The first article under consideration is called Abusing State Power or Controlling Risk?: Sex Offender Commitment and Sicherungverwahrung written by Demleitner. In the article, the author addresses the problem of the civil commitment of sexual predators. This problem is of considerable importance despite the fact that the number of such individuals is relatively small. The author also dedicates his paper to the analysis of the confinement law, which is “the starkest example of a collateral sanction” (Demleitner 2003, p. 1621). These commitment regulations are of great value, as they considerably increase public safety.
In the article, the researcher also discusses Hendricks vs. Kansas case where the Supreme Court applied compulsory confinement succeeded in a criminal justice sentence for sexual abuse. This case is proof of illegal imposition of this “civil sanction” on the accused. On the one hand, Delmeitner condemns the decision made by the Supreme Court, as was subjectively evaluated. On the other hand, he explains that these legal actions are approved, as the primary goal of sex offender confinement is to guarantee public security.
Further on, the paper introduces the reader to the American legal policy of handling sex offenders. A serious situation in the United States occurs, as the American society frequently witnesses sexual abuses of children and women. Therefore, the Court constitutes that “sex offenders are at a higher risk of recidivism and are uniquely unsuitable for rehabilitation have driven much of the legislation” (Delmeit, 2003, p. 1622). According to the above, the lengthened prison terms are imposed on sex offenders beyond their prison sentences. It goes without saying that such sanctions cannot be imposed on all subcategories of sexual abuses, which are explicitly viewed in Hendrick’s case.
There are cases when sexually dangerous people were taken to mental hospitals thus being considered as individuals with mental disorders and abnormality. In this particular article, the author admits that such measures for personality improvement would be more acceptable rather than capital punishments. Besides, they would also contribute to the public safety. Nonetheless, the penalties should remain depending on reasons and types of the crimes.
According to the author, the advantage of the confinement law adoption lies in the fact that it ameliorates the social situation, as this class of people is viewed as posing a great danger to society. Therefore, this sanction was also ratifies in Germany, that still has some limitations thus giving chance for improvement for those sex offenders who committed such crime only once.
Finally, Demleitner also mentions the role of mental health system whose participation in confinement procedure is of paramount importance. In this case, the author refers both to negative and positive outcomes of treatment of the most dangerous sexual predators.
The second article under analysis is called Decision-Making About Volitional Impairment in Sexually Violent Predators. The authors of the paper also discuss the importance of Kansas v. Hendricks case of 1997 that argue the necessity of the civil confinement of those sexual abusers who cannot control their violent desires. The paper also describes the terms under which the law is eligible to impose the confinement on the sex offenders. According to the discussions, Hendricks was found as sexual offender due to the facts that he “suffers from pedophilia” and “continues to harbor sexual desires toward children” (Mercado et al., 2006, p. 588).
The author main question in the article is “should the Court be relying in part upon Hendrick’s history of sexual violence, it is unclear how “inability to control” behavior is something other than criminal recidivism” (Mercado et al., 2006, p. 588)? In other words, Mercado does not recognize the volitional impairment as the most effective means against social disturbances thus referring to as to serious crime recidivism rather than to mental abnormalities. The author also insists on the fact that there should a strict difference between insanity and cruel desires to violent actions.
Further on, the authors tries to define an accurate definition of the notion of “volitional impairment” that presented as a lack of behavior and impossibility to control the actions. The investigators express their concern with the connection of this notion with the term “insanity”, as it is hardly relevant to this definition. The fact is that all sexual crimes are conducted purposefully, the abusers realize what they are doing and why. In this respect, the paper rejects the adoption of sanctions and their application on dangerous offenders whose treatment would not be efficient.
The article also introduces the readers to the empirical researches in the study of sexually violent predators’ intentions. This study showed that sex offenders’ confinement will save society from violent and sexual acts as 59 % to 71 % would commit crimes if not detained by the law officers (Mercado et al., 2006, p. 589). The experiments proved that there was a huge difference between the lack of control phenomenon and mental disorder. Hence, the former problem is more connected with lack of upbringing whereas the second one directly relates to psychological trauma.
Comparing the analyzed articles, it should be pointed out that both authors express an original opinion on the problem. Still, one can pursue some peculiarities of visions. Hence, both authors believe that confinement law should be applied in curtain cases strictly established. Both authors consider the reasons for civil commitment and both agree that this sanction considerably contributes to the improvement of social security. Finally, the papers also touch upon Kansas v. Hendrick cases but from different angles. Hence Mercado et al. consider this case in terms of the necessity of commitment law whereas Demleitner fully rejects the possibility of the civil commitment on the basis of mental disorder in case the person commits the acts of violence repeatedly.
The articles have different approach to the role of mental establishment in treating sex offender recognized as mentally ill patients. In this case the first article expresses a more radical point of view thus fully rejecting the treatment of serious sex offenders. As for the second article, here the author is more focused on the analysis of medical terms and diagnoses allowing the treatment of sexual predators.
In my opinion, the both author do not fully support this sanction due to many reasons, including medical, social, ethical, and even legal biases, where the latter is fully ignored. Therefore, the governmental adoption of the confinement law should undergo certain amendments. To my mind the sex offender should be taken in custody for an indefinite period of time in case the predator commits the act of violence repeatedly. In case the sex offender commits the crime only once, he/she should be sentenced to imprisonment.
References
Demleitner, N. V. (2003). Abusing State Power or Controlling Risk?: Sex Offender Commitment and Sicherungverwahrung. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30(5), 1621+.
Mercado , C. C., Bornstein B. H., and Schopp, R. F. (2006). Decision-Making about Volitional Impairment in Sexually Violent Predators. Law and Human Behavior. 30(5). 587-602.