Two doctors for the State testified that defendant suffered from pedophilia and that he was likely to commit sexual predatory acts if released. Defendant declined to be interviewed by either doctor. The doctors applied the “Static-99” test for predicting whether a person was likely to repeat his sexual offenses and considered other factors as well. In affirming, the court held that defendant was precluded from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence that he currently lacked the ability to control his behavior because he refused to be interviewed by the State’s experts with respect to the current status of the mental abnormality which formed the basis of his commitment. Defendant’s refusal to accept treatment, coupled with a valid diagnosis that he suffered from a sexual disorder affecting his volitional capacity, were sufficient to sustain the trial court’s finding that he would, if released to the community, represent a substantial danger of committing similar new crimes. Defendant’s refusal to be treated foreclosed him from claiming that application of the SVPA violated the Ex Post Facto Clause on the ground that it was primarily punitive in nature.