Sexually Violent Predator Statutes Essay ⋆ Criminal Justice Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

In the 21st century, sex offender legislation has experienced severe ebbs and flows. Criminal justice policy in the United States regarding sex offenders and sexual crimes has been and continues to be directed by the belief that sex offenders are uncontrollable and untreatable, regardless of age. Because of this popular belief, sex offenders have experienced an array of specialized legal and clinical interventions including long-term, intensive sex-offender-specific treatment programs. Recent sex offender legislative policies highlight registration and community notification laws, sexually violent predator (SVP) legislation, and— in some instances—mandatory chemical castration for paroled sex offenders. Additionally, adolescents convicted of sex crimes are now included on public sex offender registries. These are just some examples of recently enacted sex offender laws that are all part of the new sexually violent predator statutes.

A Brief History of SVP Statutes

To date, there have been several phases of sex offender legislation. The public sentiment about sex crimes, political reasoning for passing SVP statutes, and consequences of such legislation are broad. The first phase of SVP statutes was initiated in the 1930s when legislatures passed “sexual psychopath” laws as a response to several violent attacks against children. In the mid-1930s, a man was convicted of molesting and killing a 12-yearold boy. At the time of trial, he was believed to have sexually victimized and brutally killed several other children as well. As a response to public outcry, in 1937, J. Edgar Hoover, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), declared a “war on sex crimes” and demanded that the United States do everything possible to curtail an emergent problem of sexual violence. The sexual psychopath laws that were passed soon thereafter attempted to legislate “sick” sex offenders and divert them out of the prison system and into mental health facilities. The added emphasis of treatment and preventive incarceration fostered a belief that rehabilitation could be achieved through localized state-sanctioned procedures. By the end of the 1950s, 26 states had implemented civil involuntary commitment statutes for “sexual psychopaths.” During this time, SVP statutes were not nationally standardized in terms of how to define or treat convicted sexual offenders.

The late 1960s brought progressive social movements, reform, and new sex offender policies. During this time, sex offender legislation derived from a response to changes in what the public believed the ideal goals of incarceration should be. Concerns were raised that sexual psychopath laws of the previous era were futile, prejudicial, and too subjective in their admittance and release criteria. Also, civil liberty complaints about offenders detained under such laws were initiated and publicized. These concerns resulted in a repeal of past sexual psychopath laws. As a replacement for state mental hospitals, individuals previously confined were now sent to prison instead.

Then, in the 1970s, sexual violence was viewed as a much larger social phenomenon. A focus on the wider problem of violence against women and children resulted, and awareness was raised regarding the pervasiveness of sexual violence in intimate relationships and family settings. SVP statutes throughout this phase challenged past popular portrayals of sex offenders as being mentally unstable strangers lurking in parks and alleyways. Throughout this time frame, feminist academics and policy makers emphasized the reality of sex crimes as mainly occurring within the home and that this acknowledgement was essential to understanding how to prevent and punish sexual violence. The emergence of victims’ advocate groups led to a push for legislative changes on a national scale. Advocates worked to convince legislators and the public that male-on-female violence was not merely an individual psychopathology, but a serious social problem requiring governmental action. By the 1980s, the federal government was committed to funding research on family and intimate partner violence that occurred in private settings. Rape and sexual violence reform legislation included the 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). This act publicly acknowledged the seriousness of sexual assaults and crimes against women and children more generally.

SVP statutes have again changed since the 1994 VAWA. Public demand rose for ever-increasing levels of control over sexual criminals considered to be violent and “predatory.” In fact, many sex offender laws are based on the perception that the public and legislators have about sex offenders and sex crimes against children specifically.

Examples of SVP Statutes

The most recent wave of SVP statutes began in May 2005 with the passing of The Florida Sexual Predators Act: The Jessica Lunsford Act, or what is commonly known as Jessica’s Law. Florida implemented an intensive program for the public registration, monitoring, and active surveillance of paroled sex offenders on community supervision. Jessica’s Law also imposed mandatory minimum sentencing of 25 years in prison and lifetime global positioning system (GPS) monitoring of adults convicted of “lewd or lascivious molestation against a victim less than 12 years of age.” Furthermore, sex offenders who were either placed on parole after the original law went into effect or sentenced to supervision following initial passage of the law were now mandated to wear GPS devices for the duration of their supervision postincarceration. New felony offenses were also created including the tampering with electronic monitoring equipment, the possession of child pornography, and residing and/or working in pre-established “exclusion zones,” typically delineated as any area within a 2,000-foot radius of a school, park, or any other public venue “where children frequent.”

Media attention coupled with public concerns surrounding the actual disappearance and death of a young girl named Jessica Lunsford, followed by the quick mobilization of Florida lawmakers to increase penalties for sex crimes while also intensifying the use of surveillance as a tool for community corrections, quickly drew national attention, thus leading to similar SVP statutes in several other states.

Correspondingly, in November of 2006, California residents voted on Proposition 83, a ballot initiative statute titled Sex Offenders. Sexually Violent Predators. Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring (later renamed The California Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act). Based on the original Florida SVP statute, Proposition 83 was California’s version of Jessica’s Law. This initiative not only expanded the definition of what constitutes a sexually violent predator, but also increased penalties for child molestation as well as for violent and habitual sex offenses committed by both juveniles and adults. Besides creating additional definitions of crimes, Proposition 83 also increased penalties for sex offenders and established lifetime “electronic monitoring,” via GPS devices, of all convicted sex offenders post release.

More specifically, Proposition 83 increased the scope of sex crimes as well as who is considered a sexually violent predator. It did this in several ways. First, it broadened the definition of certain sex offenses. For example, this SVP statute expanded the definition of aggravated sexual assault of a child to include offenders who are at least seven years older than the victim, rather than the 10 years required under previous law. Second, it amended the Sexually Violent Predator Law. This statute made more sex offenders eligible for an SVP commitment. It did this by reducing from two to one the number of prior victims of sexually violent offenses that qualify an offender for an SVP commitment, and by making additional prior offenses—such as certain crimes committed by a person while a juvenile—“countable” for purposes of an SVP commitment.

Third, Proposition 83 provided for longer penalties for specified sex offenses. For example, it expanded the list of crimes that qualify for life sentences in prison. Fourth, it extended parole for specified sex offenders, including habitual sex offenders. Finally, it drastically limited where registered sex offenders—on or off parole—may live. Similar to the original Jessica’s Law, this measure prohibited any person required to register as a sex offender from living within 2,000 feet of any school, park, or other areas where children frequent. A violation of this provision is considered a criminal offense, as well as a parole violation for parolees, thus resulting in automatic reincarceration.

Since the initial passing of Florida’s Jessica Lunsford act, 43 states have successfully implemented their version of Jessica’s Law. As a result, crime control policy toward sex offenders has been increasingly punitive and lifetime surveillance of paroled sex offenders has become the norm. Changes in SVP statutes, such as these, have resulted in longer prison and parole terms for offenders as well as a slew of collateral consequences not originally anticipated.

Recent SVP statutes derived from the original Jessica’s Law have been criticized for the “no-live,” or exclusion zones around schools and parks, which are not only difficult to enforce but may also be counterproductive as they have been shown merely to relocate offenders. All of these additional rules and regulations are geared toward trying to control if, when, and how sex offenders will return to their communities. Therefore, there is also a concern about the increasing imposition of postincarceration sanctions on sex offenders’ privacy, places of residence, places of employment, travel, sexuality, and reproductive rights.

Bibliography:

Campbell, Terence W. Assessing Sex Offenders: Problems and Pitfalls. 2nd ed. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 2007.
Holmes, Ronald M. and Stephen T. Holmes, eds. Current Perspectives on Sex Crimes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002.
Saleh, Fabian M., Albert J. Grudzinskas, John M. Bradford, and Daniel J. Brodsky. Sex Offenders: Identification, Risk Assessment, Treatment, and Legal Issue. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Wright, Richard G., ed. Sex Offender Laws: Failed Policies, New Directions. New York: Springer,

This example Sexually Violent Predator Statutes Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.