Field validity of the STATIC-99 and MnSOST-R among sex offenders evaluated for civil commitment as sexually violent predators.

2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 278-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus T. Boccaccini ◽  
Daniel C. Murrie ◽  
Jennifer D. Caperton ◽  
Samuel W. Hawes
Keyword(s):  
Sex Offenders ◽  
Civil Commitment ◽  
Sexually Violent Predators ◽  
Sexually Violent

The function of punishment in the “civil” commitment of sexually violent predators

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 437-448 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin M. Carlsmith ◽  
John Monahan ◽  
Alison Evans
Keyword(s):  
Civil Commitment ◽  
Sexually Violent Predators ◽  
Sexually Violent

Sexually Violent Predators and Civil Commitment Laws

2004 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wanda D. Beyer Kendall ◽  
Monit Cheung
Keyword(s):  
Civil Commitment ◽  
Sexually Violent Predators ◽  
Sexually Violent

scholarly journals Controlling Sexually Violent Predators: Continued Incarceration At What Cost?

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamara Rice Lave
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Sex Offenders ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Sexually Violent Predator ◽  
The Core ◽  
Sexually Violent Predators ◽  
Sexually Violent ◽  
The U.S

Sexually violent predator (SVP) laws are inherently suspicious because they continue to incarcerate people not because of what they have done, but because of what they might do. I focus on three major criticisms of the laws. First, I use recent recidivism data to challenge the core motivation for the SVP laws—that sex offenders are monsters who cannot control themselves. Second, I situate the laws theoretically as examples of what Feeley and Simon call the “new penology. ” I argue that the SVP laws show the limited promise of the new penology— that we can use science to predict risk accurately—because the actuarial instruments used in SVP determinations make many mistakes. In making this argument, I focus particularly on the most commonly used such instrument, the Static-99. Finally, I argue that the Static-99 fails to meet the constitutional criteria laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kansas v. Hendricks because it does not link an individual's mental illness to his dangerousness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document