Analyzing the analysis: a response to Wollert (2000).
In a thoughtful critique in the article preceding this one, many arguments are presented about the veracity of assumptions and conclusions I made in my 1998 publication concerning the sexual recidivism base rates for certain incarcerated sex offenders. This article responds to some of the issues raised. First, the ultimate conclusion of the preceding critique is assessed. Even when assuming the accuracy of all points made in the preceding article, an analysis described herein still demonstrates that the current U.S.A. civil commitment referral procedures "under-predict" sexual recidivism rates. Second, an inference made in the preceding critique, read as a possible implication from my article, is strongly contested. Finally, the remaining discussion responds to various other concerns that were raised. While scientific exploration of issues is typically expected to lead to occasional professional differences, a significant lack of agreement with the preceding critique is found.
Mendota Mental Health Institute, 301 Troy Drive, Madison, WI 53704, USA. dorendm@dhfs.state.wi.us
D M
DM
Doren
D000293:Adolescent; D006801:Humans; D007604:Juvenile Delinquency / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D011902:Rape / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D012742:Sex Offenses / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D014481:United States / Q000453:epidemiology; D014754:Violence / Q000706:statistics & numerical data