Reexamining predictors of trial outcomes in New York State's sex offender civil management process

OBJECTIVE

In 2007, New York enacted the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act, empowering the state to civilly manage individuals who have committed sexual offenses (respondents) and are deemed to have a mental abnormality (MA) that predisposes them to sexually recidivate after serving their criminal sentences. We sought to replicate and extend a previous study (Lu et al., 2015) to identify factors predicting legal decisions.

HYPOTHESES

We predicted, on the basis of previous research, that clinical information (e.g., diagnosis) as well as empirically supported risk factors (e.g., sexual deviance) would predict trial outcomes.

METHOD

We analyzed multiple pieces of demographic, criminogenic, and clinical data on three nested subsamples of respondents on the basis of the legal process: MA consent (n = 713), MA trial (n = 316), and disposition hearing (n = 643). The binary outcomes of interest were as follows: For the MA consent subsample, it was whether the respondent waived their MA trial; for the MA trial subsample, it was whether the respondent was found at trial to have an MA; and for the disposition hearing, it was whether the respondent was ordered to inpatient or outpatient civil management.

RESULTS

The strongest predictor of waiving the trial was geographic location; respondents outside New York City and Long Island were more likely to waive their trials (ORs = 2.38-3.37). The strongest predictors of MA trial and disposition hearing outcomes were Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders diagnoses; pedophilia (ORs = 4.05-7.22) and sexual sadism (ORs = 2.68-7.03) diagnoses increased the likelihood of an MA finding and confinement order.

CONCLUSIONS

Judges and juries give significant weight to clinical information, particularly pedophilia diagnoses, when making civil management legal decisions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

To Confront or to Avoid

What do people want to do in response to witnessing someone violate a moral norm? Prior research posits that violations of distinct norms elicit specific emotions, specifically anger and disgust. We examined whether moral violations analogously elicit distinct behavioral responses, focusing on desires to confront and avoid moral violators. Participants read scenarios depicting harmful and impure actions (Study 1) or violations of all six content domains proposed by Moral Foundations Theory (Study 2). Bayesian inference revealed that participants expressed distinctively high levels of desire to avoid (vs. confront) violators of purity norms. Violations of other moral norms did not similarly elicit unique patterns of avoidance or confrontation. Thus, behavioral responses to moral violators depend in part on which norm was violated, with impure acts eliciting a uniquely strong avoidance response. Moral judgment can serve as a precursor to strategic action in the face of perceived immorality.