7-20-2008 Washington:
Six-Year Follow-Up of 135 Released Sex Offenders Recommended for Commitment Under Washington’s Sexually Violent Predator Law, Where No Petition Was Filed
Washington’s Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) statute permits the involuntary commitment of persons found by a jury to meet the statutory definition of a sexually violent predator. In a previous report, the Institute examined the recidivism of 89 released sex offenders referred by the Department of Corrections (DOC) as meeting the filing standards for civil commitment petitions, but for whom no petitions were filed.
This report extends the results of the previous study by adding 46 individuals who were referred by sources other than the DOC. ..Source.. by Cheryl Milloy
July 21, 2008
WA- Six-Year Follow-Up of 135 Released Sex Offenders Recommended for Commitment Under Washington’s Sexually Violent Predator Law
April 4, 2008
VT- Report to the Vermont General Assembly: Civil Commitment of Dangerous Predators
2005
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Discussion and testimony on the Governor’s proposed Safe Communities Act during the 2005 Legislative Session included planning for the structure and resources required to implement a civil commitment program for Vermont. Those plans were based on an examination of other states which have adopted civil commitment programs and an analysis of the Vermont offender population. This document expands on that effort and presents a comprehensive plan for the program.
Included in this Report is a close examination of the population which might be considered for civil commitment, the process for screening individual cases for referral, the adjudicatory process for determining whether an offender is a Sexually Violent or Dangerous Violent Predator, and the specific and detailed plan to enhance offender treatment and public safety.
The public safety of the people of the State of Vermont requires that certain offenders who, at the time of their release from total confinement, pose a significant risk of further harm to others must be placed in a secure setting where further treatment to reduce that risk can occur. Certain offenders include those who have committed the following predicate offenses:
· Aggravated Sexual Assault
· Sexual Assault
· Lewd and Lascivious Conduct with a Child
· Aggravated Murder
· Kidnapping
· Aggravated Assault
The hope is that every person civilly committed will successfully engage in treatment to such a degree that they no longer pose a threat of harm to others and qualify for a full discharge from the program.
We recommend that the program for these certain offenders provide for a secure environment, with treatment consistent with accepted clinical protocols. As part of our recommendation, we envision that the program will be managed by the Commissioner of Health, and that he will have the authority and discretion to enter into any contract to ensure that secure placement and clinically appropriate treatment are provided. Courts have found it acceptable to house such committed offenders within a corrections facility as long as there is only incidental contact with the general population. We will accomplish this by redesignating the Close Custody Unit at Northern State Correctional Facility for the sole purpose of housing civil commitment offenders.
This unit will accommodate a maximum of 10 offenders, and cost $430,000 to $600,000 per year to operate, depending upon occupancy. This will provide Vermont with the beds needed to meet the projected demand of 9 civil commitment offenders over the next ten years.
At the request of the Legislature, we have also discussed Community Residential Care Program options and provided attending costs. We do not recommend this course of action for public safety, as well as financial reasons, since the placements will be extremely dangerous high risk offenders who have a mental abnormality or personality disorder that has not been successfully treated. We urge the Vermont General Assembly to enact law to implement a process and program for the civil commitment of sexually violent and other dangerous violent predators. ..more.. by Departments of Health, Public Safety and Corrections
January 29, 2008
Evaluation for Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders: A Survey of Experts
December 2007:
Abstract
At this study’s commencement, 17 states had enacted sex offender civil commitment legislation. Although each statute outlines broad criteria that must be met, civil commitment evaluators are given considerable latitude in how to conduct their assessment. Forty-one experts who conduct sex offender civil commitment evaluations were surveyed to identify the usual practice of these evaluators. A great deal of agreement exists across experts regarding the conduct of sex offender civil commitment evaluations. However, these patterns appear quite different from the usual practice outlined in other types of forensic evaluations. Experts in sex offender civil commitment endorsed documentation as the core method for evaluation. The majority of evaluators reported the assessment of paraphilias, substance abuse, other Axis I disorders, Axis II disorders, and psychopathy as essential to the evaluation. Virtually all survey respondents utilized actuarial risk assessment measures, primarily the Static-99, in assessing for risk of future sexual violence. Although several approaches to assessing volitional impairment were described, the majority of respondents reported that a history of sex offending combined with a personality disorder or a paraphilia established the necessary link between mental abnormality and risk of future sexual violence. An overwhelming majority of experts indicated that it was essential for evaluators to report their ultimate opinion as to whether criteria had been met for civil commitment. Future research regarding the use and incorporation of documentation should be conducted to determine whether the heavy reliance on documentation is unique to sex offender civil commitment evaluations, or whether it is commonly used in other forensic evaluations. ..more.. by Rebecca L. Jackson -and- Derek T. Hess
Note: The Static-99 has been recently questioned.
October 20, 2007
The Logic of Sexually Violent Predator Status in the United States of America
2007
Abstract
Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) laws have placed great legal weight on psychosexual evaluations of sex offenders by mental health experts. The conclusions of these evaluations are used to civilly commit hundreds of offenders throughout the United States after the completion of their criminal sentences, possibly for life. This paper examines the reasoning used by evaluators and attorneys for the state to justify the claim that someone is SVP. I discuss serious flaws in this reasoning and show how argument for SVP status must proceed if the case for civil commitment is to be logically coherent and consistent with constitutional values.
This paper examines the logic of Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) status as articulated by the U. S. Supreme Court in Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 347 (1997), and Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002).1 I argue that the Court sets out a sensible principle of parsimony to guide SVP reasoning but obscures the importance of this principle by introducing an unjustified assumption about SVP-relevant mental disorders. This assumption opens the door to thinly reasoned psychosexual evaluations and professional opinions of little use to a finder of fact in an SVP case. An explanation of proper SVP reasoning is offered, as well as an introductory discussion of a clinical construct related to “volitional” forms of sexual impairment (hypersexuality).
Some readers will interpret this discussion as undermining the legitimacy of American SVP laws. Critics of SVP laws are not few and their arguments are powerful (e.g., Schopp, 2001). However, the argument presented here does not entail that sex offender civil commitment is illegitimate as such. It does restrict SVP eligibility quite sharply, such that a “narrow” category (Crane) becomes narrower still. As a society we are rightly concerned about individuals who have served their sentences yet remain sexually dangerous. But for good reason the Constitution greatly restricts state power to confine persons who have not committed (new) crimes, whatever their propensities (or our estimations thereof). Serious consideration of the alternative – history offers plenty of examples – is sobering.
Other readers might interpret this discussion as a defense of SVP laws, by way of modification. It is not. Rather, the argument takes this form: Given that SVP laws exist, there are better and worse ways to interpret their basic concepts and apply them to individual cases. If the interpretation and application of these laws is to be even minimally logical and faithful to the constitutional basis provided by the U. S. Supreme Court, then certain claims follow about how mental health experts should evaluate someone for SVP status, and how the state should argue its case in court. The discussion that follows does not accept Supreme Court judgment uncritically; indeed, the Court’s global assumption about paraphilias is rejected as a baseless throwback to 19th century stereotypes. However, the argument below does follow what is basically correct reasoning by the Court concerning SVP logic.
Genuinely useful SVP assessment and sound case presentation are possible, although they are more difficult than current practice would suggest. In a nutshell, this paper is aimed at improving the intellectual integrity of SVP work, for as long as society wants it done.
Sex offender civil commitment laws and related Supreme Court opinions are not intelligible outside of wider Constitutional considerations that give meaning to SVP concepts and dictate the direction of reasoning toward SVP conclusions. In theory – practice aside – SVP status is consistent with what our Constitution outlines with regard to proper powers of state and individual rights. However, the state must walk a line that is tightrope thin. [Some degree of incoherency is unavoidable if SVP statutes remain as they are: Civil commitment in lieu of, or after mitigated criminal sentencing, is arguable logically. Civil commitment post-sentence, barring change in an offender’s mental status in prison, is not.] Unfortunately, the logic of SVP reasoning is mostly ignored or inverted by many clinical evaluators, attorneys, and judges. ..more.. by Daniel F. Montaldi, Evaluation Team, Arizona Community Protection and Treatment Center
September 26, 2007
The function of punishment in the civil commitment of sexually violent predators
July 2007
Abstract
Two experiments find that support for civil commitment procedures for sexually violent predators is based primarily upon the retributive rather than incapacitative goals of respondents.
Two discrete samples composed of students (N = 175) and jury-eligible citizens (N = 200) completed experimental surveys assessing their support or opposition to scenarios in which a sexual predator was to be released after completing his criminal sentence.
Respondents were sensitive to likelihood of recidivism only when the initial sentence was sufficiently punitive. When initial sentence was lenient, respondents strongly supported civil commitment without regard to future risk.
Results are discussed in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Kansas v. Hendricks ([1997]) on the constitutionality of civil commitment laws for sexually violent predators. ..more.. by Kevin M. Carlsmith, Ph.D., John Monahan, Ph.D., Alison Evans, M.A.
May 12, 2007
Diagnostic and Risk Profiles Among Civilly Committed Sex Offenders in Washington State
Abstract:
Since 1990, 17 states have passed legislation allowing for the civil commitment of a small number of sex offenders who are deemed at a particularly high risk for reoffense. Despite the very public and controversial nature of these laws, little is known about the individuals who are detained pursuant to them. The current article presents data on 190 civilly committed and detained sexually violent predators in Washington State. These sexual offenders suffer from a variety of mental illnesses. The modal offender is diagnosed with both an Axis I and an Axis II disorder. Furthermore, these offenders are at moderate to high risk for reoffense and present with a significant degree of psychopathy. ..more.. by Rebecca L. Jackson, Pacific Graduate School of Psychology, Palo Alto, CA -and- Henry J. Richards, Special Commitment Center, Steilacoom,WA
