The Function of Punishment in the 'Civil' Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators
Kevin M. Carlsmith
Colgate University - Psychology Department
University of Virginia School of Law
affiliation not provided to SSRN
September 5, 2008
Behavioral Sciences & the Law, Vol. 25, pp. 437-448, 2007
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
Date posted: September 30, 2008 ; Last revised: June 16, 2010
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.187 seconds