TY - JOUR
T1 - Controlling sexually violent predators
T2 - Continued incarceration at what cost?
AU - Lave, Tamara Rice
N1 - Copyright:
Copyright 2011 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2011/3
Y1 - 2011/3
N2 - Sexually violent predator (SVP) laws are inherently suspicious because they continue to incarcerate people not because of what they have done, but because of what they might do. I focus on three major criticisms of the laws. First, I use recent recidivism data to challenge the core motivation for the SVP laws-that sex offenders are monsters who cannot control themselves. Second, I situate the laws theoretically as examples of what Feeley and Simon call the "new penology." I argue that the SVP laws show the limited promise of the new penology-that we can use science to predict risk accurately-because the actuarial instruments used in SVP determinations make many mistakes. In making this argument, I focus particularly on the most commonly used such instrument, the Static-99. Finally, I argue that the Static-99 fails to meet the constitutional criteria laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kansas v. Hendricks because it does not link an individual's mental illness to his dangerousness.
AB - Sexually violent predator (SVP) laws are inherently suspicious because they continue to incarcerate people not because of what they have done, but because of what they might do. I focus on three major criticisms of the laws. First, I use recent recidivism data to challenge the core motivation for the SVP laws-that sex offenders are monsters who cannot control themselves. Second, I situate the laws theoretically as examples of what Feeley and Simon call the "new penology." I argue that the SVP laws show the limited promise of the new penology-that we can use science to predict risk accurately-because the actuarial instruments used in SVP determinations make many mistakes. In making this argument, I focus particularly on the most commonly used such instrument, the Static-99. Finally, I argue that the Static-99 fails to meet the constitutional criteria laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kansas v. Hendricks because it does not link an individual's mental illness to his dangerousness.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79955653377&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79955653377&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1525/nclr.2011.14.2.213
DO - 10.1525/nclr.2011.14.2.213
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:79955653377
VL - 14
SP - 213
EP - 280
JO - New Criminal Law Review
JF - New Criminal Law Review
SN - 1933-4192
IS - 2
ER -