ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Oct 19 – Los Angeles, Nov 16 – Sacramento, Dec 14 – Phone | details

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

General News

Hebephilia flunks Frye test

In a strongly worded rejection of hebephilia, a New York judge has ruled that the controversial diagnosis cannot be used in legal proceedings because of “overwhelming opposition” to its validity among the psychiatric community. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. mjk

    The sex offender placement tool used by NY to place sex offenders on one of three levels/tiers has never been scientifically validated. It’s been in use now for 2 decades.

  2. Clark

    Wow…Judge Conviser there in NewYork laid the smackdown on “its already accepted”……
    That’s the separation of powers at work. It Works.
    Anyone having to go through this ordeal look at what they are trying to apply to you and contact the blogger of this news article.
    He or She blogger testified in front of the Honorable Judge Conviser that helped smackdown that use of diagnosis. Contact the blogger..!

    • Clark

      Anyone in any state , should contact the fantastic work of Karen Franklin, PhD. She is the blogger on the article. She is based in California, but as you see she can help in other state. Fantastic Work.
      Have your legal rep contact her or perhaps you could send her a question as well should you be in that civil commitment situation.
      http://www.karenfranklin.com/

  3. mike r

    if one was to replace hebephilia in this statement with sex offender registration then the same conclusions must be reached about the registry

    preparation for my testimony at this and similar Frye hearings in New York, I expanded on my 2010 article in Behavioral Sciences and the Law tracing hebephilia’s rise from obscurity, to produce an updated chart containing all 116 articles addressing the construct. If one tallies only those articles that take a position (pro or con) on hebephilia (sex offender registration) are not written by members of the CAMH team, fully 83% are critical as compared to only 17% that are favorable. This, Judge Conviser noted, is strong evidence against the government’s position that hebephilia is “generally accepted” by the relevant scientific communities.

  4. Timmr

    I would say this judge is of Supreme quality. Imagine if the slackers judging the registry in 2003 actually researched the “frightening and high” claim back to where it originated, not to any hard science but to emotional rantings of one ignorant legislator in Texas.

  5. mch

    This is a wise judge to actually do some research and find the facts. Often times, the state owned, bought and paid for “independent” psychiatrists do come up with some bizarre diagnoses. When they throw hebephilia in their diagnosis and it doesn’t work, then they will write something like this: paraphilic disorder NOS (not otherwise specified). like WTF? Is this some catch-all disorder when they can’t pin something real on you? Yes, it is in the DSM-5.
    As I’ve said before, the state psychiatrists are like the blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat that was never there. Usually the DA’s get their requested diagnosis from their so called independent forensic psychs. I call bulls**t !

  6. 72FLH

    my hats off to this judge for at least looking for real facts , rather than just looking in to the hungry eyes of the very people that stand to gain an even larger edge than what they all ready have, or maybe it was what was in their eyes that set this judges bull sh** alarm off , what ever it was it says something about what kind of man it is sitting behind that bench , good work on his part , and all the people that helped to inform him of some facts ,

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.