Evaluating sex offenders under sexually violent predator laws: How might mental health professionals conceptualize the notion of volitional impairment?

Abstract

This paper examines the signifi cance of the Supreme Court's Hendricks and Crane decisions, with focus given to how mental health professionals may conceptualize the notion of volitional impairment. The Hendricks decision authorized postsentence civil commitment for sex offenders having a mental abnormality or personality disorder, rendering them likely to engage in future acts of sexual violence. In the Supreme Court's majority opinion, Justice Thomas implied that the Kansas Act was legitimized by limiting the class of offenders eligible for this specialized form of commitment to those who are "unable to control" their dangerousness. In Crane, the Court ruled that while the Hendricks decision does not require that a sex offender be completely unable to control behavior, it does require proof of serious diffi culty in controlling conduct. In evaluating the meaning of this decision for mental health professionals, this paper notes the decline of volitional impairment standards in the insanity defense, summarizes case law regarding sexual predators and volitional impairment, and further reviews the empirical and theoretical literatures exploring the notion of volitional impairment.

Disputed paraphilia diagnoses and legal decision making: A case law survey of paraphilia NOS, nonconsent.

“…Finally, we did not systematically examine issues pertaining to the volitional impairment prong of SVP statutes (Fabian, 2012;Grinage, 2003;Lanyon & Thomas, 2008;Mercado, Schopp, & Bornstein, 2005;Winsmann, 2012; see also Morse, 1994). This was despite the fact that experts in the cases we reviewed frequently differed as to how they conceptualized volitional impairment, often prompting divergent conclusions.…”

Reexamining predictors of trial outcomes in New York State’s sex offender civil management process.

“…These policies, sometimes referred to as sexually violent predator laws, empower the state to further detain people convicted of sexual offenses who are still deemed to need treatment after completion of their traditional criminal sanction. This is typically accomplished via a civil proceeding wherein a judge or jury, after hearing evidence from both sides in an adversarial trial, decides whether the individual before them has a mental abnormality (MA) making them high enough risk of sexual reoffense to warrant state-mandated treatment, during which time the person is either detained in a secure facility or closely monitored in the community (Mercado et al, 2005). Thus, as opposed to traditional criminal punishments that are determined by the severity of the current offense and criminal history of the defendant, civil management laws are unique in that they require the state to accurately identify which people convicted of sexual offenses are at high enough risk for sexual reoffense in order to protect the community from further sexual violence.…”