INTRODUCTION
The courts require the expert testimony of a psychiatrist or psychologist to render an opinion as to whether an individual meets the statutory requirement to be committed under sexually violent predator laws. Psychologists form an opinion by relying on actuarial instruments, such as the Static-99R. Although actuarial measures are the best tools available, their predictive rates are not much better than the flip of a coin. The statistical science needed to make better instruments does not exist because the base rate of reoffenders is relatively low. Due to this, should a psychologist or a mental health professional participate in the civil commitment of an individual knowing that the science is so poor? Would offering an opinion be an ethical violation? If not, how is it justified?
This week, you will evaluate the ethical considerations for civil commitment and analyze whether sexual predators are curable.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Students will:
Evaluate ethical considerations for civil commitment for sex offenders
Analyze whether sexual predators are curable
Ethical Considerations in Civil Commitment
Civil commitment is used to protect oneself or others from someone who is suffering some form of mental disease or disorder. Civil commitment since the early 1990s has been used to institutionalize sexually violent people and justified as necessary to protect the public. Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) was a ruling that decided that the civil commitment of a sex offender was not double jeopardy if the intent was to provide treatment for the offender. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 greatly accelerated the rate of civil commitments. Confinement is based upon psychological science, which is weak. Moose Lake Lodge, the SVP treatment center for the state of Minnesota, was sued in 2014, facing allegations that the state violated the civil liberties of those individuals committed into Moose Lake Lodge. The federal court found that the state was, in fact, violating detainees’ civil liberties and ordered immediate remediation.
In this Discussion, you will be assigned a position to argue, pro or con, to the statement “Civil commitment is ethical, as sexual predators are incurable.”
Note: By Day 5 of Week 10, your Instructor will assign you a position of pro or con to debate in this Discussion.
Resources
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
WEEKLY RESOURCES
To prepare for this Discussion:
Read the Learning Resources.
Consider the case of the Moose Lake Sex Offender Program.
Consider the statement “Civil commitment is ethical, as sexual predators are incurable.”
Consider the position (i.e., pro or con) that you were assigned by your Instructor.
Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the Reply button to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Post Reply, you cannot delete or edit your own posts and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Post Reply!
By Day 3 of Week 11
Post a response to the following:
Identify whether you were assigned a pro or con position.
Based on the position you were assigned, present a case, pro or con, to the statement “Civil commitment is ethical, as sexual predators are incurable.”
Support your position using examples from the Learning Resources and other academic sources.
By Day 5 of Week 11
Respond to at least two of your colleagues who support a different position with a substantive interactive discussion that continues through Day 7. Expand on their argument or present a different opinion.
Making Connections
This week, you evaluated the ethical considerations for civil commitment and analyze whether sexual predators are curable.
Congratulations! After you have finished the Discussion for this week, you have completed the course. Please submit your Student Evaluation of Learning and Teaching by Day 7.
Learning Resources
Required Readings
Elwood, R. W. (2009). Mental disorder, predisposition, prediction, and ability to control: Evaluating sex offenders for civil commitment. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21(4). 395-411.
Jackson, R. & Hess, D.T. (2007). Evaluating sex offenders for civil commitment: A survey of experts. Sexual abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19(4), 425-448.
Kessler, P. (2015, June 18). Reality check: Minnesota’s sex offender treatment program. Retrieved from http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2015/06/18/reality-c…
McLawsen, J. E., Scalora, M. J., & Darrow, C. (2012).Civilly committed sex offenders: A description and interstate comparison of populations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18(3), 453–476.
Miller, J. A. (2010). Sex offender civil commitment: The treatment paradox. California Law Review, 98(6), 2093–2128.
Pozios, V. K., & Guyer, M. J. (2008). Expert witness testimony: Sexually violent predator commitment. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 36(1), 140–143. Retrieved from http://jaapl.org/content/36/1/140
