Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

systems are the most appropriate way to select and

combine individual assessment findings to make deci-

sions about sex offenders’ risk of recidivism.

Grant T. Harris and Marnie E. Rice

See alsoHare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (2nd edition)

(PCL–R); Pedophilia; Psychopathy; Rapid Risk

Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism (RRASOR);

Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG); STATIC–99

and STATIC–2002 Instruments; Violence Risk Appraisal

Guide (VRAG)

Further Readings

Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. E. (1996). The science in

phallometric testing of male sexual interest. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 5,156–160.

Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Quinsey, V. L., Chaplin, T. C., &

Earls, C. (1992). Maximizing the discriminant validity of

phallometric assessment.Psychological Assessment, 4,

502–511.

Lalumière, M. L., Harris, G. T., Quinsey, V. L., & Rice, M. E.

(2005). The causes of rape: Understanding individual

differences in the male propensity for sexual aggression.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Prescott, D. S. (2004). Emerging strategies for risk assessment

of sexually abusive youth: Theory, controversy, and

practice. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 13,83–105.

Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A.

(2006). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk

(2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Quinsey, V. L., & Lalumière, M. (2001). Assessment of sexual

offenders against children(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Rice, M. E., Harris, G. T., Lang, C., & Cormier, C. A. (2006).

Violent sex offenses: How are they best measured from

official records? Law and Human Behavior, 30,525–541.

SEXOFFENDERCIVILCOMMITMENT

During the past 15 years, sex offender civil commitment

laws have emerged that require some dangerous sex

offenders to receive involuntary treatment in a secure

facility after their criminal incarceration. Following an

assessment of risk, sex offenders who are considered

likely to re-offend are entitled to a trial with a judge or

jury, where evidence of their dangerousness is presented.

If they are found to meet statutory criteria for civil com-

mitment, they are detained, with yearly evaluations, until

they are considered no longer dangerous to the commu-

nity. Sexually violent predator (SVP) statutes seek to

prevent the recurrence of sexual victimization by inca-

pacitating potentially violent and dangerous sexual

offenders. Though it is well established that a proportion

of sex offenders are dangerous and likely to re-offend,

the effectiveness of civil commitment in preventing

re-offense has yet to be empirically determined.

Background

The first of these new SVP commitment laws was

passed in Washington state in 1990 after a convicted

sex offender who was recently released from prison

abducted and brutally sodomized a 7-year-old boy.

Washington’s Community Protection Act of 1990

increased penalties for sex crimes and created stricter

supervision for sexual offenders. It also contained the

“Sexually Violent Predator Statute,” the nation’s first

law allowing for the civil commitment of SVPs fol-

lowing their criminal incarceration.

Currently, 17 states have passed sex offender civil

commitment statutes (Arizona, California, Florida,

Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota,

Missouri, New Jersey, North Dakota, Pennsylvania,

South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and

Wisconsin). Texas allows outpatient commitment only,

where offenders are treated in an intensely supervised

program in the community, and Pennsylvania allows

commitment only for juvenile sex offenders who are

likely to go on to commit sex crimes as adults.

Sex Offender Civil

Commitment Criteria

The constitutionality of sex offender civil commitment

was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1997 rul-

ing in Kansas v. Hendricks.The Court ruled that states

must require that a sex offender exhibit both a mental

abnormality and a likelihood to re-offend in order to be

committed. A second Supreme Court ruling, in the

2002 case of Kansas v. Crane,established that some

degree of inability for a sex offender to control his or

her behavior must also exist. This concept is called

“volitional impairment” and implies “difficulty if not

impossibility” in controlling one’s behavior.

To meet criteria to be civilly committed, a convicted

sex offender must display (a) a mental abnormality or

personality disorder predisposing him to commit sexu-

ally violent offenses and (b) a likelihood of future

sexual violence. The mental abnormality is generally

720 ———Sex Offender Civil Commitment

S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 720