Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 425–448 | Cite as

Evaluation for Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders: A Survey of Experts

  • Rebecca L. JacksonEmail author
  • Derek T. Hess
Original Article


At this study’s commencement, 17 states had enacted sex offender civil commitment legislation. Although each statute outlines broad criteria that must be met, civil commitment evaluators are given considerable latitude in how to conduct their assessment. Forty-one experts who conduct sex offender civil commitment evaluations were surveyed to identify the usual practice of these evaluators. A great deal of agreement exists across experts regarding the conduct of sex offender civil commitment evaluations. However, these patterns appear quite different from the usual practice outlined in other types of forensic evaluations. Experts in sex offender civil commitment endorsed documentation as the core method for evaluation. The majority of evaluators reported the assessment of paraphilias, substance abuse, other Axis I disorders, Axis II disorders, and psychopathy as essential to the evaluation. Virtually all survey respondents utilized actuarial risk assessment measures, primarily the Static-99, in assessing for risk of future sexual violence. Although several approaches to assessing volitional impairment were described, the majority of respondents reported that a history of sex offending combined with a personality disorder or a paraphilia established the necessary link between mental abnormality and risk of future sexual violence. An overwhelming majority of experts indicated that it was essential for evaluators to report their ultimate opinion as to whether criteria had been met for civil commitment. Future research regarding the use and incorporation of documentation should be conducted to determine whether the heavy reliance on documentation is unique to sex offender civil commitment evaluations, or whether it is commonly used in other forensic evaluations.


Sex offender civil commitment Evaluation Survey 


  1. American Psychological Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th edn, Text Revision). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Association for the Treatment of Sex Abusers (2001). Civil commitment of sexually violent predators. Position paper retrieved from
  3. Becker, J. V., Stinson, J., Tromp, S., & Messer, G. (2003). Characteristics of individuals petitioned for civil commitment. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparatively Criminology, 47, 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borum, R., & Grisso, T. (1995). Psychological test use in criminal forensic evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 465–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borum, R., Otto, R., & Golding, S. (1993). Improving clinical judgment and decision making in forensic evaluation. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 21, 35–76.Google Scholar
  6. Doren, D. M. (2002). Evaluating sex offenders: A manual for civil commitments and beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154–1163.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hare, R. D. (2003). The psychopathy checklist-revised technical manual (2nd ed.). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  9. Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Quinsey, V. L., Lalumiere, M. L., Boer, D., & Lang, C. (2003). A multisite comparison of actuarial risk instruments for sex offenders. Psychological Assessment, 5, 413–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hildebrand, M., de Ruiter, C., & de Vogel, V. (2004). Psychopathy and sexual deviance in treated rapists: Association with sexual and nonsexual recidivism. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. In re Detention of Thorell. 149 Wash. 2d 724 (2003).Google Scholar
  12. Jackson, R. L., & Richards, H. J. (2008). Sex offender civil commitment evaluations. In R. L. Jackson (Ed.) Learning forensic assessment (pp. 183–209). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  13. Jackson, R. L., & Richards, H. J. (2007). Diagnostic and risk profiles among civilly committed sex offenders in Washington state. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 313–323.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jackson, R. L., Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2004). The adequacy and accuracy of sexually violent predator evaluations: Contextualized risk assessment in clinical practice. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 3, 115–129.Google Scholar
  15. Janus, E. S. (1998). Hendricks and the moral terrain of police power civil commitment. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4, 297–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kansas v. Crane. 534 U. S. 407 (2002).Google Scholar
  17. Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997).Google Scholar
  18. Lally, S. J. (2003). What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations? A survey of experts. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 491–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levenson, J. S. (2004). Sex offender civil commitment: A comparison of selected and released offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 638–648.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levenson, J. S., & Morin, J. W. (2006). Factor predicting selection of sexually violent predators for civil commitment. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 609–629.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  22. Mercado, C. C., Schopp, R. F., & Bornstein, B. H. (2005). Evaluating sex offenders under sexually violent predator laws: How might mental health professional conceptualize the notion of volitional impairment? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 289–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller, H. A., Amenta, A. E., & Conroy, M. A. (2005). Sexually violent predator evaluations: Empirical evidence, strategies for professionals, and research directions. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 29–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Johnson, J. T., & Janke, C. (in press). Does interrater (dis)agreement on psychopathy checklist scores in sexually violent predator trials suggest partisan allegiance in forensic evaluations? Law and Human Behavior.Google Scholar
  25. Nicholson, R. A., & Kugler, K. E. (1991). Competent and incompetent criminal defendants: A quantitative review of comparative research. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 355–370.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Olver, M. E., & Wong, S. C. P. (2006). Psychopathy, sexual deviance, and recidivism among sex offenders. Sex Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rachlin, S., Hapern, A. L., & Portnow, S. L. (1984). The volitional rule, personality disorders, and the insanity defense. Psychiatric Annals, 14, 139–147.Google Scholar
  28. Rice, M. E., Harris, G. T., & Quinsey, V. L. (1990). Follow up of rapists assessed in a maximum security psychiatric facility. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 435–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rogers, R. (2000). The uncritical acceptance of risk assessment in forensic practice. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 595–605.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rogers, R., & Ewing, C. P. (2003). The prohibition of ultimate opinions: A misguided enterprise. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 3, 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ryba, N. L., Cooper, V. G., & Zapf, P. A. (2003). Juvenile competence to stand trial evaluations: A survey of current practices and test usage among psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 499–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schopp, R. F., & Sturgis, B. J. (1995). Sexual predators and legal mental illness for civil commitment. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 13, 437–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Seto, M. C. (2005). Is more better? Combining actuarial risk scales to predict recidivism among adult sex offenders. Psychological Assessment, 17, 156–167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vess, J., Murphy, C., & Arkowitz, S. (2004). Clinical and demographic differences between sexually violent predators and other commitment types in a state forensic hospital. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 15, 669–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zander, T. (2005). Civil commitment without psychosis: The law’s reliance on the weakest links in psychodiagnosis. Journal of Sex Offender Civil Commitment: Science and the Law, 1, 17–82.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pacific Graduate School of PsychologyPalo AltoUSA
  2. 2.Special Commitment CenterSteilacoomUSA

Personalised recommendations