The Function of Punishment in the 'Civil' Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators
Behavioral Sciences & the Law, Vol. 25, pp. 437-448, 2007
12 Pages Posted: 30 Sep 2008 Last revised: 16 Jun 2010
Date Written: September 5, 2008
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.
Keywords: civil commitment, retribution, retributive justice, incapacitation, punishment motives
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?
Psychological Aspects of Retributive Justice
By Kevin M. Carlsmith and John M. Darley
On Justifying Punishment: The Discrepancy between Words and Actions
The Ex Ante Function of the Criminal Law
By John M. Darley, Kevin M. Carlsmith, ...
The Fine Line between Interrogation and Retribution
'Just for Fun': Understanding Torture and Understanding Abu Ghraib
The Paradoxical Consequences of Revenge
By Kevin M. Carlsmith, Timothy Wilson, ...
Meeting Violence with Violence: The Connection between Retributive Justice and Interstate Conflict
By Rachel Stein
War and Torture as 'Just Deserts'