Professional Perspectives on Sexual Sadism

Abstract

Significant controversy surrounds the diagnosis of sexual sadism. Research suggests that many characteristics attributed to sexual sadists fail to differentiate sexual offenders with and without this diagnosis. Furthermore, when there are differences between sadists and nonsadists, "sadistic" features are frequently associated with nonsadists. Finally, diagnosticians appear to use idiosyncratic methods to diagnose sexual sadism. These findings raise concerns about the reliability and validity of a diagnosis of sexual sadism, particularly with respect to how professionals conceptualize this diagnosis. This study examines how professionals understand the relative importance of behaviors associated with sadistic versus nonsadistic sexual offending. Professionals rated behaviors according to their "essentialness" for this diagnosis. Results show that professionals rated behaviors associated with three out of four conceptualizations of sexual sadism as significantly more essential to making a diagnosis of sexual sadism, compared to behaviors associated with nonsadistic sexual offending. Results suggest that professionals reliably discriminate between sadistic and nonsadistic offense behaviors.

Sadism and Violent Reoffending in Sexual Offenders

“…on the inferential skills of the practitioner or researcher, which in turn depend on the adequacy of the available data considered” (Marshall & Kennedy, 2003, p. 15). Difficulties in systematically evaluating criteria inherent to the diagnosis of sexual sadism, such as experiencing the suffering of the victim as sexually exciting, have been described extensively (Knight, 2010; Marshall & Kennedy, 2003; McLawsen, Jackson, Vannoy, Gagliardi, & Scalora, 2008). As a consequence, the interrater reliability of the clinical diagnosis of sexual sadism ranged from weak to substantial levels (with Cohen’s κ values from .14 to .86) in six different studies according to a recent systematic review by Nitschke, Mokros, Osterheider, and Marshall (2013).…”

“…As a consequence, the interrater reliability of the clinical diagnosis of sexual sadism ranged from weak to substantial levels (with Cohen’s κ values from .14 to .86) in six different studies according to a recent systematic review by Nitschke, Mokros, Osterheider, and Marshall (2013). Levenson (2004), for example, found Cohen’s κ values of 0.30 for the clinical diagnosis of sexual sadism in a sample of inmates under consideration for civil commitment under SVP legislation, a value considered “well below acceptable standards” (McLawsen et al, 2008, p. 280). Doren and Elwood (2009), however, found a good level of interrater agreement in a study comparing the ratings of 34 observers on 12 cases.…”

Is Investigative Awareness a Distinctive Feature of Sexual Sadism?

“…There is general agreement that the most important indicators of sadism are (a) that the offender is sexually aroused by sadistic acts, (b) the offender exercises power/control/domination over the victim, (c) the offender humiliates and/or degrades the victim, (d) the offender tortures the victim or engages in acts of cruelty, and (e) the offender mutilates sexual parts of the victim’s body (Marshall & Hucker, 2006; Marshall, Kennedy, Yates, & Serran, 2002; Nitschke et al, 2012). Research conducted by Mclawsen, Jackson, Vannoy, Gagliardi, and Scalora (2008) showed that a group of 60 clinicians were able to discriminate crime scene behaviors as sadistic or nonsadistic reliably. Specifically, they identified three types of behavior deemed to be the most clearly associated with severe sexual sadism: (a) the use of threats to evoke fear; (b) cutting, stabbing, strangling, biting, or beating the victim during the sexual assault; and (c) infliction of pain to sexual areas by the use of a physical object.…”

“…Similar to the SeSaS, the SAD-SEX-SH-R was able to identify sadism in a sample of SHOs. These studies (e.g., McLawsen et al, 2008; Marshall & Hucker, 2006) provide evidence of the utility of behavioral crime scene indicators to identify sadism.…”

The DSM Diagnostic Criteria for Sexual Sadism

“…Should the criteria be expanded to include cruelty or torture, sexual mutilation, and deviant sexual arousal as have suggested? Should the criteria be modified to include behaviors that were common to three of the four conceptualizations identified by McLawsen et al (2008), and summarized by the following phrases: ''slapped or punched victim during the sexual act; cut, stabbed, strangled, bit, or beat victim during sexual act; and, physical restraints used during sexual act?'' No.…”