Abstract
This commentary seeks to extend the recent article by Sreenivasan et al, which supports the contention that case law history allows for the commitment of a sexually violent predator/sexually dangerous person (SVP/SDP) based on a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder and absent a paraphilic condition. We argue that a clear sexual disorder must be present before a person can be found to be an SVP/SDP. A diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder is not enough.
