Home      Login


SVP Commitment of Individuals Found Incompetent to Stand Trial  


Author:  Amanda M.  Fanniff, Ph.D..; Randy K.  Otto, Ph.D., A.B.P.P..; John  Petrila, J.D., LL.M.


Source: Volume 16, Number 04, June/July 2015 , pp.49-54(6)




Sex Offender Law Report

next article > |return to table of contents

Abstract: 

Twenty states and the federal government now permit the indefinite civil commitment of sexually violent offenders. Of these 21 jurisdictions, 12 allow for the commitment of juveniles, 17 include individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) or guilty but insane, and 13 include individuals who were unrestorably incompetent to stand trial. This last group, those deemed incompetent, face uniquely trying circumstances: often, their guilt has not actually been established at trial, and by virtue of their incapacity, they are unable to assist their own legal counsel in commitment hearings. This article provides a brief overview of competence to proceed, then reviews the relevance of competence to proceed in civil commitment hearings and current challenges associated with incompetent respondents and SVP commitment, and concludes with a discussion of unresolved legal issues and challenges associated with the treatment of “unrestorably incompetent” SVP respondents.

Keywords: Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997); Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002); Drope v. Missouri 420 U.S. 162; Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402; Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418; In re K.G., D.C.B., & J.J.S., 808 N.E.2d 631; People v. Allen, 187

Affiliations:  1: Palo Alto University; 2: University of South Florida; 3: University of South Florida.

Subscribers click here to open full text in PDF.
Non-subscribers click here to purchase this article. $20

next article > |return to table of contents