EDITORIAL Sex Offender Testimony: Junk Science or Unethical Testimony?

Sexual predatorstatutes require thatanoffender beeval uated for civil commitment, after completing his penal sentence, by psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health professionals. These professionals are usually asked todeterminewhether theoffender: (1) has been convicted of sexually violent predatory offenses against twoor morevictims; (2) has a "mentalor behav ioral abnormality " that predisposes the person to the commission of criminal sexual acts; (3) is likely to en gage in sexually violent criminal behavior as a result of hismental or behavioral abnormality. Despite the fact that theAmerican Psychiatric As sociation believes that these statutes represent a mis useof psychiatry and are primarilyaimed at preven tive detention, the U.S. SupremeCourt upheld their constitutionality in Kansas v. Hendricks.1 Similar statutes have been passed in about 16 states. The Supreme Court catalogued constitutionally permis sible instances in which "[s]tates have in certain nar rowcircumstances provided for the forcible civil de tainment of people who are unable to control their behavior and who thereby posea dangerto the public health and safety."2 In the aftermath, state depart ments of mental health have rushed to set up mech anisms to evaluate sex offenders whoarecompleting their sentences. These officials have turned to mental health professionals to design and then perform these evaluations. Many professionals, like good soldiers, have charged into the breach and are attempting to do the best possible job. In their efforts to bolste