|
In the United States, 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.〔http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=71.09.020〕〔http://www.atsa.com/civil-commitment-sexually-violent-predators〕 Twenty U.S. 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.〔 Generally speaking, SVP laws have three elements:〔https://govt.westlaw.com/wciji/Document/I2cd482c8e10d11dab058a118868d70a9?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)〕 (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 illness though experts generally refer to diagnoses contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as evidence of a mental abnormality.〔http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/mental-abnormality/〕 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. 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).〔RCW 71.09.090〕 ==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.〔http://www.doc.wa.gov/community/sexoffenders/civilcommitment.asp〕 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 killerWestley 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 () 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 legitimat 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.〔 The Federal Government established its sex offender commitment process when it passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.〔Jesse J. Holland, (Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison ), Associated Press. Retrieved 5-16-2010.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Sexually violent predator laws」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|