Sexually Violent Person (SVP) commitment statutes provide for indeterminate civil confinement of certain sex offenders after completion of their criminal sentences. In the United States, SVP laws raise important concerns relating to due process, ex post facto claims, and protection against double jeopardy. However, it is unclear to what extent current legislation addresses or neglects these issues. Without a systematic review of SVP legislation and related case law, it remains unknown to what degree U.S. states have incorporated different strategies to protect individual rights outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court. In this study, SVP statutes from each U.S. state, the federal government, and the District of Columbia, along with related case law, were examined to evaluate (1) the requirements of SVP confinement, (2) the procedures by which SVP hearings occur, and (3) the degree to which the requirements enumerated by the U.S. Supreme Court have been followed. Although nearly half of all states have SVP statutes, findings reveal that statutes differ considerably regarding standards of proof, commitment procedures, appeals standards, definitions of important terms, and procedural safeguards. Moreover, case law provides important information on how SVP laws actually operate. Findings are discussed in light of psychological, legal, and policy implications.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
18 U.S.C. §4247–4248 (2012).
2.
42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §6401–6402 (West, Westlaw through Regular Session Act 2013-72).
3.
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587 (2006).
4.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
5.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
6.
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author.
7.
American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68, 7–19. doi: 10.1037/a0029889
8.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §36–3701 (2012).
9.
Beasley v. Molett, 95 S.W.3d 590 (Tex. Ct. App.2002).
10.
BlacherR. (1995). Historical perspective of the “Sex Psychopath” statute: From the revolutionary era to the present federal crime bill. Mercer Law Review, 46, 889–920.
11.
BoccacciniM. T.MurrieD. C.CapertonJ. D.HawesS. W. (2009). Field validity of the Static-99 and MnSOST-R among sex offenders evaluated for civil commitment as sexually violent predators. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15, 278–314. doi:10.1037/a0017232
12.
BoccacciniM. T.TurnerD. B.MurrieD. C. (2008). Do some evaluators report consistently higher or lower PCL-R scores than others? Findings from a statewide sample of sexually violent predator evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 262–283. doi: 10.1037/a0014523
13.
BoccacciniM. T.TurnerD. B.MurrieD. C.HendersonC. E.ChevalierC. (2013). Do scores from risk measures matter to jurors?Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 259–269. doi: 10.1037/a0031354
14.
Canada Criminal Code, §753(1) & (2) (2014).
15.
Com. v. Boucher, 780 N.E.2d 47 (Mass.2002).
16.
Com. v. Dengler, 890 A.2d372 (Pa.2005).
17.
Community Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code Ann.§71.09.010 (2009).
18.
Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW).
19.
CunninghamM. D.ReidyT. J. (1998). Antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy: Diagnostic dilemmas in classifying patterns of antisocial behavior in sentencing evaluations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16, 333–351. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0798(199822)16:33.0.CO;2-N
20.
DaleyM. V. (2008). Flawed solution to the sex offender situation in the United States: The legality of chemical castration for sex offenders. Indiana Health Law Review, 5, 87–122.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S.579 (1993).
24.
DeMatteoD.EdensJ. F.GallowayM.CoxJ.SmithS. T.FormonD. (2014). The role and reliability of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in U.S. sexually violent predator evaluations: A case law survey. Law and Human Behavior,38, 248–255.
25.
DorenD. M. (1998). Recidivism base rates, predictions of sex offender recidivism, and the “sexual predator” commitment laws. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16, 97–114. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0798(199824)16:1<97::AID-BSL295>3.0.CO;2-K
26.
DorenD. M.EppersonD. L. (2001). Great analysis, but problematic assumptions: A critique of Janus and Meehl (1997). Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 13, 45–51. doi: 10.1023/A:1009514429496
27.
DSPD Programme, Department of Health, Home Office and HM Prison Service (2006). Dangerous and Severe/Complex Personality Disorder High Secure Services Planning and Delivery Guide for Women's DSPD Services (Primrose Programme). London, UK: Home Office.
28.
DSPD Programme, Department of Health, Home Office, HM Prison Service (2005). Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder (DSPD) High Secure Services for Men: Planning and Delivery Guide. London, UK: Home Office.
29.
DSPD Programme, Department of Health, Ministry of Justice and HM Prison Service (2008). Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder (DSPD) High Secure Services for Men: Planning and Delivery Guide. London, UK: Home Office.
30.
EdensJ. F.DesforgesD. M.FernandezK.PalacC. A. (2004). Effects of psychopathy and violence risk testimony on mock juror perceptions of dangerousness in a capital murder trial. Psychology, Crime and Law, 10, 393–412.
31.
EwingC. P. (2011). Justice perverted: Sex offense law, psychology, and public policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
32.
FazelS.DaneshJ. (2002). Serious mental disorder in 23 000 prisoners: A systematic review of 62 surveys. The Lancet, 359, 545–550. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07740-1
33.
FitchW. L.HammenD. A. (2003). The new generation of sex offender commitment laws: Which states have them and how do they work? In WinickB. J.LaFondJ. Q. (Eds.), Protecting society from sexually dangerous offenders: Law, justice, and therapy (pp. 27–39). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
34.
Fla. Stat. Ann.§394.910 (2010).
35.
GookinK. (2007). Comparison of state laws authorizing involuntary commitment of sexually violent predators: 2006 update, revised. (Document No. 07-08-1101). Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
36.
GottfredsonS. D.GottfredsonD. M. (1986). Accuracy of prediction models. InBlumsteinA.CohenJ.RothJ. A.VisherC. A.(Eds.), Criminal careers and “career criminals” (Vol.2, pp. 212–290). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
37.
GrissoT. (1986). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments. New York, NY: Plenum. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4899-5046-8
38.
GrissoT. (2003). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments (2nd. ed.) New York, NY: Springer.
39.
HansonR. K.HarrisA. J.HelmusL.ThorntonD. (2014). High-risk sex offenders may not be high risk forever. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 2792–2813.
40.
HawesS. M.BoccacciniM. T.MurrieD. C. (2013). Psychopathy and the combination of psychopathy and sexual deviance as predictors of sexual recidivism: Meta-analytic findings using the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Psychological Assessment, 25, 233–243. doi: 10.1037/a0030391
41.
HeilbrunK.OgloffJ.R.P.PicarelloK. (1999). Dangerous offender statutes in the United States and Canada: Implications for risk assessment. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 393–415.
42.
In re A.M., 787 N.W.2d 752 (N.D. 2010).
43.
In re Civil Commitment of W.X.C., 972 A.2d 462 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2009), aff'd 8 A.3d 174 (N.J. 2010), cert. denied 562 U.S. 1297 (2011).
44.
In re Commitment of Adams, 588 N.W.2d 336, 340 (Wis. Ct. App.1998).
45.
In re Commitment ofBohannan, 388 S.W.3d296 (Tex.2012).
46.
In re Commitment of Day, 342 S.W.3d 193, 200 (Tex. Ct. App.2011).
47.
In re Commitment of Evers, 420 S.W.3d81 (Tex. Ct. App.2012).
48.
In re Det. of Hodges, 689 N.W.2d 467, 470 (Iowa2004).
49.
In re Commitment of W.Z., 801 A.2d205 (N.J.2002).
50.
In re Det. ofThorell, 72 P.3d708, (Wash.2003), cert. denied 541 U.S. 990 (2004).
51.
In re Leon G., 59 P.3d779 (Ariz.2002).
52.
In re R.Y., Jr., 957 A.2d780 (Pa. Super. Ct.2008).
53.
JamesN.ThomasK. R.FoleyC. (July). Civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons. (Order Code RL34068). Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Retrieved fromhttp://research.policyarchive.org/18628.pdf
54.
JanusE. S. (2013). Preventive detention of sex offenders: The American experience versus international human rights norms. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 31, 328–343.
55.
Kan. Stat. Ann.§59–29a02 (2011).
56.
Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S.407 (2002).
57.
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S.346 (1997).
58.
Karsjens v. Jesson, No. CIV. 11-3659 DWF/JJK, 2015 WL 3755870 (D. Minn. June 17, 2015).
59.
KellyM. (2007). Lock them up-and throw away the key: The preventive detention of sex offenders in the United States and Germany. Georgia Journal of International Law, 39, 551–572.
60.
KeyzerP. (2010). The United Nations Human Rights Committee's views about the legitimate parameters of the preventive detention of serious sex offenders. Criminal Law Journal, 24, 283–291.
61.
KeyzerP.McSherryB. (2013). The preventive detention of “dangerous” sex offenders in Australia: Perspectives at the coalface. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 2, 296–305. doi: 10.6000/1929-4409.2013.02.29
62.
KraussD. A.McCabeJ. G.LiebermanJ. D. (2012). Dangerously misunderstood: Representative jurors' reaction to expert testimony on future dangerousness in a sexually violent predator trial. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18, 18–49. doi:10.1037/a0024550
63.
KraussD. A.ScurichN. (2013). Risk assessment in the law: Legal admissibility, scientific validity, and some disparities between research and practice. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 31, 215–229. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2065
64.
KraussD. A.ScurichN. (2014). The Impact of case factors on jurors' decisions in a sexual violent predator hearing. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 135–145.
65.
La. Rev. Stat. Ann.§15:540 (West 1997, Westlaw through current through the 2013 Regular Session).
66.
LaFondJ. Q. (2005). Preventing sexual violence: How society should cope with sex offenders. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
67.
LaveT. R. (2008). Only yesterday: The rise and fall of twentieth century sexual psychopath laws. La. L. Rev., 69, 549–591.
68.
LeeS. (2011). Sexually violent predators denied equal protection of the laws by indefinite civil commitment: People v. McKee. Western State University Law Review,39, 80–88.
69.
LiebR. (2003). State policy perspectives on sexual predator laws. In WinickB. J.LaFondJ. Q. (Eds.). Protecting society from sexually dangerous offenders: Law, justice, and therapy (pp. 41–59). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10492-002
MalengN. (1991). Community Protection Act and the Sexually Violent Predators Statute. University of Puget Sound Law Review, 15, 821–826.
72.
MarshallW. L.BarbareeH. E. (1988). The long-term evaluation of a behavioral treatment program for child molesters. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26, 499–511. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(88)90146-5
73.
MeltonG. B.PetrilaJ.PoythressN.SloboginC. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
74.
MercadoC. C. (2006). Preventive detention of sex offenders: A comparative law perspective. Pensamiento psicológico, 7, 7–14.
75.
MillerH. A.AmentaA. E.ConroyM. A. (2005). Sexually violent predator evaluations: Empirical evidence, strategies for professionals, and research directions. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 29–54.
76.
MillerN. (2002). Sex-crime panic: A journey to the paranoid heart of the 1950s. New York, NY: Alyson Books.
77.
MinowN. (1949). The Illinois proposal to confine sexually dangerous persons. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 40, 186–197.
78.
Murrell v. State, 215 S.W.3d 96, 107 (Mo.2007).
79.
MurrieD. C.BoccacciniM. T.JohnsonJ. T.JankeC. (2008). Does interrater (dis)agreement on psychopathy checklist scores in sexually violent predator trials suggest partisan allegiance in forensic evaluations?Law and Human Behavior, 32, 352–362. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9097-5
80.
MurrieD. C.BoccacciniM. T.TurnerD. V.MeeksM.WoodsC.TusseyC. (2009). Rater (dis)agreement on risk assessment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings: Evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic evaluation?Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15, 19–53. doi:10.1037/a0014897
81.
MurrieD. C.CornellD. G.McCoyW. K. (2005). Psychopathy, conduct disorder, and stigma: Does diagnostic labeling influence juvenile probation officer recommendations?Law and Human Behavior, 29, 323–342.
82.
N.D. Cent. Code Ann.§ 25-03.3-01 (West, Westlaw through the 2013 Regular Session of the 63rd Legislative Assembly).
83.
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.§ 135-E (2007).
84.
Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann.§ 71-1201-1209 (2009).
85.
Ohio Rev. Code Ann.§ 2971.01 (West 2013, Westlaw through 2013 Files 24 and 26 to 38 of the 130th GA) (2013-2014).
86.
People v. Superior Court (George), 164 Cal. App. 4th 183, 78 Cal. Rptr. 3d711 (2008).
87.
PetrunikM. G. (2002). Managing unacceptable risk: Sex offenders, community response, and social policy in the United States and Canada. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, 483–511.
88.
PetrunikM. (2003). The hare and the tortoise: Dangerousness and sex offender policy in the United States and Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/La Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale, 45, 43–72.
89.
RiceM. E.HarrisG. T. (1997). Cross-validation and extension of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide for child molesters and rapists. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 231–241. doi: 10.1023/A:1024882430242
90.
Richmond v. Lewis, 113 S. Ct.528 (1992).
91.
RockettJ. L.MurrieD. C.BoccacciniM. T. (2007). Diagnostic labeling in juvenile justice settings: Do psychopathy and conduct disorder findings influence clinicians?Psychological Services, 4, 107–122.
92.
Seling v. Young, 531 U.S.250 (2001).
93.
Serious Sex Offenders(Detention and Supervision) Act 2009 (Vic).
94.
Serious Sex Offenders Act2013(NT).
95.
Sexual Psychopaths, D.C. Code§22–3803 (West, Westlaw through July 29, 2013).
96.
SinghJ. P.FazelS.GueorguievaR.BuchananA. (2012). Rates of sexual recidivism in high risk sex offenders: A meta-analysis of 10,422 participants. Sex Offender Treatment, 7, 1–13.
97.
SinghJ. P.GrannM.FazelS. (2011). A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: A systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 499–513. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.11.009
98.
SkelleyB. (2011). Sex offender assessment panels: A failed attempt to protect the public from Louisiana's most violent predators. Louisiana Law Review, 72, 287–324.
99.
State v. Maurice G., 4 N.Y.S.3d860 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.2015).
100.
State v. Raul. L., 988 N.Y.S.2d190 (N.Y. App. Div.2014).
VognsenJ.PhenixA. (2004). Antisocial personality disorder is not enough: A reply to Sreenivasan, Weinberger, and Garrick. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 32, 440–442.
WittP. H.ConroyM. A. (2009). Evaluation of sexually violent predators. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
111.
WollertR. (2006). Low base rates limit expert certainty when current actuarials are used to identify sexually violent predators: An application of Bayes's theorem. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12, 56–85. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.12.1.56
112.
WoodworthG. G.KadaneJ. B. (2004). Expert testimony supporting post-sentence civil incarceration of violent sexual offenders. Law, Probability and Risk,3(3-4), 221–241. doi:10.1093/lawprj/3.3-4.221
113.
WoodyW. D.GreeneE. (2012). Jurors' use of standards of proof in decisions about punitive damages. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 30, 856–872. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2027
