Schlesinger cites MacCulloch (1983) as follows: “…after studying sadistic fantas
Schlesinger cites MacCulloch (1983) as follows: “…after studying sadistic fantasy and its relationship to offending, MacCulloch et al. (1983) were unable to differentiate those who act on their fantasies from a larger number who do not… not all individuals who entertain sadistic fantasies act out these fantasies… the number of individuals who actually go on to act out the fantasies depicted in their drawings or writings is relatively small.” The Valle case is a crime of thought; he was arrested for having thoughts, and for discussing those thoughts with others. Ultimately, he never acted on his thoughts. We know, via MacCulloch, that every person who has a thought (no matter how repulsive that thought may be) does not act on that thought. However – we also from Schlesinger; sadistic fantasy with compulsion to act (compulsion is a very specific clinical concept) and the need to control and dominate others are risk factors of potential concern for sexual offending behavior. 1. Present to the board ONE of the forensic constructs you wrote about in your assignment (i.e., risk, danger, antisociality, personality, psychopathy, urges, sex offenses, etc). Explain to the board how the clinical construct you wrote about is relevant to the case study. Explain the relevance – in detail – of the construct you chose to the case. Cite from the Valle videos using in-text time-stamps. 2. Present to the board your stance regarding the idea that Valle was charged based on thoughts he had; not actions. Defend, either way, (perhaps based on MacCulloch versus Schlesinger’s points) whether or not Valle’s acquittal is proper. Should he have been found guilty? If so, of what? Defend your stance. Should he have been found not guilty? Defend your stance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Click=Order Your Paper Now !