Citation

Janus ES. Behav. Sci. Law 2000; 18(1): 5-21.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2000, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1002/(SICI)1099-0798(200001/02)18:1<5::AID-BSL374>3.0.CO;2-C

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Sex offender commitment laws use a mental health commitment model to lock up the “most dangerous” sex offenders after their prison sentences expire. In Kansas v. Hendricks, the United States Supreme Court rejected the major constitutional challenges to these laws. The Hendricks case clarifies important ambiguities about the use of civil commitment to enforce “police power” interests, as opposed to “parens patriae” interests. Hendricks also clarifies the role of “treatment” in justifying civil commitment. While there remain some important legal issues to be resolved, the future direction of sex offender commitment schemes will turn most significantly on policy decisions. The behavioral sciences can play an important role in shaping these decisions. The most significant questions concern whether expensive commitment programs are the most effective use of scarce treatment and supervision dollars. Additional research should be directed to improving dynamic predictors of recidivism, operationalizing “inability to control” standards, judging the “social meaning” of commitment laws, and assessing the potential treatment disincentives of these laws. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.