« Another look at how Justice Kennedy shaped capital jurisprudence and what his departure entails | Main | New ACS Issue Brief on "Litigating Federal Habeas Corpus Cases" »

July 19, 2018

"Assessing the Real Risk of Sexually Violent Predators: Doctor Padilla’s Dangerous Data"

The title of this post is the title of this new paper authored by Tamara Rice Lave and Franklin Zimring now available via SSRN. Here is its abstract:

This Article uses internal memoranda and emails to describe the efforts of the California Department of Mental Health to suppress a serious and well-designed study that showed just 6.5% of untreated sexually violent predators were arrested for a new sex crime within 4.8 years of release from a locked mental facility. 

The Article begins by historically situating sexually violent predator laws and then explains the constitutionally critical role that prospective sexual dangerousness plays in justifying these laws.  The Article next explains how the U.S. Supreme Court and the highest state courts have allowed these laws to exist without requiring any proof of actual danger.  It then describes the California study and reconciles its findings with those of a well-known Washington study by explaining the preventive effects of increasing age.  Finally, the Article explains how these results undermine the justification for indeterminate lifetime commitment of sex offenders

July 19, 2018 at 08:49 PM | Permalink

Comments

Arrest records are useless. Sex predators commit 100's of sex crimes for every arrest. I am not reading this garbage. Find a study that interviewed sex offenders abut their busy criminal lives with a guaranteed legal immunity.

Posted by: David Behar | Jul 19, 2018 11:39:01 PM

What happens if civilly committed former offenders decide that they have nothing to lose any more by rising up against their jailers or even killing them? After all, what's the worst that could happen to a civilly committed former offender who murders a correction officer or staff member while in civil commitment? Another life sentence in addition to the same de facto life sentence that they are serving under civil commitment? Oh, that's a real deterrent, Behar. Just hope you never get falsely convicted or committed of a violent crime!

Posted by: william r. delzell | Jul 20, 2018 9:15:05 AM

William. I oppose false conviction, and have criticized the lawyer profession for its awful incompetence. I have even supported jail time for all feminists making false allegations. To deter.

Violence has not solved problems. I even criticized that hideous lawyer mistake, the American Revolution. I support litigation as a far more effective substitute for violence

Posted by: David Behar | Jul 20, 2018 9:59:49 AM

I don't think that the source for false allegations come from true feminists but from so-called "law and order" types of either gender who masquerade as feminists. The original feminists who founded MS. MAGAZINE were also civil libertarians who would have abhorred measures like post-sentencing civil commitment and reverse sexism. Rather, the earlier feminist groups got hi-jacked by the Hillary Clinton and the right-wing Phyllis Schlafly/Ronald Reagan types that started the push for such laws in the early 1990's. Those are the people, not the original early 1970's type feminists, whom we must oppose.

Posted by: william r. delzell | Jul 20, 2018 2:14:17 PM

Third Wave feminism was rejected in the 2016 election by real Americans. Why do employers fire highly productive males, upon the slightest allegation of sexual misconduct, even before a real investigation is completed? These corporations are afraid of ruinous $multi-million payouts to employment lawyers. That makes the #MeToo movement a lawyer scam to steal the assets of productive males.

I always tell victims of sexual misconduct, ask your lawyer about the tax consequences. First you will never work again, not even swabbing floors at a McDonalds. Second, you may end up owing money. Your settlement is $million. You had $400,000 in expenses. Your lawyer takes 1/3 of the remaining $600,000. That leaves $400,000. The IRS will tax $millions allowing no deductions for expenses or fees, since no physical injury is involved. You may have to borrow to pay your tax of $500,000 to the IRS and to the state treasury.

If we are going to arrest lawyers for internal treason and insurrection against the constitution, it should start with lawyers in the legislature and with the appellate lawyers, running this con on our country. The defense bar will never attack them. Their jobs come from the plaintiff lawyers and not from the clients.

How would you like a university degree granting department called, KKK Studies? There is no difference between the KKK and the feminists. Both are even white supremacist ideologies. Both must be crushed. Here, the 1848 Seneca Falls Plenary Speech that started this bullshit. Straight out of the KKK website of today.

Yesterday was its 170th Anniversary.

https://www.greatamericandocuments.com/speeches/stanton-seneca-falls/

Posted by: David Behar | Jul 20, 2018 4:47:49 PM

Actually many people who attack feminism such as the late Phyllis Schlafly and the still-living Rush Limbaugh are, in their deeds, far more misandrist than the vast majority of feminists. None of the feminists with whom I have spoken to or visited with for the last four plus decades has ever advocated male-only conscription, male-only draft registration, or the male-only flogging laws that they have in wastelands like Singapore, Brunei, and Malaysia. Indeed, those conservatives who accuse the feminists of reverse sexism are far more misandrist than any feminist that I know of. For example, Rush supported Singapore's male-only flogging law in Singapore when Mike Faye was convicted of ALLEGED vandalism. (I say alleged because his confession was falsely obtained under torture. Singapore's abysmal human rights record is right up there with Stalinist Russia, Mussolini's Italy, etc. I got into an argument with a right-wing radio host in Louisiana who one moment claimed to be against misandry and by portraying feminists (he called them femanazis)as the source of this misandry. Then, he turned around and supported the concept of male-only flogging. I reminded him of his claims to be against reverse sexism. When I called him on his falsehood, he vehemently denied that male-only flogging, male-only conscription/registration, or sex crime laws that only targeted men (as they do in Singapore) were anti-male or misandrist measures.

For all the faults that some feminists have had (and they have their share), they are not as nearly as anti-male as Schlafly, Limbaugh, and company. At least no feminist (at least not to my knowledge) has ever advocated male-only flogging or male-only conscription. However, many of these feminists have failed to oppose such reverse sexism as they should. Their record is mixed. To her credit, Eleanor Smeal, did bitterly denounce the Supreme Court's upholding of male-only draft registration. I was impressed by her passionate denunciation. She opposes sexism against any gender, not merely against males. However, some other women who CLAIM to be anti-sexist such as Hillary Clinton, et al. have failed this litmus test in my opinion. Where were Hillary and Hubby Willy when male draft registrants launched a challenge against the male-only Sexist Selective Service System? The Clintons were not there when we needed them. Women (or men) who fail to actively oppose reverse sexism are NOT true feminists; they are pretenders who need to be exposed.

Posted by: william r. delzell | Jul 24, 2018 10:18:23 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB