Yet another year of (yawn) Halloween security theater

Evidence and common sense no match for hype

For many, Halloween is a blast. Trick-or-treating, giving out candy, dressing up, perhaps even throwing a party.

But for many convicted sex offenders, it is the most dreaded night of the year. Group roundups, dusk-to-dawn curfews with the lights out, mandatory "no candy" signs on their doors and spot checks for compliance are among the various techniques of control ostensibly designed to protect the public.

Contary to the sex offender hysteria on All Hallows Eve, however, sex offenders are not out snatching and molesting children on Halloween. And they never have been.

Last year, a published study proved what most experts already knew: There is no Halloween spike in sex crimes against children.

"The wide net cast by Halloween laws places some degree of burden on law enforcement officers whose time would otherwise be allocated to addressing more probably dangerous events," noted Jill Levenson of Lynn University in Florida, one of the study's authors. Her research, published in the journal Sexual Abuse, examined crime trends over a 9-year period.

The researchers used data from the National Incident-Base Reporting System to examine crime trends in 30 U.S. states over a 9-year period. They found no increased rate of sexual abuse during the Halloween season. Also, the number of reported incidences did not rise or fall after police implemented current procedures.

Unfortunately, empirical evidence seems incapable of bringing common sense to bear. Probation officers and others continue to implement ridiculous roundups and other once-a-year restrictions on sex offenders, instead of focusing on the real threat to children, which I'll get to in a moment.

Around the nation this Halloween, parole and probation officers will continue to order convicted sex offenders not to answer their doors, decorate their porches, or wear costumes on Halloween. Sex offenders are being ordered to post "NO CANDY HERE" signs on their doors. Others must attend special Halloween "counseling sessions" or "movie nights" where they will be monitored (and, incidentally, protected from false accusations). The restrictions are so widespread and so varied that I no longer have the time or energy to catalog them as I have done on my professional blog in past years. (If you are interested, just do a Google news search for "Halloween sex offender roundup.")

This despite at least one federal court ruling that the restrictions were overly broad, and ridicule from late-night TV pundits of some of the sillier Halloween restrictions.

The farcical crackdowns are a prime example of what Scott Henson at Grits for Breakfast calls "security theater," that is, "hyping (and pretending to solve) a threat that in reality is extremely remote, even to the point of diverting resources from policing activities like DWI enforcement that would protect more people and save more lives."

Why Halloween, we might ask? After all, most sex offenders target people they know, not children off the street. And the crackdowns on registered sex offenders miss the mark anyway, because the overwhelming majority of new sex offenses are committed by men who have never been caught for a past sex offense. Furthermore, registered sex offenders feel so branded and ostracized that most are ducking and hiding today.

But the scare feeds into a deep-rooted cultural fear of the bogeyman stranger. This fear is memorialized in the timeworn Halloween legend of tainted candy that has endured despite myriad attempts at correction. As Benjamin Radford of the Skeptical Enquirer pointed out about the persistence of that stranger-danger myth:

"Despite e-mail warnings, scary stories, and Ann Landers columns to the contrary, there have been only two confirmed cases of children being killed by poisoned Halloween candy, and in both cases the children were killed not in a random act by strangers but intentional murder by one of their parents."

The sad part of both myths is that children are taught a message of fear: Strangers, or even their own neighbors, might try to poison or molest them.

Oh, yes. What is the real danger facing children this Halloween?

It's one your mother always warned you about: Getting hit by a speeding car while crossing a dark street. Car accidents kill about 8,000 children every year in the United States. And children are more than twice as likely to be killed by a car while walking on Halloween night than at any other time of the year.

So this Halloween, show compassion toward a publicly identified sex offender. But please, children, don't get too friendly with cars.

Recommended reading:

Stranger danger and the decline of Halloween, Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Lenore Skenazy (author of Free Range Kids)

I can't believe that this is the fourth year in a row that I have posted a Halloween sex offender roundup. Prior posts:

2007: Beware the Halloween bogeyman!

2008: Pendulum swing on Halloween hype? (Oops! That one was just wishful thinking.)

2009: Halloween "security theater" endures

2010: Psychology Today blog post

Witness: My new blog at Psychology Today

has invited me to be a featured blogger at their website. The blog, "Witness," will feature posts oriented toward a more general readership. I hope you like the title; a friend came up with it for me. I've fired up the new blog with a couple of my most popular posts from this blog. One, "Delusional Campaign for a World without Risk," was selected for the "essential reading" section on the magazine's front page. Psychology Today offers a simple rss feed and other file-sharing software, so I am excited about the opportunity to increase my audience. I'll be adding more material as time allows, so feel free to check back there from time to time.

Europeans first to shoot down controversial paraphilia

Resounding 100-to-1 vote against "pedohebephilia"

I was impressed by the unanimity of opposition to the sexual paraphilias among forensic psychiatrists at their annual conference last week in Tucson, Arizona.

But as it turns out, the sex experts of Europe had the Americans beat, both in numbers and timing.

At last month's meeting of the International Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders (IATSO) in Oslo, Norway, the vote was approximately 100 to 1 against the controversial diagnosis of "pedohebephilia," according to two reliable sources. The lone dissenting voice was a member of the DSM-5 committee.

I hope the DSM revisers are listening. If not, they are going to end up the laughingstock of the world.

Richard Green, MD: "Hebephilia is a Mental Disorder?"

The vote at the IATSO conference, where European psychiatry is strongly represented, came after a talk by Richard Green, a prominent psychiatrist, sexologist, and professor at the Imperial College of London. Green served on the Gender Identity Disorders subcommittee for DSM-IV, and was a leading advocate for removing homosexuality from the DSM back in the 1970s. In a published critique of the hebephilia proposal, he pointed out the parallels:

The parody of science masquerading as democracy made a laughing stock of psychiatry and the APA when it held a popular vote by its membership on whether homosexuality should remain a mental disorder. Decreeing in a few years time that 19-year-olds who prefer sex with 14-year-olds (5 years their junior) have a mental disorder … will not enhance psychiatry’s scientific credibility.

He has also pointed out that the age of legal consent in several European countries falls within the range that the proposed disorder would make pathological for the older participant.

A separate audience poll at the IATSO conference on the proposed diagnosis of hypersexuality was more mixed, with about a third favoring the diagnosis, a third opposing it, and a third undecided, according to one of my sources.

NPR report on AAPL debate

Meanwhile, National Public Radio has reported on Saturday's AAPL vote against the paraphilias. Reporter Alix Spiegel blogged about it on NPR's health blog, "SHOTS," under the heading "Forensic Psychiatrists Don't Favor Some Proposed Sexual Diagnoses."

These negative votes will have no a direct impact on the DSM-5, now due out in 2013. In the case of the controversial sexual paraphilias, one Canadian research group is dominating the process and most of the upcoming field trials will be done at government detention facilities where insular opinion runs heavily in favor of the diagnoses.

Proponents of the paraphilia revisions are urging supporters to lobby the DSM committee. It seems that, as we have seen in the past, lobbyists may have an inordinate impact, overshadowing valid science.

But if the American Psychiatric Association kowtows to this special interest niche and ignores the broader consensus of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals around the world, this will certainly reduce the credibility of the manual in years to come.

UPDATE: My Psychiatric Times coverage of the debate, "Forensic Psychiatrists Vote No on Proposed Paraphilias," is online HERE.

Psychiatrists vote no on controversial paraphilias

By an overwhelming majority, a group of seasoned forensic psychiatrists who work with sex offenders voted last night against three controversial new sexual disorders being proposed for the DSM-5.

The votes were 31-2, 31-2, and 29-2, respectively, against Paraphilic Coercive Disorder, Pedohebephilia, and Hypersexual Disorder. The votes came at the end of a debate at the annual meeting of the American Association of Psychiatry and Law (AAPL) in Tucson, Arizona.

The rejection is symbolic, but sends a strong message to the DSM-5 developers. One of the six debate panelists, Richard Krueger, is a member of the Paraphilias SubWorking Group. Two other panelists serve as advisors to the committee. In the audience were prominent forensic psychiatrists who took stances regarding similar proposals during previous revisions of the DSM.

The American Psychiatric Association, to which most forensic psychiatrists belong, publishes the influential Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, now in its fourth edition. But psychiatrists have not played a central a role in the 20-year-old sex offender civil commitment industry, which is lobbying for these new diagnoses. Much of the planned field testing will be done at civil commitment sites.

The debaters

Arguing for and against Hypersexual Disorder were two prominent psychiatrists with decades of experience in assessing sexual disorders. Richard Krueger, on the "pro" team, is a Columbia University professor and medical director of the Sexual Behavior Clinic at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. John Bradford, an advisor to the DSM-IV and past president of AAPL, is a Distinguished Fellow of the APA, last year earning its prestigious Isaac Ray Award. The University of Ottawa professor is founder and clinical director of the Sexual Behaviors Clinic in Ottawa. He expressed concern about how clinicians would determine how much sexual preoccupation is excessive, and voiced worry that homosexual men might be disproportionately given the label.

Two Wisconsin psychologists debated "Paraphilic Coercive Disorder," which would apply to rapists. Thomas Zander took the "con" position while David Thornton of the Sand Ridge Secure Detention Center for sexually violent predators was "pro." This is the third time that the American Psychiatric Association has considered such a diagnosis.

Tackling Pedohebephilia were two Northern Californians, forensic psychiatrist Douglas Tucker ("pro") and your faithful blogger ("con"). The controversial proposal would expand pedophilia from its current definition, in which the target of sexual attraction must be prepubescent, to young pubescents as old as 14.

The debate was organized by forensic psychiatrist Lynn Maskel, a clinical professor at the University of California-San Diego.

Clinical versus forensic utility?

The three-member "con" team focused on two main themes:

• All three proposed diagnoses lack a sufficient scientific basis.

• They are highly likely to be misused in the forensic context, the primary site for their application.

The "pro" debate team repeatedly insisted that these diagnoses are being proposed based on their scientific merit, not their utility to government evaluators in civil commitment cases. They said these new diagnoses are needed so people suffering with these conditions can get adequate treatment.

The clinical needs argument is a red herring. Clinicians are not turning away patients with problematic sexual behaviors because the proper billing code is missing from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Rapists will not flock in for needed treatment when they hear that a Paraphilic Coercive Disorder label is now available for them.

The audience of forensic psychiatrists clearly did not buy the clinical justification. As more than one audience member asked the panel, If the rationale is strictly clinical, why are attorneys serving as advisors to the work group?

Back in 1986, the last time Paraphilic Coercive Disorder was proposed for the DSM, it was defeated in large part due to the opposition of forensic psychiatrists (not pesky feminists, as the historical revisionists would have it). Hopefully, history will repeat itself with respect to all three of these poorly conceptualized and dangerous proposals.

The debate was audiotaped, and will be available for purchase from AAPL. The texts of the proposed diagnoses can be viewed at the DSM-5 website. My resource page on Hebephilia is HERE. Thomas Zander’s article, Inventing Diagnosis for Civil Commitment of Rapists, is online HERE.

Photo: (L to R) John Bradford, Karen Franklin, Thomas Zander, David Thornton, Douglas Tucker, Richard Krueger. Photo credit: Luis Rosell.

UPDATE: My Psychiatric Times coverage of the debate, "Forensic Psychiatrists Vote No on Proposed Paraphilias," is online HERE.

Arson probe: "Revenge of the scientists"

Perhaps the single most compelling exemplar of problems with the U.S. death penalty is the case of Cameron Willingham of Texas. Willingham, whom I have blogged about before, was executed in 2004 for a house fire in which his three daughters perished. But, as it turned out, the fire may not have been arson after all.

An ongoing probe is fostering rebellion by scientists against pseudoscientific evidence in arson cases. Some are even calling for a re-examination of all arson convictions in Texas from the past 20 years, according to a report by Dave Mann of the Texas Observer, who has covered the case extensively.

PBS Frontline's has a new documentary on the case, "Death by Fire," which I recommend you keep an eye out for. (It's also available on DVD.) The PBS website has great background, online videos, and interactive links. PBS' Hari Sreenivasan has additional commentary and case-related links at his news blog.

Related blog posts:

• Will Texas arson case change death penalty debate? (Sept. 2, 2009)
• Arson: New frontier for exonerations? (July 2, 2008)
  

Is Good Lives only for sex offenders?

A reader asked:

How applicable is the Good Lives Model (book review HERE) to working with people who have transgressed in ways other than sex offending?

Answer:

The theory was not developed for sex offenders in particular. It is being adopted for use with sex offenders under the premise that their patterns of desistance from crime are similar to those of other criminal offenders. Many types of rehabilitation programs are turning to the Good Lives Model and other positive psychology approaches. By way of illustration, here is a testimonial from a Canadian psychologist who uses it with men who have engaged in family violence:

We have been using the Good Lives Model (GLM) in a family violence program for men who batter for the past year. The framework allows us to maintain all the traditional processes one might typically see in an offender program. It also supports the use of a variety of strategies pulled from narrative therapy, solution focused therapy, zen psychology, biofeedback, cognitive behavioural, learning theory, etc. while maintaining a cohesive theoretical perspective.

The GLM approach supports a stronger focus on offender engagement. We find that the men are more able to see what their role is in therapy. We have been conducting exit interview with clients as they complete the program. It is interesting to hear how the values embedded in the program are translated into their narratives. I rarely heard this kind of ownership of change from men when we were teaching a relapse prevention-style group.

I found that shifting to the GLM from a purely cognitive-behavioral, relapse prevention, risk-needs-responsivity approach allowed me to align my understanding of what constitutes good therapy from the effective counselling literature (i.e., the therapeutic engagement of the client). At times I have found the strict manualized approaches to treatment to be more "psycho-educational" than therapeutic.

Our population is largely non-convicted, self-referred men where drop out rates are typically very high. People are finishing this program. Our outcome measures suggest clients experience an increase in self-monitoring, emotional self-regulation, and cognitive flexibility, with reductions in perceived levels of anger and aggression.

I did relapse-prevention sex offender programming for many years and continue to integrate those materials and strategies into the current curriculum. We just get to add a lot more and have the theoretical underpinning to back up our efforts.

Thanks to Ann Marie Dewhurst, Ph.D. of Edmonton for giving me permission to post this example of the Good Lives Model in action.