Sexually violent predator laws: Difference between revisions
m Reference Errors Corrected |
m Reverted edits by Jessica .D. Smith (talk) to last version by Flyer22 Reborn |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Merge|Civil confinement|discuss=Talk:Civil confinement#Merger proposal|date=October 2017}} |
{{Merge|Civil confinement|discuss=Talk:Civil confinement#Merger proposal|date=October 2017}} |
||
{{cite check|date=October 2017}} |
{{cite check|date=October 2017}} |
||
In some |
In some jurisdictions may [[civil confinement|commit]] certain types of dangerous [[sex offender]]s to state-run detention facilities following the completion of their [[sentence (law)|sentence]] if that person has a "mental abnormality" or [[personality disorder]] that makes the person likely to engage in sexual offenses if not confined in a secure facility.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=71.09.020|title=RCW 71.09.020: Definitions.|website=Apps.leg.wa.gov|accessdate=20 October 2017}}</ref><ref name="atsa.com">{{cite web|url=http://www.atsa.com/civil-commitment-sexually-violent-predators|title=Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators - ATSA|website=Atsa.com|accessdate=20 October 2017}}</ref> In the [[United States]], twenty states, the federal government, and the [[District of Columbia]] have a version of these commitment laws, which are referred to as "Sexually Violent Predator" (SVP) or "Sexually Dangerous Persons" laws.<ref name="atsa.com"/> |
||
Generally speaking, SVP laws have three elements:<ref>[https://govt.westlaw.com/wciji/Document/I2cd482c8e10d11dab058a118868d70a9?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)] {{dead link|date=October 2017}} |
Generally speaking, SVP laws have three elements:<ref>[https://govt.westlaw.com/wciji/Document/I2cd482c8e10d11dab058a118868d70a9?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)] {{dead link|date=October 2017}} |
||
</ref> |
</ref> |
||
(1) That the person has been convicted of a sexually violent offense (a term that is defined applicable statutes) |
(1) That the person has been convicted of a sexually violent offense (a term that is defined applicable statutes) |
||
(2) That the person suffers from a mental abnormality which causes him/her serious difficulty controlling his/her sexually violent behavior. |
(2) That the person suffers from a mental abnormality and/or personality disorder, which causes him/her serious difficulty controlling his/her sexually violent behavior. |
||
(3) That this mental abnormality makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility. |
(3) That this mental abnormality and/or personality disorder makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility. |
||
A "mental abnormality" is a legal term |
A "mental abnormality" is a legal term of art that is not identical to a [[mental disorder]], though experts generally refer to diagnoses contained in the [[Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders]] (DSM) as evidence of a mental abnormality.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/mental-abnormality/|title=Mental Abnormality Law and Legal Definition - USLegal, Inc.|first=US Legal,|last=Inc.|website=Definitions.uslegal.com|accessdate=20 October 2017}}</ref> |
||
In most cases, commitment as an SVP is indefinite; however, once a person is committed, the confining agency is constitutionally required to conduct periodic reviews of that person's mental condition |
In most cases, commitment as an SVP is indefinite; however, once a person is committed, the confining agency is constitutionally required to conduct periodic reviews of that person's mental condition.{{cn|date=October 2017}} If the committed person's condition changes so he/she no longer meets commitment criteria, he/she must be released. In some circumstances, committed persons can be released to court-monitored conditional releases to less restrictive alternative placements (LRAs).<ref>RCW 71.09.090</ref> |
||
==History== |
|||
| ⚫ | As of 2010, 20 states and [[The District of Columbia]] have enacted laws similar to Washington's.<ref name="atsa.com"/> The Federal Government established its sex offender commitment process when it passed the [[Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act]].<ref name=apabc>Jesse J. Holland, [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=10666088 Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison], [[Associated Press]]. Retrieved |
||
In 1990, the first SVP law was established in [[Washington (U.S. state)|Washington]] following two high-profile sexual assaults and murders by [[Earl Kenneth Shriner]] and Gene Kane.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.doc.wa.gov/community/sexoffenders/civilcommitment.asp|title=Page Not Found - Washington State Department of Corrections|website=Doc.wa.gov|accessdate=20 October 2017}}</ref> In response to the attacks, Helen Harlow—the mother of Gene Kane's victim—formed a group known as [[The Tennis Shoe Brigade]] in order to put pressure on state government to change the laws related to sex offenders. Washington Governor [[Booth Gardner]] formed the "Task Force on Community Protection" to consider possible solutions. |
|||
While the Task Force deliberated, serial killer [[Westley Allan Dodd]] kidnapped, raped, and murdered three young boys in [[Vancouver, Washington]]. The Task force provided its recommendations to the state legislature which then enacted the "Community Protection Act of 1990." |
|||
The United States Supreme Court declared the "civil commitment" of former sex offenders was "civil" and non-punitive as the High Court’s justices presumed as true the state’s empirical claim that it had a means of identifying a class of individuals, the state referred to as "sexually violent predators", who were "extremely dangerous" due to their "likelihood of engaging in repeat acts of predatory sexual violence [being] high." (Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) 521 U.S. 346, 351) |
|||
In order for the imprisoning of these individuals, without any criminal charges being laid or of crimes having been committed, the U.S. Supreme court indicated that states must be able to make a distinction, between (i) the class of sex offenders who must be released after having completed their prison sentences and (ii) those who could be “civilly” detained, as this later class (unlike to former) is made up of individuals who suffered from mental abnormalities which caused them to have “serious difficulty in controlling behavior”, thus making them distinguishable “from the dangerous but typical recidivist” that must be released. (Kansas v. Crane (2002) 534 U.S. 407, 413) |
|||
== Controversy == |
|||
Data culled over the several years these schemes have been in place have systematically demonstrated that "Sexually Violent Predator" laws were imprisoning individuals who had not been rationally differentiated from typical recidivists or from individuals who were among the overwhelming majority of former sex offenders who would not ever reoffend. (“Do Sexually Violent Predator Laws Violate Double Jeopardy or Substantive Due Process? An Empirical Inquiry”, Prof. Tama Rice Lave, Brooklyn Law Review, 2013) One federal Court Judge surmised in 2015 that Minnesota's Sexually Violent Predator law seemed to be one not directed at any legitimate governmental purpose; rather it seemed to be designed to punish a politically unpopular class of individuals not constitutionally subject to punishment. (Karsjens, et al. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al., United States District Court, District of Minnesota, Case No. 11-3659 (DFW/JJK)) |
Data culled over the several years these schemes have been in place have systematically demonstrated that "Sexually Violent Predator" laws were imprisoning individuals who had not been rationally differentiated from typical recidivists or from individuals who were among the overwhelming majority of former sex offenders who would not ever reoffend. (“Do Sexually Violent Predator Laws Violate Double Jeopardy or Substantive Due Process? An Empirical Inquiry”, Prof. Tama Rice Lave, Brooklyn Law Review, 2013) One federal Court Judge surmised in 2015 that Minnesota's Sexually Violent Predator law seemed to be one not directed at any legitimate governmental purpose; rather it seemed to be designed to punish a politically unpopular class of individuals not constitutionally subject to punishment. (Karsjens, et al. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al., United States District Court, District of Minnesota, Case No. 11-3659 (DFW/JJK)) |
||
| ⚫ | As of 2010, 20 states and [[The District of Columbia]] have enacted laws similar to Washington's.<ref name="atsa.com"/> The Federal Government established its sex offender commitment process when it passed the [[Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act]].<ref name=apabc>Jesse J. Holland, [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=10666088 Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison], [[Associated Press]]. Retrieved 5-16-2010.</ref> |
||
In 2015 the United Kingdom was prohibited by its High Court from extraditing an individual (accused of sex offenses in a state that has “sexually violent predator’ laws) to the United States as the U.K. Court opined that the individual sought could be subject to post-sentence imprisonment through the state's "Sexually Violent Predator" law. The U.K. Courts heard evidence of how California’s "Sexually Violent Predator Act" "civil commitment" scheme is applied in California; specifically, that the number of people who may potentially fall within the category of ‘unsound mind’, and therefore be subject to civil commitment would be large, because the ‘net is cast widely, and those with a mental diagnosis which falls far short of ‘unsound mind’ (within the meaning of Article 5) are likely to be committed’ and therefore, the individual sought's detention amounted to a ‘flagrant’ breach of Article 5 pf the European Convention on Human Rights.<ref>http://blogs.law.unc.edu/ncilj/2015/12/15/us-civil-confinement-clashes-with-uk-and-eu-humanrights-laws/</ref> |
|||
Likewise in 2015 the New York Times published an editorial describing one state’s sexually violent predator laws as causing people to be “punished simply because you might commit [a crime] one someday [despite the fact] You certainly can’t be held indefinitely to prevent that possibility.”<ref>{{cite news |last1=Editorial Board |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/opinion/sunday/sex-offenders-locked-up-on-a-hunch.html |agency=New York Times |publisher=New York Times |date=Aug. 15, 2015}}</ref> |
|||
In 2017 the New York Times published an article wherein they deemed such law is based on "junk science" as opposed to rational scientific methodologies designed to assess who are truly mentally ill and who are not.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Feige |first1=David |title=When Junk Science About Sex Offenders Infects the Supreme Court |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/opinion/when-junk-science-about-sex-offenders-infects-the-supreme-court.html |agency=New York Times |publisher=New York Times |date=Sept. 12, 2017}}</ref> |
|||
==Legal challenges== |
==Legal challenges== |
||
In 1997, The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] upheld the constitutionality of SVP laws in [[Kansas v. Hendricks]]. In doing so, the United States Supreme Court declared the “civil commitment” of former sex offenders was “civil” and non-punitive as the High Court’s justices presumed as true the state’s empirical claim that it had a means of identifying a class of individuals—those to whom the state referred as “sexually violent predators”—who were “extremely dangerous” due to their “likelihood of engaging in repeat acts of predatory sexual violence [being] high.” (Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) 521 U.S. 346, 351) |
In 1997, The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] upheld the constitutionality of SVP laws in [[Kansas v. Hendricks]]. In doing so, the United States Supreme Court declared the “civil commitment” of former sex offenders was “civil” and non-punitive as the High Court’s justices presumed as true the state’s empirical claim that it had a means of identifying a class of individuals—those to whom the state referred as “sexually violent predators”—who were “extremely dangerous” due to their “likelihood of engaging in repeat acts of predatory sexual violence [being] high.” (Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) 521 U.S. 346, 351) |
||
In the High Court’s analysis of whether the scheme served the traditionally punitive role of deterrence, the court further empirically assumed the targeted class of individuals could not be deterred – thus severe volitional impairment was required. (Hendricks, Ibid. at pages 362-363) |
In the High Court’s analysis of whether the scheme served the traditionally punitive role of deterrence, the court further empirically assumed the targeted class of individuals could not be deterred – thus severe volitional impairment was required. (Hendricks, Ibid. at pages 362-363) |
||
The High Court was confident that “the confinement's duration [was] linked to the stated purposed of the commitment, namely, to hold the person until his mental abnormality no longer causes him to be a threat to others.” (Hendricks, Ibid. at pages 363) |
The High Court was confident that “the confinement's duration [was] linked to the stated purposed of the commitment, namely, to hold the person until his mental abnormality no longer causes him to be a threat to others.” (Hendricks, Ibid. at pages 363) |
||
The distinction, between (i) the class of sex offenders who must be released after having completed their prison sentences and (ii) those who could be “civilly” detained, was believed to have been that the later class was made up of individuals who suffered from mental abnormalities which caused them to have “serious difficulty in controlling behavior”, thus making them distinguishable “from the dangerous but typical recidivist” that must be released. ([[Kansas v. Crane]] (2002) 534 U.S. 407, 413) |
The distinction, between (i) the class of sex offenders who must be released after having completed their prison sentences and (ii) those who could be “civilly” detained, was believed to have been that the later class was made up of individuals who suffered from mental abnormalities which caused them to have “serious difficulty in controlling behavior”, thus making them distinguishable “from the dangerous but typical recidivist” that must be released. ([[Kansas v. Crane]] (2002) 534 U.S. 407, 413) |
||
In both Hendricks and Crane the state was given deferential preference in asserting its factual findings regarding this so-called “sexually violent predator” class which it claimed was identifiable and distinguishable, as noted above, from recidivists who may be dangerous, but who were not subject to severe volitional impairment problems caused as a result of their mental abnormality. |
In both Hendricks and Crane the state was given deferential preference in asserting its factual findings regarding this so-called “sexually violent predator” class which it claimed was identifiable and distinguishable, as noted above, from recidivists who may be dangerous, but who were not subject to severe volitional impairment problems caused as a result of their mental abnormality. |
||
| ⚫ | Recent data has indicated that the High Court's faith in the state's factual findings was misplaced. Data indicates that the states that have implemented sexually violent predator laws have failed to distinguish between those who truly suffer from mental abnormalities that cause them to suffer from severe volitional impairment likely to lead to reoffending from both the typical recidivist as well as the overwhelming majority of former sex offenders who will never reoffend.<ref>{{cite journal |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| last1 = Lave | first1 = Tamara Rice |
| last1 = Lave | first1 = Tamara Rice |
||
| title = Do Sexually Violent Predator Laws Violate Double Jeopardy or Substantive Due Process? An Empirical Inquiry |
| title = Do Sexually Violent Predator Laws Violate Double Jeopardy or Substantive Due Process? An Empirical Inquiry |
||
| Line 47: | Line 46: | ||
| title =Minnesota’s Holding of Sex Offenders After Prison Is Ruled Unconstitutional |
| title =Minnesota’s Holding of Sex Offenders After Prison Is Ruled Unconstitutional |
||
| newspaper =The New York Times |
| newspaper =The New York Times |
||
| date = |
| date =June 17, 2015 |
||
| url =https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/us/minnesotas-holding-of-sex-offenders-after-prison-is-ruled-unconstitutional.html?_r=0 |
| url =https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/us/minnesotas-holding-of-sex-offenders-after-prison-is-ruled-unconstitutional.html?_r=0 |
||
| accessdate = |
| accessdate = October 7, 2015}}</ref> and Missouri<ref>{{cite news |
||
| last =Bogan |
| last =Bogan |
||
| first =Jesse |
| first =Jesse |
||
| title =U.S. judge rules handling of state's sexual predator program is unconstitutional |
| title =U.S. judge rules handling of state's sexual predator program is unconstitutional |
||
| newspaper =St. Louis Post-Dispatch |
| newspaper =St. Louis Post-Dispatch |
||
| date = |
| date =September 12, 2015 |
||
| url =http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/u-s-judge-rules-handling-of-state-s-sexual-predator/article_8ea46baa-5e3f-5773-a1d1-9465c9d08fe9.html |
| url =http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/u-s-judge-rules-handling-of-state-s-sexual-predator/article_8ea46baa-5e3f-5773-a1d1-9465c9d08fe9.html |
||
| accessdate = |
| accessdate = October 7, 2015}}</ref> have ruled that these states' practices were unconstitutional. |
||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
| Line 84: | Line 83: | ||
|first=Aviva |
|first=Aviva |
||
|last=Stahl |
|last=Stahl |
||
|date= |
|date=April 13, 2016 |
||
|access-date= |
|access-date=February 7, 2018 |
||
|newspaper=[[VICE News]] |
|newspaper=[[VICE News]] |
||
|url=https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zngaqe/why-young-sex-criminals-get-locked-up-forever}} |
|url=https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zngaqe/why-young-sex-criminals-get-locked-up-forever}} |
||
Revision as of 03:05, 16 June 2018
 | It has been suggested that this article be merged with Civil confinement. (Discuss) Proposed since October 2017. |
 |
In some jurisdictions may commit certain types of dangerous sex offenders to state-run detention facilities following the completion of their sentence if that person has a "mental abnormality" or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in sexual offenses if not confined in a secure facility.[1][2] In the United States, twenty states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have a version of these commitment laws, which are referred to as "Sexually Violent Predator" (SVP) or "Sexually Dangerous Persons" laws.[2]
Generally speaking, SVP laws have three elements:[3] (1) That the person has been convicted of a sexually violent offense (a term that is defined applicable statutes) (2) That the person suffers from a mental abnormality and/or personality disorder, which causes him/her serious difficulty controlling his/her sexually violent behavior. (3) That this mental abnormality and/or personality disorder makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility.
A "mental abnormality" is a legal term of art that is not identical to a mental disorder, though experts generally refer to diagnoses contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as evidence of a mental abnormality.[4]
In most cases, commitment as an SVP is indefinite; however, once a person is committed, the confining agency is constitutionally required to conduct periodic reviews of that person's mental condition.[citation needed] If the committed person's condition changes so he/she no longer meets commitment criteria, he/she must be released. In some circumstances, committed persons can be released to court-monitored conditional releases to less restrictive alternative placements (LRAs).[5]
History
In 1990, the first SVP law was established in Washington following two high-profile sexual assaults and murders by Earl Kenneth Shriner and Gene Kane.[6] In response to the attacks, Helen Harlow—the mother of Gene Kane's victim—formed a group known as The Tennis Shoe Brigade in order to put pressure on state government to change the laws related to sex offenders. Washington Governor Booth Gardner formed the "Task Force on Community Protection" to consider possible solutions.
While the Task Force deliberated, serial killer Westley Allan Dodd kidnapped, raped, and murdered three young boys in Vancouver, Washington. The Task force provided its recommendations to the state legislature which then enacted the "Community Protection Act of 1990."
The United States Supreme Court declared the "civil commitment" of former sex offenders was "civil" and non-punitive as the High Court’s justices presumed as true the state’s empirical claim that it had a means of identifying a class of individuals, the state referred to as "sexually violent predators", who were "extremely dangerous" due to their "likelihood of engaging in repeat acts of predatory sexual violence [being] high." (Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) 521 U.S. 346, 351)
In order for the imprisoning of these individuals, without any criminal charges being laid or of crimes having been committed, the U.S. Supreme court indicated that states must be able to make a distinction, between (i) the class of sex offenders who must be released after having completed their prison sentences and (ii) those who could be “civilly” detained, as this later class (unlike to former) is made up of individuals who suffered from mental abnormalities which caused them to have “serious difficulty in controlling behavior”, thus making them distinguishable “from the dangerous but typical recidivist” that must be released. (Kansas v. Crane (2002) 534 U.S. 407, 413)
Data culled over the several years these schemes have been in place have systematically demonstrated that "Sexually Violent Predator" laws were imprisoning individuals who had not been rationally differentiated from typical recidivists or from individuals who were among the overwhelming majority of former sex offenders who would not ever reoffend. (“Do Sexually Violent Predator Laws Violate Double Jeopardy or Substantive Due Process? An Empirical Inquiry”, Prof. Tama Rice Lave, Brooklyn Law Review, 2013) One federal Court Judge surmised in 2015 that Minnesota's Sexually Violent Predator law seemed to be one not directed at any legitimate governmental purpose; rather it seemed to be designed to punish a politically unpopular class of individuals not constitutionally subject to punishment. (Karsjens, et al. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al., United States District Court, District of Minnesota, Case No. 11-3659 (DFW/JJK))
As of 2010, 20 states and The District of Columbia have enacted laws similar to Washington's.[2] The Federal Government established its sex offender commitment process when it passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.[7]
Legal challenges
In 1997, The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of SVP laws in Kansas v. Hendricks. In doing so, the United States Supreme Court declared the “civil commitment” of former sex offenders was “civil” and non-punitive as the High Court’s justices presumed as true the state’s empirical claim that it had a means of identifying a class of individuals—those to whom the state referred as “sexually violent predators”—who were “extremely dangerous” due to their “likelihood of engaging in repeat acts of predatory sexual violence [being] high.” (Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) 521 U.S. 346, 351) In the High Court’s analysis of whether the scheme served the traditionally punitive role of deterrence, the court further empirically assumed the targeted class of individuals could not be deterred – thus severe volitional impairment was required. (Hendricks, Ibid. at pages 362-363) The High Court was confident that “the confinement's duration [was] linked to the stated purposed of the commitment, namely, to hold the person until his mental abnormality no longer causes him to be a threat to others.” (Hendricks, Ibid. at pages 363) The distinction, between (i) the class of sex offenders who must be released after having completed their prison sentences and (ii) those who could be “civilly” detained, was believed to have been that the later class was made up of individuals who suffered from mental abnormalities which caused them to have “serious difficulty in controlling behavior”, thus making them distinguishable “from the dangerous but typical recidivist” that must be released. (Kansas v. Crane (2002) 534 U.S. 407, 413) In both Hendricks and Crane the state was given deferential preference in asserting its factual findings regarding this so-called “sexually violent predator” class which it claimed was identifiable and distinguishable, as noted above, from recidivists who may be dangerous, but who were not subject to severe volitional impairment problems caused as a result of their mental abnormality. Recent data has indicated that the High Court's faith in the state's factual findings was misplaced. Data indicates that the states that have implemented sexually violent predator laws have failed to distinguish between those who truly suffer from mental abnormalities that cause them to suffer from severe volitional impairment likely to lead to reoffending from both the typical recidivist as well as the overwhelming majority of former sex offenders who will never reoffend.[8]
States
Federal judges in Minnesota[9] and Missouri[10] have ruled that these states' practices were unconstitutional.
See also
- California Proposition 83 (2006)
- Recidivism
- Sex offender
- Sexual predator
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (Supreme Court of the United States, 2003)
- United States v. Comstock
Further reading
- La Fond, John Q. und Winick, Bruce J. (eds.): Protecting society from sexually dangerous offenders: law, justice, and therapy. American Psychological Association, 2003.
- “Do Sexually Violent Predator Laws Violate Double Jeopardy or Substantive Due Process? An Empirical Inquiry”, Prof. Tamara Rice Lave, Brooklyn Law Review, 2013.
- “Controlling Sexual Violent Predators: Continued Incarceration at What Costs?”, Prof. Tamara Rice Lave, New Criminal Law Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, 2011.
- “High Risk Sex Offenders May Not Be High Risk Forever”, R. Karl Hanson, et al., Journal of Interpersonal Violence, November 3, 2013.
- Ridgeway, James (26 September 2013). "How 'civil commitment' enables indefinite detention of sex offenders". The Guardian.
- Stahl, Aviva (April 13, 2016). "Why Sex Criminals Get Locked Up Forever". VICE News. Retrieved February 7, 2018.
Even after serving decades-long sentences, sex offenders are often held indefinitely in prison-like conditions—a situation that critics say is legally and ethically dubious.
References
- ^ "RCW 71.09.020: Definitions". Apps.leg.wa.gov. Retrieved 20 October 2017.
- ^ a b c "Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators - ATSA". Atsa.com. Retrieved 20 October 2017.
- ^ [1] [dead link]
- ^ Inc., US Legal,. "Mental Abnormality Law and Legal Definition - USLegal, Inc". Definitions.uslegal.com. Retrieved 20 October 2017.
{{cite web}}:|last=has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ RCW 71.09.090
- ^ "Page Not Found - Washington State Department of Corrections". Doc.wa.gov. Retrieved 20 October 2017.
{{cite web}}: Cite uses generic title (help) - ^ Jesse J. Holland, Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison, Associated Press. Retrieved 5-16-2010.
- ^ Lave, Tamara Rice (2013). "Do Sexually Violent Predator Laws Violate Double Jeopardy or Substantive Due Process? An Empirical Inquiry". Brooklyn Law Review. SSRN 2143199.
- ^ Davy, Monica (June 17, 2015). "Minnesota's Holding of Sex Offenders After Prison Is Ruled Unconstitutional". The New York Times. Retrieved October 7, 2015.
- ^ Bogan, Jesse (September 12, 2015). "U.S. judge rules handling of state's sexual predator program is unconstitutional". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved October 7, 2015.
External links
- Washington Department of Social and Health Services informational page on SVPs
- Colorado Division of Criminal Justice SVP assessment screening guidelines
- California SVP law ruled constitutional
- Capcentral.org
- Google Books
- Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Persons CRS Report for Congress, July 2007
| Forms | |
|---|---|
| Sociological theories | |
| Laws | |
| Related topics | |