Clarification and Update to

Avoiding Garbage 3:

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting Criminal Histories in Sexually Violent Predator Evaluations

This is intended to clarify and update a previous article (DeClue, 2008). It has been brought to my attention by Florida’s Sexually Violent Predator Program (SVPP), for whom I am a contract employee, that some opinions expressed in the previous article might mistakenly be considered to have been facts. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify some points.

1. It is my opinion that “Guidelines regarding the ‘Disposition’ column of evaluators’ reports have been lax.” Also, it is my understanding that SVPP is now in the process of developing clear guidelines regarding that section of evaluators’ reports.

2. It is my opinion that alleged laxness in guidelines has resulted in dissemination of misleading or inaccurate information in some cases. Although it is factually correct that “in one recent report an evaluator simply typed ‘Guilty’ for the disposition” of a particular case for which the person was not actually found guilty, it is my opinion that allegedly lax guidelines resulted in the dissemination of misleading or inaccurate information in that case.

3. It is my opinion that a reader of another report “might have guessed that [a person] was found guilty of seven sex-offense felonies” when reading a report that specified that a person was charged with seven felonies and was sentenced to prison, but did not mention that the person was found guilty of one felony and six misdemeanors.

4. It is my opinion that readers of another report “would likely misinterpret the presentation and believe that the person was convicted of the sex offense described” in the report, because the evaluator failed to specify that the person was found not guilty of the listed sex offense, and that the sentence listed was actually meted out for violation of probation in a separate case.

5. I have no reason to believe that SVPP makes recommendations to state attorneys on the basis of deliberately incorrect or misleading information.

6. It is my opinion that incorrect and misleading information has in some cases been provided to state attorneys by SVPP due to guidelines that in my opinion are lax, not to an intentional desire to mislead state attorneys or judges.

7. It is not my opinion that most evaluator reports sent to state attorneys by SVPP are factually incorrect.

8. It is my opinion that evaluator reports sent to state attorneys by SVPP are sometimes factually incorrect, due to what in my opinion are lax guidelines.

9. I do not know of any program or agency in any state that does a better job than Florida’s Sexually Violent Predator Program at evaluating and screening sex offenders considered for possible civil commitment proceedings.

10. It is my opinion that nobody is perfect, but that it is important that we strive to get the facts right in every case in which a person’s liberty is at issue, and in every case in which a person might be victimized if the wrong decision is made.

11. My intention in writing the previous article and this update is not to embarrass or defame Florida’s Sexually Violent Predator Program, but to promote fairness and accuracy by everyone involved in sexually violent predator cases everywhere.

12. I value and respect the work done by Florida’s Sexually Violent Predator Program. I am proud to be a contract employee and a member of the multidisciplinary team.

Reference

DeClue, G. (2008). Avoiding garbage 3: Fairness and accuracy in reporting criminal histories in sexually violent predator evaluations. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 33, 431-438.