Hello - I posted this on the Law, Ethics and Psychotherapy board, but thought I would try here too. I'm a law student doing some research on indefinite civil commitment of "sexually violent predators." I'm interested to know what the current thinking is on whether or not such offenders are treatable. I realize this is a complex area, but I would greatly appreciate being pointed to a resource summarizing the different opinions. Some background - in Kansas v Hendricks, US Supreme Court upheld a Kansas statute that called for the civil commitment of "sexually violent predators who have a mental abnormality or personality disorder and who are likely to engage in repeat acts of sexual violence if not treated for their mental abnormality or personality disorder." The Court reasoned that since this was a *civil* commitment rather than a criminal punishment, certain due process requirements could be lowered and the statute (which allowed essentially lifelong deprivation of liberty for Hendricks) upheld. Crucially, a civil commitment is one that, unlike a criminal sentence, looks to promote the interests of the commited person through providing treatment. (We have long since given up any rehabilitative aspirations in criminal justice.) In Hendricks, the Court held the Kansas statute's mere statement that it had a treatment purpose was enough to show that the law was civil in nature. So, the only way it seems that you could strike down the Kansas law is by 1) showing that "sexually violent predators" can never be treated; or perhaps, 2) showing that "sexually violent predators" are in practice not being treated at all during commitment, which could show that the law is actually punitive in intent; or maybe 3) that there is a "less restrictive alternative" for their successful treatment. Thanks for any ideas!
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.