The function of punishment in the “civil” commitment of sexually violent predators
✍ Scribed by Kevin M. Carlsmith; John Monahan; Alison Evans
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2007
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 131 KB
- Volume
- 25
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0735-3936
- DOI
- 10.1002/bsl.761
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
Abstract
Two experiments find that support for civil commitment procedures for sexually violent predators is based primarily upon the retributive rather than incapacitative goals of respondents. Two discrete samples composed of students (N = 175) and jury‐eligible citizens (N = 200) completed experimental surveys assessing their support or opposition to scenarios in which a sexual predator was to be released after completing his criminal sentence. Respondents were sensitive to likelihood of recidivism only when the initial sentence was sufficiently punitive. When initial sentence was lenient, respondents strongly supported civil commitment without regard to future risk. Results are discussed in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) on the constitutionality of civil commitment laws for sexually violent predators. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES
## Abstract Despite concerns about generalizability, past mock trial research has concluded that effects of sample (i.e., students versus representative mock jurors) are negligible. The current study was conducted to explore this conclusion within the conceptual framework of cognitive–experiential
Predictions of future sexual oending have been mandated by various ``Sexual Predator'' commitment laws, despite historical arguments that clinicians are frequently inaccurate and over-predict violence. The basis for those arguments has been the perspective that sexual recidivism is a relatively rare