There was sufficient evidence to support the court’s findings that appellant used force or violence in the underlying offense, and that her severe mental disorder was a factor in its commission. Appellant had a lengthy history of mental illness; she testified that she heard voices that told her what to do, and two psychiatrists testified that her mental disorder was an aggravating factor in her offense. Appellant’s determined resistance and struggle with the victim when she grabbed money from him was sufficient to support a finding that the offense was committed with force or violence. Appellant was convicted of grand theft from the person and sentenced to state prison. At the time of appellant’s parole, the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) determined that she was a Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) and detained her for treatment. Appellant filed a petition for a hearing challenging that decision. At the hearing, appellant was compelled to testify about the underlying offense. On appeal, she contended that having to testify at the hearing violated her federal and state privileges against self-incrimination. The appellate court disagreed, finding no constitutional violation. Appellant’s testimony was sought only as evidence of her status as a presently dangerous MDO, not to punish her further for her offense, since further treatment is not punishment. Appellant had already pled guilty to and served her sentence for the underlying offense, and no future use of that conviction was sought.