|
||||
|
||||
The Function of Punishment in the 'Civil' Commitment of Sexually Violent PredatorsKevin M. CarlsmithColgate University - Psychology Department John MonahanUniversity of Virginia School of Law Alison Evansaffiliation not provided to SSRN September 5, 2008 Behavioral Sciences & the Law, Vol. 25, pp. 437-448, 2007 Abstract: Two experiments find that support for civil commitment procedures for sexually violent predators is based primarily upon the retributive rather than incapacitative goals of respondents. Two discrete samples composed of students (N = 175) and jury-eligible citizens (N = 200) completed experimental surveys assessing their support or opposition to scenarios in which a sexual predator was to be released after completing his criminal sentence. Respondents were sensitive to likelihood of recidivism only when the initial sentence was sufficiently punitive. When initial sentence was lenient, respondents strongly supported civil commitment without regard to future risk. Results are discussed in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) on the constitutionality of civil commitment laws for sexually violent predators.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 12 Keywords: civil commitment, retribution, retributive justice, incapacitation, punishment motives Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: September 30, 2008 ; Last revised: June 16, 2010Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo8 in 1.062 seconds