Sexually violent predator laws
Sexually violent predator laws are legal statutes that allow for the continued confinement of certain sex offenders beyond their prison sentences, requiring them to be committed to secure psychiatric facilities if deemed likely to re-offend. These laws emerged in the early 1990s, notably with Washington State’s Community Protection Act, following high-profile cases involving violent sexual offenses. Controversially, these laws enable civil commitment without the necessity of a severe mental disorder diagnosis, diverging from traditional civil commitment practices that typically address immediate risks to self or others.
The criteria for civil commitment under these statutes involve designating offenders as "violent sexual predators," which often requires evidence of violent sexual offenses against strangers and the presence of a mental abnormality. Legal processes include hearings and psychiatric evaluations to determine an offender's risk of future harm, and the resulting confinement periods are generally indefinite. Critics of these laws raise concerns about their constitutionality and the challenges they pose for mental health professionals, particularly regarding the assessment of future dangerousness and the lack of effective treatment options for this population. Overall, sexually violent predator laws represent a complex intersection of legal, psychological, and ethical considerations in addressing community safety and offender rehabilitation.
Sexually violent predator laws
DEFINITION: Laws that prevent the release of dangerous sex offenders into the community after they complete their prison sentences, instead requiring them to be committed to secure psychiatric facilities.
SIGNIFICANCE: Violent sexual predator statutes have been a source of legal controversy because they extend the confinement of offenders who have already served their maximum sentences. These laws have also been a source of controversy among mental health professionals who question the indefinite hospitalization of offenders for whom no effective treatments are available.
In 1990, in response to the and sexual mutilation of a six-year-old boy by a formerly incarcerated sex offender, Washington State enacted the Community Protection Act (CPA). Regarded as the first modern violent sexual predator statute, the CPA permits prosecutors to initiate civil commitment proceedings against certain types of sex offenders. Incarcerated sex offenders who are found to have mental disorders that place them at risk to commit additional sex offenses in the future can be involuntarily committed to secure psychiatric facilities after they complete their prison sentences. Those who are committed to psychiatric facilities can be released from those facilities only when psychiatric professionals find that they no longer pose any danger to the community.
Several U.S. states already had passed laws that were similar to Washington State’s CPA, but the earlier laws had been repealed or fallen into disuse. After enactment of the CPA, however, more than one dozen states and the District of Columbia passed violent sexual predator statutes modeled on the CPA. These laws differ in specific provisions from state to state, but they have two basic characteristics in common: the application of the civil commitment process to sex offenders and the designation of certain sex offenders as violent sexual predators.
Common Characteristics
Violent sexual predator statutes use the civil commitment process to continue to confine sex offenders after they have completed their prison sentences. Civil commitment has traditionally been used in the involuntary hospitalization of individuals who are at imminent risk to hurt themselves or others owing to severe mental disorders such as major depression, schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder. For example, individuals who are actively considering can be civilly committed to mental health facilities until they are sufficiently recovered that they no longer pose an immediate risk to themselves. Civil commitment has traditionally been used to confine persons only briefly, providing safety to them and to society until their crises have passed and their conditions have stabilized.
Violent sexual predator statutes are an unusual application of the civil commitment process. Most sex offenders do not have severe mental disorders, nor do they have to be diagnosed with such disorders in order to be civilly committed under existing violent sexual predator statutes. Violent sexual predator statutes do not require offenders to be at imminent risk of harming others, nor are the periods of commitment intended to be brief. Instead, violent sexual predator statutes are meant to confine offenders who are likely to pose long-term risks to the community, and the periods of confinement are indefinite.
State laws vary in their definitions of which sex offenders are eligible for civil commitment and in the processes by which they assign the status of violent sexual predator to imprisoned offenders. In most states, to be designated as violent sexual predators, offenders must have committed violent sexual offenses against strangers (rather than friends or family members) and must be judged to have some kind of mental abormality or personality disorder that makes it likely they will commit similar offenses in the future.
Typically, a must initiate civil commitment proceedings against an while the offender is still incarcerated. This process begins with a hearing. If probable cause is established, the offender undergoes a psychiatric evaluation; that is, mental health professionals are called upon to render opinions as to whether or not the offender meets the definition of a violent sexual predator as specified in the statute. If the evaluation indicates that the offender meets the definition, the case moves to a trial, where the offender has an opportunity to mount a defense and demonstrate that he or she is not a violent sexual predator. If the jury finds that the offender should be designated a violent sexual predator, the offender is transferred to a secure psychiatric facility upon completion of his or her original prison sentence. The period of confinement is not specified. The offender can petition for release when mental health professionals that the offender is no longer a danger to the community.
Legal Challenges
Since the inception of violent sexual predator statutes, critics have questioned the constitutionality of these measures. The issue was first heard before the U.S. Supreme Court in Kansas v. Hendricks. Hendricks, a convicted child molester, was the first offender confined in Kansas under that state’s violent sexual predator statute. He challenged his psychiatric confinement, arguing that it amounted to a second incarceration for his sex offense, which would be a violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy found in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled against Hendricks in 1997, holding that violent sexual predator statutes do not qualify as punishment because their purpose is not to punish the offender but rather to protect the public. The case established the constitutionality of existing violent sexual predator statutes and paved the way for the enactment of such statutes in states where they were being considered.
A second ruling by the Supreme Court regarding violent sexual predator statutes, Kansas v. Crane, concerned the degree to which offenders must be unable to control their sexual behavior in order to be deemed violent sexual predators. Crane, a convicted sex offender confined under the Kansas statute, argued that the state had not successfully demonstrated that he was incapable of controlling his illegal sexual behavior. The Court ruled against Crane in 2002, holding that the state does not have to demonstrate that offenders are incapable of control; rather, the state need only demonstrate that offenders have serious difficulty controlling their illegal sexual behavior. This lower threshold for demonstrating offenders’ dangerousness may make successful prosecution of violent sexual predator cases easier.
Challenges for Mental Health Professionals
The implementation of violent sexual predator statutes poses challenges to the mental health professionals who must evaluate sex offenders for their civil commitment trials and who must treat those offenders later designated as violent sexual predators. "Violent sexual predator” is a legal term, not a diagnosable mental disorder, so no standard set of psychiatric signs and symptoms exists for mental health professional to assess while conducting an evaluation for civil commitment. Additionally, evaluating whether or not a sex offender should be designated a violent sexual predator requires the mental health professional to address the future dangerousness of the offender. Predicting the future actions of individuals with accuracy is difficult, and the prediction of dangerous actions that occur infrequently, such as sexual offenses, is especially difficult.
Treating sex offenders committed under violent predator statutes is complicated by the fact that no psychotherapy has been scientifically demonstrated to treat this group of offenders effectively. Furthermore, offenders confined under violent sexual predator statutes are entitled to refuse treatment, but they still cannot be released until they are judged to pose no risk to the community.
Bibliography
La Fond, John Q. Preventing Sexual Violence: How Society Should Cope with Sex Offenders. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2005.
"Legislative History of Federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification." SMART, smart.ojp.gov/sorna/current-law/legislative-history. Accessed 19 Aug. 2024.
Mercado, Cynthia C., Robert F. Schopp, and Brian H. Bornstein. “Evaluating Sex Offenders Under Sexually Violent Predator Laws: How Might Mental Health Professionals Conceptualize the Notion of Volitional Impairment?” Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005): 289-309.
Prentky, Robert A., Eric S. Janus, and Michael S. Seto, eds. Sexually Coercive Behavior: Understanding and Management. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 2003.
Sreenivasan, Shoba, et al. "Applying Collaborative Justice to Sexually Violent Predator Civil Commitment." Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, July 2020, jaapl.org/content/early/2020/07/27/JAAPL.200023-20. Accessed 19 Aug. 2024.
Terry, Karen J. Sexual Offenses and Offenders: Theory, Practice, and Policy. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 2006.
Winick, Bruce J., and John Q. La Fond, eds.Protecting Society from Sexually Dangerous Offenders: Law, Justice, and Therapy. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2003.