Respondent is the subject of a sex offender civil management petition filed pursuant to article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law. A hearing was conducted to determine whether probable cause exists to believe respondent is a sex offender requiring civil management pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.06 (k). The petitioner called one witness, a Psychiatric examiner. Although the court did not credit certain aspects of her testimony, as explained infra, the court found her testimony to be credible. The respondent did not call any witnesses.
A New York Sex Crimes lawyer said that witness is employed by the New York State Office of Mental Health since August 2007 testified that she is both a psychologist and psychiatrist currently evaluating and diagnosing sex offenders. She testified that she had previously worked in New York State at the Central New York Psychiatric Center treating and evaluating sex offenders and had also worked at the Albany Correctional Facility, as the Acting Coordinator of the Mental Health Unit, where she did sex offender evaluation and provided some crisis intervention treatment while supervising a staff of eight. Outside New York State, She testified, she had evaluated criminal female offenders and juveniles in California as part of her doctoral program and did community mental health work in New Hampshire. She further stated that she had been to over 10 training sessions and conferences with experts in the field of sex offenders from March 2006 through August 2008.
The witness said she had evaluated or diagnosed criminal sex offenders with disorders related to thought, mood, substance abuse, sex and personality. She stated that she had evaluated over 40 sex offenders pursuant to article 10 and approximately 100 sex offenders in total. Additionally, she testified that she teaches developmental psychology and an undergraduate course in forensic behavioral science.
On cross-examination the witness acknowledged that the “DSM,” which she acknowledged was “sort of the Bible of psychiatric diagnosis,” indicated with respect to exhibitionism that “[i]f the person acts on these urges [to expose himself to a stranger] there is generally no attempt of sexual activity with the stranger.” She indicated that her view that exhibitionists escalate to hands-on offenses was “based upon the research book, the DSM-IV-TR.” She testified that the escalation by the respondent of his exhibitionistic behavior to the hands-on instant offense “was a function of his exhibitionism.” She testified that “there’s a lot of research that demonstrates that exhibitionists escalate. Absolutely it’s likely he can escalate again. That’s a function of an exhibitionist. Typically they engage in other paraphilic behavior and many escalate.” She further testified that although the respondent had exhibited feelings of humiliation and shame following the 1993 attempted rape offense, he experienced those same feelings following his exhibitionist behavior and that exhibitionist behavior had not been curtailed because of those feelings. She said that there was no indication that his sex offender treatment would prevent RESPONDENT from escalating his exhibitionism and voyeurism to a hands-on offense.
To Be Cont
Determination of probable cause is necessary for filing a criminal complaint, since it provides that there was a crime committed and the accused is probably responsible for the act committed. Here in Stephen Bilkis and associates, our New York Sex Crimes lawyer will file a proper complaint in court against the ones who are responsible for the offense committed. Thereafter, the court will determine whether there is a well-founded belief that a crime was committed and the accused is the author of the crime. For other concerns, don’t hesitate to contact our New York Rape attorneys who will defend the victims of this sex crime.