Week 9: Sex Offender Social Control Policies

Question 1

Jacob Wetterling, Crimes Against Children & Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (1994)

Answer 1

States that did not have a registration law stood to lose 10% of their federal funding for jails and prisons.

Question 2

New Jersey v. Timmedequas (1999)

Answer 2

• After this case, neighbors and community members are notified when a registered sex offender moves into their neighborhood.
• All US States now maintain active and updated registries of sex offenders that are readily searchable by offender name or by zipcode.

Question 3

Kansas v. Hendricks (1997)

Answer 3

• Hendricks appealed the commitment, claiming that the SVP Act violated various constitutional protections, among them the right to due process of law.
• (SV Act: Established a civil commitment procedure for “any person who has been convicted or charged with a sexually violent offense and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder, which makes the person likely to engage in the predatory acts of sexual violence.”
• Any committed offender who was no longer considered dangerous would be released, just as in any other civil commitment.

Question 4

Kansas v. Crane (2002)

Answer 4

The Court ruled that the Kansas SVP act was constitutional so long as it required proof that the offender has a “serious difficulty” in controlling his or her behavior.

Question 5

What is the definition of SVP?

Answer 5

Sexually violent predator.

Question 6

What is the role of mental health professionals?

Answer 6

By conducting sex offender risk assessments, mental health professionals can identify the most dangerous offenders among all of those who are released.

Question 7

What are the three main purposes served by competency requirement?

Answer 7

• Preserve dignity of proceedings.
• Improve accuracy of convictions.
• Ensure the autonomy of defendants.

Question 8

What does “preserve dignity of proceedings” mean for competency requirement?

Answer 8

Bringing the power of the state to bear against an incompetent defendant runs counter to societal notions of justice and fairness.

Question 9

What does “improve accuracy of convictions” mean for competency requirement?

Answer 9

A defendant must be capable of providing exculpatory evidence to attorney.

Question 10

What does “ensure the autonomy of defendants” mean for competency requirement?

Answer 10

Certain decisions must be made by the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (e.g., plea decisions); Given the import of these decisions for the life course of the defendant, no one can make these decisions for him/her.

Question 11

Dusky v. US (1960)

Answer 11

• This is the definition of competence used both at the federal and most state levels for all criminal proceedings.
• To satisfy their rights to due process, defendants must have:
• Factual understand of proceedings
• Rational understanding of the proceedings
• Sufficient present ability to consult with a lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding

Question 12

Pate v. Robinson (1966)

Answer 12

• Competence inquiry is required any time there is a “bona fide doubt” about the defendants abilities.
• “…the Supreme Court states that a defendant’s due-process right to a fair trial is violated by a court’s failure to hold a competency hearing where there is a bona-fide doubt as to a defendant’s competency.”

Question 13

Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996)

Answer 13

• Preponderance of the evidence.
• “…a criminal defendant is competent to stand trial unless he proves his incompetence by clear and convincing evidence.”

Question 14

Drope v. Missouri (1975)

Answer 14

• Defendants must be able to assist in preparing their own defense.
• “…the denial of petitioner’s motion for a continuance of the trial in order to procure further psychiatric evaluation was not an abuse of discretion…”

Question 15

Jackson v. Indiana (1972)

Answer 15

• If competency cannot be restored in a reasonable amount of time, defendant must be released or committed under routine civil commitment procedures.
• “…states may not indefinitely confine criminal defendants solely on the basis of incompetence to stand trial.”

Question 16

Estelle v. Smith (1981)

Answer 16

• Concerns about 5th Amendment rights in competency evaluations
• Use of competency evaluation results should be restricted to competency issue.
• “Texas may not use evidence based on a psychiatric examination of the defendant unless the defendant was warned, before the examination, that he had a right to remain silent; was allowed to terminate the examination when he wished; and was assisted by counsel in deciding whether to submit to the examination.”

Question 17

Godinez v. Moran (1993)

Answer 17

• Competence to waive constitutional rights does not require a higher standard: A defendant who is CST is also competent to waive constitutional rights.
• Suggests that decisional capacity is essential to competence to stand trial (vs. how well you can defend one’s self)
• ” A defendant can plead guilty or waive the right to counsel if it is established that he or she is competent to stand trial.”

Question 18

Recommendations for competency assessment given by Skeem et al., 2004:

Answer 18

• Use the right tools.
• Get the right information.
• Take context seriously.
• Test and substantiate your conclusions.
• Obtain specialized forensic training.

Question 19

What does “use the right tools” mean?

Answer 19

Ones that directly target psycholegal issues (not general psychopathology or cognitive functioning)

Question 20

What does “get the right information” mean?

Answer 20

• Information specific to the case.
• Link trial-related deficits to psychopathology and/or intellectual deficits.
• Review records BEFORE the Interview.

Question 21

What does “take context seriously” mean?

Answer 21

• Assess decisional capacity (capacity for reasoned choice)
• Try to gather information regarding likely demands on defendant from defense counsel.
• Add language to report to clarify that evaluation is context dependent.

Question 22

What does “test and substantiate your conclusions” mean?

Answer 22

• Essential that evaluators explain the factual basis for their opinions, to allow the court to reach its own conclusions.
• Rule out alternative explanations to the extent possible (e.g., transient states, malingering)

Question 23

Washington v. Harper (1990)

Answer 23

• Requires judicial held and state to prove meds are necessary and effective for furthering a compelling state interest.
• “…a full judicial hearing, with the inmate being represented by counsel, was required by the Due Process Clause before the State could administer antipsychotic drugs to him against his will.”

Question 24

Riggins v. Nevada (1992)

Answer 24

• Forced manipulation must be necessary to control dangerousness, not manipulate appearance in court.
• “… Nevada unconstitutionally deprived Riggins of his liberty interest in avoiding unwanted medication by compelling him to take an antipsychotic drug.”

Question 25

Sell v. US (2003)

Answer 25

• Requires showing that (a) less intrusive interventions not available, and (b) meds are in the best medical interest of defendant.

Question 26

NGRI plea

Answer 26

• A defendant attempting a successful NGRI plea based on intoxication must be able to demonstrate that his or her level of intoxication rendered him or her unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her actions, and therefore he or she lacked motived due to his or her mental state at the time of the crime.
• For a finding of NGRI, the mental illness could not comprise only criminal conduct or antisocial behavior.

Question 27

mens rea

Answer 27

Implies some degree of free will.

Question 28

actus reus

Answer 28

Behavior previously defined as illegal must occur.

Question 29

M’Naugten standard

Answer 29

“At the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as to not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it that he did not know he was doing was wrong.”

Question 30

Irresistible impulse test

Answer 30

• Added a volitional prong.
• “Under this test, the defendant will be found not guilty by reason of insanity if they can show that as a result of mental disease or defect, they could not resist the impulse to commit the crime of which they are accused, due to an inability to control their actions.”

Question 31

Durham v. US

Answer 31

• Act causally connected to a mental disease or defect.
• “…for juries to find a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity: “an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.”

Question 32

ALI Model Penal Code standard for NGRI

Answer 32

• “lacks substantial capacity to either appreciate the wrongfulness of conduct” (modified M’Naughten) or to confirm his conduct to the requirements of the law (modified irresistible impulse)
• “A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.”

Question 33

Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, 1988

Answer 33

• Eliminated irresistible impulse (no more conformity clause)
• Shifted burden of proof from prosecutor to defendant who must now prove insanity by “clear and convincing evidence.”

Question 34

Jones v. US (1983)

Answer 34

• NGRI for larceny in 1975 – if convicted, max term 1 year
• SCOTUS says, “…because an insanity acquittee was not convicted, he may not be punished. The purpose of his commitment is to treat his mental illness and protect him and society from his potential dangerousness.”
• This, constitutional to hold him for much longer than the criminal sentence would have been.