment program, characterize types of offenders committed to SC-SVP
treatment program, and provide a foundation for using a computerized
database in conducting sex offender research.
Keywords: sexually violent predators; sexual offenses; sexual offenders;
sexual offender treatment programs; recidivism; civil commitment
Introduction
Sexual offenses, including rape, child molestation, and other sexually violent
acts, represent a critical national concern. In 1997, the United States Supreme
*Corresponding author. Email: swrighten@fmarion.edu
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology
653
Court ruled in favor of the state of Kansas in Kansas vs. Hendricks declaring
involuntary civil commitment of sexually violent predators (SVPs) under
Kansas’ Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) to be constitutional (Kansas v.
Hendricks, 1997). Subsequently, in 1998 the South Carolina Sexually Violent
Predator Act (SC-SVPA), which allows offenders determined to be SVPs to be
involuntarily committed to an in-state treatment program designed for SVPs,
was passed (Sexually Violent Predator Act, 1998).
The SC-SVPA established a multi-step screening process to assess sex
offender eligibility for involuntary con?nement to SVP treatment programs.
South Carolina’s process for determining civil commitment recommendations
includes seven steps. First, the sexual predator multidisciplinary review team
(SPMDT), consisting of ?ve quali?ed persons, reviews relevant records to
assess if an offender meets criteria to be classi?ed as a SVP (step 1: multidisciplinary review team). If an offender is determined to be a SVP, his/her SPMDT
case summary is forwarded to the prosecutor’s review committee (PRC), where
it is reviewed along with offender records, and additional information submitted by the circuit solicitor to determine whether or not probable cause exists to
believe the offender is a SVP (step 2: prosecutor’s review committee). If the
PRC determines probable cause, the Attorney General ?les a petition for a
probable cause hearing by the court with jurisdiction where the offense was
committed (step 3: Attorney General).
If the court determines that the probable cause allegation is supported, the
offender is transported to a secure facility, if not already held in one, and given
the opportunity to contest the court’s probable cause determination at a probable cause hearing (step 4: probable cause determination). During the probable
cause hearing, the court reviews arguments and additional evidence to assess
whether probable cause exists to believe the offender is a SVP (step 5: probable cause hearing). Offenders receiving a court determination of probable cause
are evaluated at the SC Department of Mental Health (SCDMH) by an expert
examiner to determine SVP status (step 6: mental health evaluation). Next, a
judge or jury hears the testimony of the evaluator(s) and other witnesses to
determine whether or not the offender should be civilly committed to the SVP
treatment program (step 7: SVPTP, trial by jury or judge). Only offenders
receiving a unanimous jury decision or a judicial ruling for commitment are
committed. The case against the offender may be dropped, with no further
bearing on the offender, at any step throughout the process if it is determined
at that step that the offender does not meet criteria for a SVP. Current treatment programs are long-term placements making it imperative that offenders
committed to these programs truly classify as SVPs.
To properly identify offenders who are SVPs, various assessments for risk
of sexual recidivism have been created and employed. These assessments
include: Historical-Clinical-Risk-20, the Sexual Violence Risk-20, the Violence
Risk Appraisal Guide, Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (although this
assessment was originally designed to assess the presence of psychopathy),
654
S.A. Wrighten et al.
and sexual arousal pro?les such as penile plethysmography (Rogers & Jackson,
2005). These tools are designed to aid decision-makers in determining which
sex offenders are most likely to reoffend and are therefore most in need of
being placed in treatment programs (Rogers & Jackson, 2005). Currently, in
SC, the use of these aforementioned assessments during the civil commitment
process is left up to the examiner(s) at the variou…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment