Week 9: Sex Offender Social Control Policies Flashcards
Jacob Wetterling, Crimes Against Children & Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (1994)
States that did not have a registration law stood to lose 10% of their federal funding for jails and prisons.
New Jersey v. Timmedequas (1999)
- After this case, neighbors and community members are notified when a registered sex offender moves into their neighborhood.
- All US States now maintain active and updated registries of sex offenders that are readily searchable by offender name or by zipcode.
Kansas v. Hendricks (1997)
- Hendricks appealed the commitment, claiming that the SVP Act violated various constitutional protections, among them the right to due process of law.
- (SV Act: Established a civil commitment procedure for “any person who has been convicted or charged with a sexually violent offense and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder, which makes the person likely to engage in the predatory acts of sexual violence.”
- Any committed offender who was no longer considered dangerous would be released, just as in any other civil commitment.
Kansas v. Crane (2002)
The Court ruled that the Kansas SVP act was constitutional so long as it required proof that the offender has a “serious difficulty” in controlling his or her behavior.
What is the definition of SVP?
Sexually violent predator.
What is the role of mental health professionals?
By conducting sex offender risk assessments, mental health professionals can identify the most dangerous offenders among all of those who are released.
What are the three main purposes served by competency requirement?
- Preserve dignity of proceedings.
- Improve accuracy of convictions.
- Ensure the autonomy of defendants.
What does “preserve dignity of proceedings” mean for competency requirement?
Bringing the power of the state to bear against an incompetent defendant runs counter to societal notions of justice and fairness.
What does “improve accuracy of convictions” mean for competency requirement?
A defendant must be capable of providing exculpatory evidence to attorney.
What does “ensure the autonomy of defendants” mean for competency requirement?
Certain decisions must be made by the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (e.g., plea decisions); Given the import of these decisions for the life course of the defendant, no one can make these decisions for him/her.
Dusky v. US (1960)
- This is the definition of competence used both at the federal and most state levels for all criminal proceedings.
- To satisfy their rights to due process, defendants must have:
- Factual understand of proceedings
- Rational understanding of the proceedings
- Sufficient present ability to consult with a lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding
Pate v. Robinson (1966)
- Competence inquiry is required any time there is a “bona fide doubt” about the defendants abilities.
- “…the Supreme Court states that a defendant’s due-process right to a fair trial is violated by a court’s failure to hold a competency hearing where there is a bona-fide doubt as to a defendant’s competency.”
Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996)
- Preponderance of the evidence.
- “…a criminal defendant is competent to stand trial unless he proves his incompetence by clear and convincing evidence.”
Drope v. Missouri (1975)
- Defendants must be able to assist in preparing their own defense.
- “…the denial of petitioner’s motion for a continuance of the trial in order to procure further psychiatric evaluation was not an abuse of discretion…”
Jackson v. Indiana (1972)
- If competency cannot be restored in a reasonable amount of time, defendant must be released or committed under routine civil commitment procedures.
- “…states may not indefinitely confine criminal defendants solely on the basis of incompetence to stand trial.”
Estelle v. Smith (1981)
- Concerns about 5th Amendment rights in competency evaluations
- Use of competency evaluation results should be restricted to competency issue.
- “Texas may not use evidence based on a psychiatric examination of the defendant unless the defendant was warned, before the examination, that he had a right to remain silent; was allowed to terminate the examination when he wished; and was assisted by counsel in deciding whether to submit to the examination.”
Godinez v. Moran (1993)
- Competence to waive constitutional rights does not require a higher standard: A defendant who is CST is also competent to waive constitutional rights.
- Suggests that decisional capacity is essential to competence to stand trial (vs. how well you can defend one’s self)
- ” A defendant can plead guilty or waive the right to counsel if it is established that he or she is competent to stand trial.”
Recommendations for competency assessment given by Skeem et al., 2004:
- Use the right tools.
- Get the right information.
- Take context seriously.
- Test and substantiate your conclusions.
- Obtain specialized forensic training.
What does “use the right tools” mean?
Ones that directly target psycholegal issues (not general psychopathology or cognitive functioning)
What does “get the right information” mean?
- Information specific to the case.
- Link trial-related deficits to psychopathology and/or intellectual deficits.
- Review records BEFORE the Interview.
What does “take context seriously” mean?
- Assess decisional capacity (capacity for reasoned choice)
- Try to gather information regarding likely demands on defendant from defense counsel.
- Add language to report to clarify that evaluation is context dependent.
What does “test and substantiate your conclusions” mean?
- Essential that evaluators explain the factual basis for their opinions, to allow the court to reach its own conclusions.
- Rule out alternative explanations to the extent possible (e.g., transient states, malingering)
Washington v. Harper (1990)
- Requires judicial held and state to prove meds are necessary and effective for furthering a compelling state interest.
- “…a full judicial hearing, with the inmate being represented by counsel, was required by the Due Process Clause before the State could administer antipsychotic drugs to him against his will.”
Riggins v. Nevada (1992)
- Forced manipulation must be necessary to control dangerousness, not manipulate appearance in court.
- “… Nevada unconstitutionally deprived Riggins of his liberty interest in avoiding unwanted medication by compelling him to take an antipsychotic drug.”
