Date: July 6, 2014
Dangerous Diagnoses, Risky Assumptions, and the Failed Experiment of ‘Sexually Violent Predator’ Commitment
Deirdre M. Smith
June 9, 2014
In the 1997 opinion, Kansas v. Hendricks, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a law that presented a new model of civil commitment. The targets of these new commitment laws were dubbed “Sexually Violent Predators,” and the Court upheld this form of indefinite detention on the assumption that there is a psychiatrically distinct class of individuals who, unlike typical recidivists, have a mental condition that impairs their ability to refrain from violent sexual behavior. And, more specifically, the Court assumed that the justice system could reliably identify the true “predators,” those for whom this unusual and extraordinary deprivation of liberty is appropriate and legitimate, with the aid of testimony from mental health professionals. This Article evaluates the extent to which those assumptions were correct and concludes that they were seriously flawed and, therefore, the due process rationale used to uphold the SVP laws is invalid. The category of the “Sexually Violent Predator” is a political and moral construct, not a medical classification. The implementation of the laws has resulted in dangerous distortions of both psychiatric expertise and important legal principles, and such distortions reveal an urgent need to re-examine the Supreme Court’s core rationale in upholding the SVP commitment experiment.
At 77 pages, this PDF presents a substantial read…It will take you some time.
The Social Science Research Network has a typical, fairly painless sign up process…user accounts are free.
…Download and read this…
This is important information. It strikes at the core of a menacing threat facing pedosexuals…permanent involuntary civil commitment.
It looks to be very solid…and very damning of what government bodies in the U.S. have been doing, underneath this “sexually violent predator” concept they have created.
I urge anyone with a sincere interest in what is happening to sexual deviants, with regards to civil commitment, to download and read this paper.
Thoughts after reading this…
This details a lot of the head butting between the APA and the U.S. government, while the government was trying to pass this new law…It discusses the APA’s condemnation of it.
It also goes into some detail about the predecessor to this law, and what a failed effort that was.
It discusses the opportunistic nature of the government…which essentially had people like Earl Shriner and Leroy Hendricks as the “poster child” of this new law…two people with quite terrible pasts [kidnapping and murder, for at least one of them]. Yet, the general groups which have been targeted by these SVP laws typically have non-contact offenses…and cannot reasonably be represented by people like Shriner and Hendricks.
The loose and flighty nature of this law, it’s enforcement…it’s poor standards of “proof”…the heavy controversy over philias, over “mental abnormalities”…and the mental health fields inability to predict recidivism…All are touched on, in this paper.
This is a rather solid, slam dunk condemnation of SVP law and the practice of indefinite commitment to containment centers [“hospitals”].
The depths of this governments depravity are no shock, at all…Heck, we [quite a number of us] have been talking and writing about this exact kind of thing in BoyLove and Girl-Love circles for years…
…Now, it is finally starting to show up in academic research…And of course, if the researchers are honest and ethical then it has to…It is the truth of the matter, after all.
Thank you, Deirdre M. Smith! It is wonderful to discover, that truth and integrity are still surviving [if barely], within the field of “sex law” research.