Advertisement

Sexually Violent Predator Laws: Historical Development and Evolution

  • Philip H. Witt
  • David DeMatteo
Chapter

Abstract

Beginning in the 1990s, after a series of heinous sex crimes, states throughout the United States began to implement additional restrictions on individuals convicted of sex offenses. These restrictions included limiting the areas in the community where convicted sex offenders were allowed to live, additional supervision in the community, and registration and community notification. One such restriction now in effect in many jurisdictions is civil commitment as sexually violent predators (SVPs) after their term of incarceration. The present chapter discusses the development of SVP statutes, reviewing their evolution over the last 25 years.

Keywords

Sex offenders SVP Sexually violent predators Forensic psychology Forensic psychiatry Law Civil commitment statutes 

References

  1. 18 U.S.C. § 4247-4248. (2012).Google Scholar
  2. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 6401-6402 (West, Westlaw through Regular Session Act 2013-72).Google Scholar
  3. Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109–248, 120 Stat. 587. (2006).Google Scholar
  4. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 36-3701. (2012).Google Scholar
  5. Barnickol, L. (2000). Missouri’s sexually violent predator law. Journal of Law and Policy, 4, 321–339.Google Scholar
  6. Canada Criminal Code, §753(1) & (2). (2014).Google Scholar
  7. Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (DPSOA). (Qld 2003).Google Scholar
  8. DeMatteo, D., Murphy, M., Galloway, M., & Krauss, D. A. (2015). A national survey of United States sexually violent person legislation: Policy, procedures, and practice. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 14, 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DSPD Programme, Department of Health, Home Office and HM Prison Service. (2006). Dangerous and severe/complex personality disorder high secure services planning and delivery guide for women’s DSPD services (primrose programme). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  10. DSPD Programme, Department of Health, Home Office, HM Prison Service (2005). Dangerous and severe personality disorder (DSPD) high secure services for men: Planning and delivery guide. London: Home Office. Available at: http://www.dspdprogramme.gov.uk
  11. DSPD Programme, Department of Health, Ministry of Justice and HM Prison Service. (2008). Dangerous and severe personality disorder (DSPD) high secure services for men: Planning and delivery guide. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  12. Ewing, C. P. (2011). Justice perverted: Sex offense law, psychology, and public policy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferguson, G. E., Eidelson, R. J., & Witt, P. H. (1998). New Jersey’s sex offender risk assessment scale: Preliminary validity data. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 26, 327–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 394.912. (2010).Google Scholar
  15. Gookin, K. (2007). Comparison of state laws authorizing involuntary commitment of sexually violent predators: 2006 update, revised (Document No. 07-08-1101). Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
  16. Heilbrun, K., Ogloff, J. R. P., & Picarello, K. (1999). Dangerous offender statutes in the United States and Canada: Implications for risk assessment. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 393–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Janus, E. S. (2013). Preventive detention of sex offenders: The American experience versus international human rights norms. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 31, 328–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jeglic, E., Mercado, C. C., & Perillo, A. (2012). Is SVP legislation effective at targeting those most at risk for recidivism? Presentation at the 31st Annual Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  19. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 59-29a02. (2011).Google Scholar
  20. Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407. (2002).Google Scholar
  21. Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346. (1997).Google Scholar
  22. Karsjens v. Piper, 845 F.3d 394. (8th Cir. 2017).Google Scholar
  23. Karsjens v. Jesson. (2015, October 28). First interim relief order. United States District Court-District of Minnesota. Civil No. 0:11-cv-03659-DWF-JJK.Google Scholar
  24. Kelly, M. (2007). Lock them up-and throw away the key: The preventive detention of sex offenders in the United States and Germany. Georgia Journal of International Law, 39, 551–572.Google Scholar
  25. Keyzer, P., & McSherry, B. (2013). The preventive detention of “dangerous” sex offenders in Australia: Perspectives at the coalface. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 2, 296–305.Google Scholar
  26. LaFond, J. Q. (2005). Preventing sexual violence: How society should cope with sex offenders. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martinson, R. (1974). What works?—Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–54.Google Scholar
  28. Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  29. Mercado, C. C. (2006). Preventive detention of sex offenders: A comparative law perspective. Pensamiento Psicológico, 7, 7–14.Google Scholar
  30. Mercado, C. C., Jeglic, E., Markus, K., Hanson, R. K., & Levenson, J. (2013). Sex offender management, treatment, and civil commitment: An evidence based analysis aimed at reducing sexual violence (p. 243551). Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice Document.Google Scholar
  31. Minow, N. (1949). The Illinois proposal to confine sexually dangerous persons. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 40, 186–197.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 25-03.3-01 (West, Westlaw through the 2013 Regular Session of the 63rd Legislative Assembly).Google Scholar
  33. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 135-E:2. (2007).Google Scholar
  34. Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 71-907. (2009).Google Scholar
  35. Nucci, M. Z. (2016, January 29). Karsjens v. Jesson as ordered: Liberty, politics, and the unpopular. American Bar Association, Section of Litigation, downloaded from http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/access/articles/winter2016-0116-karsjens-jesson-as-ordered-liberty-politics-unpopular.html
  36. Perlin, M. E., & Cucolo, H. E. (2016). Mental disability law: Civil and criminal. New York: LexisNexis Pub.Google Scholar
  37. Petrunik, M. (2003). The hare and the tortoise: Dangerousness and sex offender policy in the United States and Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/La Revue Canadienne de Criminologie et de Justice Pénale, 45, 43–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Petrunik, M. G. (2002). Managing unacceptable risk: Sex offenders, community response, and social policy in the United States and Canada. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, 483–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Prentky, R. A., Barbaree, H. E., & Janus, E. S. (2015). Sexual predators: Society, risk, and the law. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. S.C. Code Ann. § 44-48-30.Google Scholar
  41. Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250. (2001).Google Scholar
  42. State of Minnesota ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court, 309 US 270. (1940).Google Scholar
  43. State of New Jersey v. Horne, 56 N.J. 372. (1970).Google Scholar
  44. State of New Jersey v. Howard, 213 N.J. Super. 587, 593 (1986).Google Scholar
  45. State of New Jersey v. NG, 381 N.J. Super. App. Div. 352, 886 A.2d 186. (2005).Google Scholar
  46. Sullivan v. United States. (2012). EWHC (Admin) 1680, [36] (Eng.). Retrieved on 30 Apr 2016 from http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/1680.html
  47. Tappen, P. (1950). The habitual sex offender: Report and recommendations of the New Jersey Commission for the Study of the Habitual Sex Offender as formulated by Paul W. Tappan, technical consultant. Trenton, NJ, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  48. Tillman v. Australia. (2010). Retrieved on 30 Apr 2016 from http://hrlc.org.au/tillman-v-australia-un-doc-ccprc98d16352007-12-april-2010/
  49. United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126. (2010).Google Scholar
  50. Witt, P. H., & Frank, M. (1988). Psychological evaluations under the New Jersey Sex Offender Act. New Jersey Trial Lawyer, 2, 37–43.Google Scholar
  51. Zgoba, K. M., Sager, W. R., & Witt, P. H. (2003). Evaluation of New Jersey’s Sex Offender treatment program at the adult diagnostic and treatment center: Preliminary results. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 31, 133–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip H. Witt
    • 1
  • David DeMatteo
    • 2
  1. 1.Somerset Psychological Group, P.A.SomervilleUSA
  2. 2.Drexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations