Violent tendencies in our society come in many forms. Perhaps one of the least addressed, but most worried about of violent criminal offenses are those of the sexually violent predators (SVP). These offenders have a history of at least one violent sexual offense; although some states, such as California, require multiple past convictions to be deemed an SVP. The method of dealing with non-violent sexual offenders has remained similar to any other convictions, usually leading to general population in a prison, possible treatment, and release upon the granting of parole. For SVP’s, this process has the chance of being different due to the state and federal SVP laws that single them out due to habitual offending.
The current policies regarding SVP’s in California allow for the process of civil commitment of individuals confirmed to be SVP’s by medical and psychiatric personnel. The laws target for commitment those individuals that have some form of mental disability or personality disorder which would make reoffending upon release likely, and they have past sexual offense convictions (Miller, 2010). This commitment transfers SVP’s from the prison at the conclusion of their sentence, into a medical correctional facility where they must undergo treatment and are not granted release until the medical personnel decide they would no longer be a threat to society upon release. One of the primary benefits of such a program is that it instills upon the predator an indeterminate sentence. With this kind of sentence in use, the offender is not guaranteed a release date at all during their sentence. He must prove his rehabilitation to the doctors and other personnel present in the facility.
A current issue with this program, however, is the effectiveness of its implementation in California. As of July 1st, 2011, the latest data available for sex offender commitment indicates that of the 35,111 offenders referred to the civil commitment program, 699 have actually been civilly committed under the California Sexually Violent Predator law, or the Welfare and Institutions Code 6600 (Department of Mental Health, 2010). This is approximately 1.9% of all cases being approved for civil commitment. So the question becomes whether the law is being carried out in an effective manner, and whether it is worth the lopsided percentages to remove dangerous offenders from the general public.
In answering this question, the focus will be shifted to the offenders themselves. These men have been convicted of sexual assaults of various kinds and have been deemed a threat to society because of their full intentions to reoffend if released. If the civil commitment of these offenders is able to remove some of them from society and prevent them from reoffending, then I would deem it as at least a partial success. These offenders would be a danger to society if not for the commitment process, which makes even a small percentage of success still significant.
References
California Department of Mental Health [DMH]. (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 & 2010). Sex Offender Commitment Program [SOCP]. [Data File]. Retrieved from http://www.dmh.ca.gov/Services_and_Programs/Forensic_Services/Sex_Offender_Commitment_Program/Facts_&_Figures
Miller, J. (2010). Sex offender civil commitment: The treatment paradox. California Law Review, 98(6), 2093-2128.
No comments:
Post a Comment