The use of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) as a qualifying mental disorder for a sexually violent predator (SVP) or a sexually dangerous person (SDP) commitment continues to arouse controversy. Two common questions arise. Is ASPD considered a qualifying mental disorder in statutory or case law definitions? Can ASPD be the sole qualifying mental disorder? We review case law for guidance as to when ASPD may serve as a sole qualifying diagnosis in SVP/SDP evaluations. Other than the federal government and New York, all other jurisdictions with SVP/SDP commitments permit the use of ASPD as a stand-alone diagnosis when it can be linked to sexually violent behavior. ASPD is a viable qualifying disorder when the pattern of offending is atypical, severe, and can be linked to the risk for further sexual offending. ASPD is less viable as a qualifying diagnosis when it is manifested primarily by criminal behavior, the sex crimes are situational in context (e.g., substance abuse, negative peer affiliation), or the disorder cannot be linked to future sexual offending. Case law can provide guidelines, but the forensic clinician as the diagnostic expert bears the responsibility of providing a cogent and sound rationale as to why ASPD drives the risk for sexual reoffense.

中文翻译：

---

在SVP / SDP评估中使用ASPD时的案例法注意事项。

反社会人格障碍（ASPD）作为性暴力掠夺者（SVP）或性危险人（SDP）承诺的合格精神障碍的使用继续引起争议。出现两个常见的问题。在法律或判例法定义中，ASPD是否被视为合格的精神障碍？ASPD可以成为唯一的合格精神障碍吗？我们回顾案例法，以指导ASPD何时可以作为SVP / SDP评估中唯一的合格诊断。除联邦政府和纽约外，所有其他具有SVP / SDP承诺的辖区都允许将ASPD与性暴力行为联系起来作为独立诊断。当犯罪行为异常，严重且可能与进一步的性犯罪风险相关时，ASPD是可行的资格障碍。当ASPD主要表现为犯罪行为，性犯罪是情境中的情境（例如，滥用药物，同伴关系消极）或该疾病与未来的性犯罪无关时，ASPD不能作为合格的诊断。判例法可以提供指导，但是作为诊断专家的法医临床医生有责任就ASPD为什么导致性犯罪的风险提供有力而合理的理由。