JAAPL
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 32:4:440-442 (2004)
Copyright © 2004 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vognsen, J
Right arrow Articles by Phenix, A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vognsen, J
Right arrow Articles by Phenix, A
COMMENT

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

J Vognsen and A Phenix

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.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Am Acad Psychiatry LawHome page
M. B. First and R. L. Halon
Use of DSM Paraphilia Diagnoses in Sexually Violent Predator Commitment Cases
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, December 1, 2008; 36(4): 443 - 454.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.