ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings


HI: Cause of Action for Shaming Sex Therapy May Not Accrue Until after Release from Prison

[ 6/7/18]

On August 29, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held “it may be reasonable for an incarcerated individual who is told she must resurface past sexual trauma to overcome them to rely on these assurances, and to view associated feelings of emotional distress as normal, contractive responses incidental to the healing process.” In its ruling, the appellate court found it was error to deny a request to amend a complaint to allege the plaintiff was not aware she had been “injured by the therapy program until sometime after she stopped participating in the sessions.”

Before the Ninth Circuit was the appeal of Alexandria Gregg, who claimed she developed a psychological disorder years after she underwent sexual shame therapy sessions at Hawaii’s Kauai Community Correctional Center (KCCC) between March and November 2011. [See: PLN, Jan. 2017, p.40]. The complaint alleged Gregg participated in the Life Time Stand (LTS) program, which was run by KCCC Warden Neal Wagatsuma. The program purported to provide “therapy, counseling, and mental health treatment.”

According to Gregg’s complaint, LTS sessions involved “public sexual shaming.” Prisoners were forced to stand at a lectern and speak about their sexual histories before large groups of men and women prisoners and staff. During one such session, Gregg was asked “whether she had sex while on drugs,” “how many partners [she] previously had sex relations with” and “whether she had been raped.” Warden Wagatsuma then “ordered her to elaborate on previous incidents of rape” in which she was the victim. Prisoners were required to hold up sexual pictures of themselves as Wagatsuma called them “whores.” The sessions were videotaped and shown to the wider prison population.

Read more


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.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Jesus Christmas. How terrible.

Wow. Great ruling. I wonder if anyone involved will suffer some consequences? No, wait. We fully have the Nuremberg Defense in this country, absolving officials of pretty much all wrong doing.

I’m so glad I landed in an actual quality rehab program. Reading about all these “rehab” programs around the country and how they abuse people is incredible.

My spouse is on probation and going through the state mandated therapy (Missouri) and he has had to do the same thing. When you stand in front of the group and give your sexual history, they can veto it and you have to keep revising it and presenting it until the group passes it. In addition, you have to take a sexual history polygraph to make sure that you are telling the truth. There are about five reports that have to be given in the same manner. My spouse has lost about 50 pounds and looks absolutely terrible. In addition… Read more »

“When you stand in front of the group and give your sexual history, they can veto it and you have to keep revising it and presenting it until the group passes it.”
And if they won’t pass you?

Great question! My spouse has presented one piece four times. He finally gave it to the therapist and asked the therapist to look over it and let him know what he/she thinks it needs. It is a nightmare because one piece has taken five months and still hasn’t “passed.”

Psychologists are the witch doctors of this day and age but people are so desperate for answers and cures they’ll buy into almost any crap they dish out.

I’m utterly speechless.

witch hunter moral therapy these people are unreal . How is it that they get away with these in your face crimes calling it therapy ? put them back in stocks in tell this SO says what we want them to say , stupid as hell !

How is this different from conventional sex offender “treatment?” Everything regarding sex offender treatment is designed to shame. The polygraph, for example, requires that you disclose personal and embarrassing sexual history — even several years after conviction, incarceration, and release. Often, the polygraph examiners are demeaning — as they work in concert with fake “doctors” and unlicensed interns. The polygraph is used despite it ridiculously assuming that increased heart rate and/or breathing is indicative of deception. Assuming polygraph logic: Anytime you have increased heart rate and/or breathing (like when exercising), you are also lying. How absurd! ABEL is another shameful… Read more »

The Static-99 does not claim to predict risk of re-offense for a person’s lifetime. Never has. It very clearly states in its preamble that it is only valid for a very limited number of years. Because people are not static. It is politicians and legislators that twist it to be something it is not. It also does not “punish” anyone for certain offense characteristics. It assigns weight to certain categories based on the statistic that offenders convicted of such conduct (stranger, male victim, non-contact) DO re-offend with ANY sex crime with a greater probability than others. I can’t find it… Read more »

You can’t find it but it’s in supporting data? Do you mean data created by Karl Hanson to rationalize Karl Hanson’s own scam? Because I’ve also read data that says younger offenders are more malleable to therapy; that non-contacts are less likely to reoffend; and that the STATIC-99 tests disproportionately hurt gays. As for your claim that the STATIC does “not ‘punish’ anyone for certain offense characteristics,” then you’ve obviously not read the tiered law and/or attended the meetings. People who score “high” on the STATIC-99R — which amount to several thousand in California alone — are not only subjected… Read more »

@Joe, you say the Static 99R “assigns weight to certain categories based on the statistic that offenders convicted of such conduct (stranger, male victim, non-contact) DO re-offend with ANY sex crime with a greater probability than others.” —– Do you realize that the Static 99R is literally a melting pot of various sex offenses and people? When the Static mixes all types of sex offenses and individuals together, there is literally no sample representativeness. I’m not alone in pointing out that it isn’t clear what exactly the Static is measuring. Also, are you seriously making the claim that 10 questions… Read more »

These statements, except for the last sentence, are correct with the clarification that ANY means any sex crime out of a pool of all sex crimes. Not to be confused with “every specific sex crime”.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x