Law and the confinement of psychopaths

Abstract

Civil commitment in the United States historically has followed a medical, targeting individuals with serious mental disorders and providing for their treatment in the least restrictive setting. In the last decade, however, commitment laws have appeared in some states permitting the hospitalization of personality-disordered criminal offenders at the end of a penal sentence. The American Psychiatric Association has fiercely opposed these laws. The U.S. Supreme Court has given its qualified approval, although legal challenges persist. These laws, together with British proposals to permit the civil commitment of dangerous personality-disordered individuals, should be resisted by all professional disciplines.

Sexual Offender Commitment in the United States

“…The current crop of sexual offender commitment laws in the United States represents an effort by the states to keep confined criminal offenders who remain dangerous at the end of their sentences. The extraordinary popularity of these laws in the 1990s may best be explained by sentencing reforms in the 1980s that had as their (unintended) effect the premature release of many dangerous sexual offenders (see Fitch & Ortega, 2000). These new laws, however, reflect only part of the effort states have made to ‘fix the problem.’ In many states, including some with these new laws, sentences for sex offenders have been increased (or made indeterminate) and new measures have been put in place more effectively to manage sexual offenders released to the community.…”

Sexual Offender Commitment in the United States

“…The current crop of sexual offender commitment laws in the United States represents an effort by the states to keep confined criminal offenders who remain dangerous at the end of their sentences. The extraordinary popularity of these laws in the 1990s may best be explained by sentencing reforms in the 1980s that had as their (unintended) effect the premature release of many dangerous sexual offenders (see Fitch & Ortega, 2000). These new laws, however, reflect only part of the effort states have made to ‘fix the problem.’ In many states, including some with these new laws, sentences for sex offenders have been increased (or made indeterminate) and new measures have been put in place more effectively to manage sexual offenders released to the community.…”

The new generation of sex offender commitment laws: Which states have them and how do they work?

“…Indeed, as this volume goes to press, legislation is pending in Michigan that would provide for the postsentence commitment of a variety of violent offenders found to be dangerous because of a mental abnormality or personality disorder-not just sex offenders (Fitch 6r Hammen, 2001). Should this legislation pass (and the inevitable legal challenges fail), the current trend to use mental health resources to contain society's misfits (Fitch & Ortega, 2000) will surely accelerate, leaving those with more serious mental disability to fend for themselves-on the streets and (ironically) in the nation's jails and prisons.…”

Limitations of diagnostic precision and predictive utility in the individual case: A challenge for forensic practice.

“…Within England and Wales, a PCL-R score above a cut-off of 25 or 30 can lead to detention in either a Special Hospital or a prison (Maden & Tyrer, 2003); in certain Canadian provinces parole boards explicitly consider PCL-R scores (Hare, 2003), and in Texas psychopathy assessments are mandated by statute for sexual predator evaluation (Edens & Petrila, 2006). 2 The PCL-R plays a role in criminal sentencing, including decisions regarding indefinite commitment and capital punishment, institutional placement and treatment, conditional release, juvenile transfer, child custody, witness credibility, civil torts, and indeterminate civil commitment (DeMatteo & Edens, 2006; Fitch & Ortega, 2000; Hart, 2001; Hemphill & Hart, 2002; Lyon & Ogloff, 2000; Walsh & Walsh, 2006; Zinger & Forth, 1998). The PCL-R is regarded by many as the best method for operationalizing the construct of psychopathy.…”

Sexual Offender Commitment in the United States

“…The current crop of sexual offender commitment laws in the United States represents an effort by the states to keep confined criminal offenders who remain dangerous at the end of their sentences. The extraordinary popularity of these laws in the 1990s may best be explained by sentencing reforms in the 1980s that had as their (unintended) effect the premature release of many dangerous sexual offenders (see Fitch & Ortega, 2000). These new laws, however, reflect only part of the effort states have made to ‘fix the problem.’ In many states, including some with these new laws, sentences for sex offenders have been increased (or made indeterminate) and new measures have been put in place more effectively to manage sexual offenders released to the community.…”

The new generation of sex offender commitment laws: Which states have them and how do they work?

“…Indeed, as this volume goes to press, legislation is pending in Michigan that would provide for the postsentence commitment of a variety of violent offenders found to be dangerous because of a mental abnormality or personality disorder-not just sex offenders (Fitch 6r Hammen, 2001). Should this legislation pass (and the inevitable legal challenges fail), the current trend to use mental health resources to contain society's misfits (Fitch & Ortega, 2000) will surely accelerate, leaving those with more serious mental disability to fend for themselves-on the streets and (ironically) in the nation's jails and prisons.…”

Limitations of diagnostic precision and predictive utility in the individual case: A challenge for forensic practice.

“…Within England and Wales, a PCL-R score above a cut-off of 25 or 30 can lead to detention in either a Special Hospital or a prison (Maden & Tyrer, 2003); in certain Canadian provinces parole boards explicitly consider PCL-R scores (Hare, 2003), and in Texas psychopathy assessments are mandated by statute for sexual predator evaluation (Edens & Petrila, 2006). 2 The PCL-R plays a role in criminal sentencing, including decisions regarding indefinite commitment and capital punishment, institutional placement and treatment, conditional release, juvenile transfer, child custody, witness credibility, civil torts, and indeterminate civil commitment (DeMatteo & Edens, 2006; Fitch & Ortega, 2000; Hart, 2001; Hemphill & Hart, 2002; Lyon & Ogloff, 2000; Walsh & Walsh, 2006; Zinger & Forth, 1998). The PCL-R is regarded by many as the best method for operationalizing the construct of psychopathy.…”

Sexual Offender Commitment in the United States

“…The current crop of sexual offender commitment laws in the United States represents an effort by the states to keep confined criminal offenders who remain dangerous at the end of their sentences. The extraordinary popularity of these laws in the 1990s may best be explained by sentencing reforms in the 1980s that had as their (unintended) effect the premature release of many dangerous sexual offenders (see Fitch & Ortega, 2000). These new laws, however, reflect only part of the effort states have made to ‘fix the problem.’ In many states, including some with these new laws, sentences for sex offenders have been increased (or made indeterminate) and new measures have been put in place more effectively to manage sexual offenders released to the community.…”

The new generation of sex offender commitment laws: Which states have them and how do they work?

“…Indeed, as this volume goes to press, legislation is pending in Michigan that would provide for the postsentence commitment of a variety of violent offenders found to be dangerous because of a mental abnormality or personality disorder-not just sex offenders (Fitch 6r Hammen, 2001). Should this legislation pass (and the inevitable legal challenges fail), the current trend to use mental health resources to contain society's misfits (Fitch & Ortega, 2000) will surely accelerate, leaving those with more serious mental disability to fend for themselves-on the streets and (ironically) in the nation's jails and prisons.…”

Limitations of diagnostic precision and predictive utility in the individual case: A challenge for forensic practice.

“…Within England and Wales, a PCL-R score above a cut-off of 25 or 30 can lead to detention in either a Special Hospital or a prison (Maden & Tyrer, 2003); in certain Canadian provinces parole boards explicitly consider PCL-R scores (Hare, 2003), and in Texas psychopathy assessments are mandated by statute for sexual predator evaluation (Edens & Petrila, 2006). 2 The PCL-R plays a role in criminal sentencing, including decisions regarding indefinite commitment and capital punishment, institutional placement and treatment, conditional release, juvenile transfer, child custody, witness credibility, civil torts, and indeterminate civil commitment (DeMatteo & Edens, 2006; Fitch & Ortega, 2000; Hart, 2001; Hemphill & Hart, 2002; Lyon & Ogloff, 2000; Walsh & Walsh, 2006; Zinger & Forth, 1998). The PCL-R is regarded by many as the best method for operationalizing the construct of psychopathy.…”