April 2010 Wisconsin:Abstract:
Previous studies described the characteristics of individuals committed under sexual offender civil commitment laws in Arizona, Florida, and Washington. This study describes the diagnostic and risk profiles of 331 sexual offenders held under Wisconsin’s sexual offender statute and compares them to the people held in those other states. Persons detained under Wisconsin’s law substantially differ from those in the other states. This variability is attributed to differences in both diagnostic procedures and statutory risk thresholds. The authors believe this is the first study to directly compare diagnoses and risk measures of sex offenders referred for commitment in different states, thereby offering a more national view of who is detained under these laws.
eAdvocate note: How is it possible that SVPs from different states are different? How can the criteria for selection differ so dramatically so that, SVPs from one state are vastly different from another state's SVPs? Such makes one wonder what really is a STATE SVP? Or, are some states chosing folks incorrectly?
The Adam Walsh Act (AWA) merely allows -on a federal level- for the feds to have its own civil commitment center. AWA does nothing to standardize -nationally- the criteria for who is, and, who isn't a SVP. AWA as it stands may -if approved by the high court- setup yet another standard for chosing who is a SVP; a good reason to declare AWA's civil commitment unconstitutional.
For the remainder of this paper: by Richard W. Elwood, -and- Dennis M. Doren, -and- David Thornton, all of the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center, Mauston, Wisconsin
No comments:
Post a Comment