302 1! Corrections and Prison Practices—Civic Forensics
on January 1, 1996, allows the state to subject the offender to both. In essence, this
Act permits an indefinite civil commitment to be imposed on an offender after ;i
full prison sentence has been served and prior to his release from prison. The c.\
post facto clause of the United States Constitution prohibits retroactive application of
penal statutes. Given that the Sexually Violent Predator Act is a civil law, analysis ot
United States v. Ward (1980) extends the ex post facto clause to civil cases. In this case,
it was found that civil laws violate the ex post facto law if the statute is "so punitive
either in purpose or effect as to negate its intention." This applies to the Sexually
Violent Predator Act in that the said intent was to provide mental health treatment
to the offender; however, the underlying goal was to extend the confinement ot
the individual.
In a similar fashion, the Sexually Violent Predator Act is in conflict with pro-
hibitions against double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is said to have occurred if one
of three situations is present: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after
acquittal, (2) a second prosecution tor the same offense after conviction, and (3)
multiple punishments for the same offense. In terms of the Sexually Violent Preda-
tor Act, violations of the latter two occur. The major defense that has been used in
court to claim this Act does not constitute double jeopardy is that a civil commit-
ment is not punitive in character (Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kunli Ranch,
1994). One must determine whether the motivation for the commitment is truly
for the offender to receive treatment or whether the purpose is to keep the offender
confined in a secure facility apart from the rest of society. Further, if treatment is
needed for the individual, such treatment needs to be provided immediately upon
this determination rather than after a prison sentence has been completed.
Chemical Castration
Perhaps the most drastic measure that has been implemented as a means of protecting
society against sex offenders is the chemical castration law. Again, this law varies
slightly from state to state; however, the fundamentals of the law remain the same.
In California, two-time sex offenders can be required to take Depo-Provera upon
parole. Depo-Provera is a hormone-suppressing drug which lowers testosterone
levels, thereby decreasing a man's sex drive. The court has also allowed for discretion
in using this procedure for first-time sex offenders. In support of the chemical
castration law, European studies have been cited in which offenders who underwent
chemical castration had a recidivism rate under 15.0%. Review of the California
Department of Corrections' statistics, however, reveals that sexual offenders who
serve a prison sentence and do not receive treatment during incarceration have a
recidivism rate of approximately 18.5%, whereas the recidivism rates for drug and
violent offenders are approximately 25.0 and 30.0%, respectively (Lotke, 1996).
The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida has argued that the use of chemi-
cal castration is unconstitutional for several reasons (Spralding, 1997). First, chemical
castration interferes with an individual's rights to procreate and to refuse treatment.