Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T07:03:28.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preventive Confinement of Dangerous Offenders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Stephen J. Morse
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

How to respond justly to the dangers persistent violent offenders present is a vexing moral and legal issue. On the one hand, we wish to reduce predation; on the other, we want to treat predators fairly. The central theme of this paper is that it is difficult to achieve both goals without compromising one of them, and that both are being seriously undermined. I begin by explaining the legal theory, doctrine and practice governing dangerous offenders (DO) and demonstrate that the law leaves a gap in the ability to confine them. Next I explore the means by which the law has overtly or covertly sought to fill the gap. Many of these measures, especially the new form of civil commitment for sexual predators, dangerously conflate moral and medical categories. I conclude that pure preventive detention is more common than we usually assume, but that this practice violates fundamental assumptions concerning liberty under the American constitutional regime.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , Spring 2004 , pp. 56 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

See Dennett, D., Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting (Cambridge: MIT Press,1984): at 153–172.Google Scholar
Hart, H.L.A., Punishment and Responsibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968): at 43–44.Google Scholar
Wallace, R. J., Responsibility and the Moral Sentiments (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994): at 55–58.Google Scholar
See Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 358 (1997).Google Scholar
See Schulhofer, Stephen J., “Two Systems of Social Protection: Comments on the Civil-Criminal Distinction, with Particular Reference to Sexually Violent Predator Laws,” Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 7 (1996): 69–96, at 90–94.Google Scholar
See Monahan, J. et al. , Rethinking Risk Assessment: The MacArthur Study of Mental Disorder and Violence (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
See Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 211 (1990)Sell v. U.S., 123 S. Ct. 2174 (2003).Google Scholar
Morse, S.J., “Neither Desert Nor Disease,” Legal Theory 5 (1999): 265–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
518 U.S. 37(1996).Google Scholar
Aristotle thought that a person who did harm when drunk was undoubtedly culpable. Nicomachean Ethics, Book III (1947): 27–29.Google Scholar
American Law Institute, Model Penal Code and Commentaries, at Sec. 2.08(2) (Philadelphia: Author, 1985).Google Scholar
The Montana statute goes even further toward strict liability than the Model Penal Code, of course, by providing that a defendant can not use evidence of voluntary intoxication to negate purpose or knowledge.Google Scholar
432 U.S. 197 (1977)(permitting New York to place on the defendant the burden of persuasion on the issue of “extreme emotional disturbance,” New York’s analog to the provocation/passion doctrine, which traditionally reduces murder to manslaughter, and permitting the state largely to define as it wishes the elements of crime that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt).Google Scholar
Montana could, if it wished, have defined the mens rea for murder as negligence without constitutional hindrance. But such a definition would have been a similar abandonment of culpability and objectionable for precisely the same reasons I criticize the Egelhoff opinion. Once again, my quarry is society’s response, not constitutional doctrine.Google Scholar
See Husak, Douglas, “The Sequential Principle of Relative Culpability,” Legal Theory 1 (1995): 493–518 (defending a qualified version of the claim that culpability is hierarchically arrayed depending on the relative blameworthiness of particular mental states).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
521 U.S. 346 (1997).Google Scholar
534 U.S. 407(2002).Google Scholar
Kansas Stat. Ann. Sec. 59–29a02 (a) (1994).Google Scholar
Kansas Stat. Ann. Sec. 59–29a02 (b) (1994).Google Scholar
Hendricks, supra notes 4 & 16, at 358.Google Scholar
See Moore, M. S., Act and Crime (Oxford: The Clarendon Press,1993): At 113–165.Google Scholar
Other terms might be substituted for “desire,” such as “urge” or “impulse” or “want,” but for all practical purposes they are synonymous in this context.Google Scholar
The specific example was first suggested by an anonymous participant at a conference. One can endlessly proliferate such examples. See, Morse, S. J., “Hooked on Hype: Addiction and Responsibility,” Law and Philosophy 19 (2000): 3–49, at 28–29.Google Scholar
What reasons would have motivational salience in an individual case is of course an open question and individual agents will respond to different reasons. The point is simply that the actions of sexual offenders are actions and not mechanisms and thus they are potentially reason responsive. The example might also suggest that if it takes a gun to one’s head to motivate a person not to engage in certain actions, then it must be very hard not to perform those actions. Again, this is true in a colloquial sense best explained in terms of a rationality defect, but it does not mean that there is anything wrong with the agent’s will.Google Scholar
Model Penal Code, supra note 11, at Sec. 2.09(1).Google Scholar
Most self-control mechanisms we use to control the untoward effects of our desires are techniques that facilitate the use of reason, prevent us from acting when we act “unthinkingly,” or prevent us from being in situations in which we recognize that we act “unthinkingly.”.Google Scholar
See Morse, S. J., “Hooked on Hype,” supra note 23, at 8 (no consensus definition of “addiction”); Parker, J. D.A. Bagby, R. M., “Impulsivity in Adults: A Critical Review of Measurement Approaches,” in Webster, C. D. Jackson, M., eds., Impulsivity: Theory, Assessment, Measurement (New York: Guilford, 1997): 142–157, at 142 (no consensus definition of impulse; low correlation between various research measures of impulsivity).Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition-Text Revision (Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 2000): at 663. Examples of such disorders include pyromania, kleptomania, and pathological gambling. The primary mental disorders sexual predators have—paraphilias and Antisocial Personality Disorder—are not specifically categorized as disorders of impulse control, but like substance dependence and abuse, they share many features with disorders of impulse control.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Donovan, D. M., “Assessment of Addictive Behaviors: Implications of an Emerging Biopsychosocial Model,” in Donovan, D. M. Marlatt, G. A., eds., Assessment of Addictive Behaviors (New York: The Guilford Press,1988): 3–48, at 6.Google Scholar
There have been attempts to measure loss of control directly, but these efforts have been question-begging failures because they circularly include loss of control as one of the criteria for the inability to control oneself. Morse, S. J., “From Sikora to Hendricks. Mental Disorder and Criminal Responsibility,” in Frost, L. E. Bonnie, R. J., eds., The Evolution of Mental Health Law (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2001): 129–166, at 161–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelling, T. C., Choice and Consequence: Perspectives of an Errant Economist(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984): at 57.See generally, Ainslie, G., Breakdown of Will (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001)(application of hyperbolic discounting theories to problems of willpower and loss of control)Bandura, A., Self-Efficacy. The Exercise of Control(New York: W.H. Freeman and Co., 1997)(overview of field and presentation of “self-efficacy” theory);Rachlin, H., The Science of Self-Control(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000)(review of research and theoretical account of self-control based on “teleological behaviorism”).Google Scholar
See Hart, H. L. A., supra note 2, at 32–33 (1968)(explaining that the criminal law is much more cautious about granting excusing or mitigating conditions based on “defects of the will” than on “defects of knowledge” because the former are vaguer and more subjective).Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association Insanity Defense Work Group, Statement on the Insanity Defense, reprinted in American journal of Psychiatry 140 (1983): 681–88American Bar Association, ABA Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards(Washington D.C.: American Bar Association, 1984): At 330, 339–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morse, S.J., “Uncontrollable Urges and Irrational People,” Virginia Law Review 88 (2002): 1025–1078, at 1062–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For example, the Supreme Court has previously been untroubled by the use of the threat of relatively minor property crime as the predicate for a finding of dangerousness to support continued involuntary commitment of a person acquitted by reason of insanity. See, Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354, 365 n. 14 (1983).Google Scholar
Lykken, D. T., The Antisocial Personalities (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995): at 4–6 Quinsey, V. L. Harris, G. T. Rice, M. E. Cormier, C. A., Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association 1998): at 75–76 (also noting that almost all prisoners have some diagnosable mental disorder)Robins, L. N. Tipp, J. Przybeck, T., “Antisocial Personality,” in Robins, L. N. Regier, D. A., Psychiatric Disorders in America: The Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study(New York: The Free Press, 1991): 258–290, at 260–61. The Court recognized this problem in Crane, supra note 17, but incorrectly believed that the independent control criterion would solve the problem.Google Scholar
Ewing v. California, 358 U.S. 11 (2003).Google Scholar
Id. at 23 (quoting Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S., 277, 288 [1983]).Google Scholar
See, U.S. v. Jackson, 835 F. 2d 1195, 1200. (7th Cir. 1987)(Posner J., concurring, concluding that a similar sentence in a similar case, although permissible, was consequentially unjustified; suggesting that it was “uncivilized”).Google Scholar
See Vitiello, M., “Three Strikes: Can We Return to Rationality?,” Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 87 (1997): 394–481, at 398 (“Even if Three Strikes has led to a reduction in crime, we are paying too much for those benefits.”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Davis, M., To Make the Punishment Fit the Crime: Essays in the Theory of Criminal Justice (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992): At 129–145 (noting the scarcity of retributive justifications and offering an account of the “special advantage” recidivists receive by re-offending).Google Scholar
See, Zimring, F. E. Hawkins, G. Kamin, S., Three Strikes and You’re Out in California: Punishment and Democracy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001): At 85–105 (finding only modest decline in crime attributable to Three Strikes law)see generally, Vitiello, , supra note 41 (criticizing Three Strikes as not cost effective).Google Scholar
123 S. Ct. 2174 (2003).Google Scholar
See generally, Morse, S. J., “Involuntary Competence,” Behavioral Sciences & the Law 21 (2003): 311–328 (addressing the relevant issues).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sell, supranotes 7 and 44, at 2184.Google Scholar
Id. [emphasis added].Google Scholar
Jones, supra note 36, at 365 n.14.Google Scholar
536 U.S 304 (2002).Google Scholar
Id. at 318–19.Google Scholar
530 U.S. 466 (2000).Google Scholar
In Ring v. Arizona, the Supreme Court extended the reasoning and holding of Apprendi, supra note 51, to capital cases. 536 U.S. 584 (2002)(holding that the 6th Amendment right to a jury trial requires that the aggravating factors that support imposition of capital punishment—which the Court treated as the functional equivalents of an element of a greater offense—must be found by a jury and cannot be found by a judge sitting alone).Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., “Punishing Dangerousness: Cloaking Preventive Detention as Criminal Justice,” Harvard Law Review 114(2001): 1429–1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morse, S.J., “Blame and Danger: An Essay on Preventive Detention,” Boston University Law Review 76 (1996): 113–155, at 115–16.Google Scholar
See generally, Schauer, F., Profiles, Probabilities and Stereotypes (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003) (considering the arguments for profiling and cautioning against the potentially pernicious effects of the practice).Google Scholar
Brooks, A. D., “The Constitutionality and Morality of Civilly Committing Violent Sexual Predators,” University of Puget Sound Law Review 15 (1992): 709–754.Google Scholar
E.g., American Psychiatric Association, supra note 28, at 701–706 (description of and diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder).Google Scholar
See Burns, S.L. Peyrot, M., “Tough Love: Nurturing and Coercing Responsibility and Recovery in California Drug Courts,” Social Problems 50 (2003): 416–438 (describing the operation of mandated drug treatment programs and their limits).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
536 U.S. 24 (2002).Google Scholar