The court unanimously ruled that penile plethysmography is unreliable and inadmissible as evidence of recidivism risk.
South Carolina is one of 20 states that authorize indefinite civil commitment of sex offenders after they have completed their prison sentences. Under state law, such continued detention is allowed only when a jury concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a respondent qualifies as a “sexually violent predator” (SVP), meaning he “suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes [him] likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility for long-term control, care, and treatment.”
Although the South Carolina Office of Mental Health (OMH) concluded that Andy Hyman was not an SVP, a jury disagreed, swayed by a second opinion based largely on penile plethysmography (PPG), a scientifically dubious technique that aims to measure sexual response to images, audio narratives, or textual descriptions by gauging tiny changes in the circumference of the subject’s penis. That test, the South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously ruled last month in response to Hyman’s appeal, is “generally inadmissible in judicial proceedings” because it suffers from a “glaring lack of standardization,” which casts doubt on its validity as a predictor of recidivism.
With that decision, the South Carolina Supreme Court joins a long list of state and federal courts that have deemed PPG results unreliable and inadmissible. The technique is so controversial that …
I think male lawmakers should have their arousal looked at to see if they are at risk of being a predator to the opposite or same sex. Also check their risk of committing corruption or risk of seeing if they come up with draconian bills/laws. Let’s put their peckers to the test to see if they are as innocent as the wind driven snow. Snow comes down as white, yet it doesn’t always stay that way. Sorry for any mental images I’ll repent.
While I think sexual recidivism should be treated more harshly depending on the nature and severity of the offense, any process that severely restricts rights to liberty should have strong due process protections and hold the state to a high standard of evidence. This process of civil commitment has neither. The fact alone that the state can ignore their own evaluator and get “another bite at the apple” by using a second one should appall anyone who cherishes civil liberties. How many times can the state get another shot at it before we say “enough!”? Would they be willing to pay for the defendant to shop around for multiple evaluations until they get one they like? The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven, and heaven is watching.
I’m grateful there is an independent judiciary to hold this clown show we call the executive branch in check, otherwise we might as well use the Constitution for toilet paper, since it is treated as such more and more often.