• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
S 
EXUAL
P 
REDATOR 
C 
OMMITMENT 
L
AWS IN THE 
U 
NITED 
S 
TATES 
: 1998 U 
PDATE 
Roxanne LiebandScott MatsonSeptember 1998
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
110 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 214Post Office Box 40999Olympia, WA 98504-0999Phone: (360) 586-2677Fax: (360) 586-2793E-Mail: institute@wsipp.wa.govWorld Wide Web: http://www.wa.gov/wsippDocument No. 98-09-1101
 
W 
ASHINGTON 
S 
TATE 
I 
NSTITUTE FOR 
P 
UBLIC 
P 
OLICY 
M
ISSION
The Washington Legislature created the Washington State Institute for Public Policy in 1983.
A Board of Directors—representing the legislature, the governor, and public universities—governs the Institute, hires the director, and guides the development of all activities.The Institute’s mission is to carry out practical research, at legislative direction, on issues ofimportance to Washington State. The Institute conducts research activities using its ownpolicy analysts, academic specialists from universities, and consultants. New activities growout of requests from the Washington Legislature and executive branch agencies, oftendirected through legislation. Institute staff work closely with legislators, as well as legislative,executive, and state agency staff to define and conduct research on appropriate state publicpolicy topics.Current assignments include a wide range of projects in criminal justice, youth violence, socialservices, and education.
B
OARD OF
D
IRECTORS
Senator Karen FraserLyle Quasim, Department of Social and Health ServicesSenator Jeanine LongDick Thompson, Office of Financial ManagementSenator Valoria LovelandRoland De Lorme, Western Washington UniversitySenator James WestJane Jervis, The Evergreen State CollegeRepresentative Ida BallasiotesMarsha Landolt, University of WashingtonRepresentative Jeff GomboskyThomas L. "Les" Purce, Washington State UniversityRepresentative Helen SommersKen Conte, House Office of Program ResearchRepresentative Steve Van LuvenStan Pynch, Senate Committee Services
S
TAFF
Roxanne Lieb, DirectorSteve Aos, Associate Director
 
C
ONTENTS
Executive Summary..............................................................................................................iMap of States......................................................................................................................ii
Section One:
Overview......................................................................................................1Figure 1:Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators inWashington State: Decision Steps.............................................................7Figure 2:Arizona Sexually Violent Person Act: Case Decisions,August 1997-May 1998...............................................................................8Figure 3:California Sex Offender Commitment Program (SOCP)All Cases as of August 31, 1998.................................................................9Table 1:Number of Sexual Predators Committed (Summer 1998).........................10Table 2:Annual Estimated Costs of Commitment..................................................11
Section Two:
State Statutes...........................................................................................13Table 3:Comparison of Key Elements...................................................................14Arizona......................................................................................................................16California...................................................................................................................17Florida.......................................................................................................................18Illinois........................................................................................................................19Iowa..........................................................................................................................20Kansas......................................................................................................................21Minnesota..................................................................................................................22New Jersey 1998.......................................................................................................23New Jersey 1994.......................................................................................................24North Dakota.............................................................................................................25South Carolina..........................................................................................................26Washington...............................................................................................................27Wisconsin..................................................................................................................29
Appendix:
Washington State’s End of Sentence Review Committee..............................31
Resources
........................................................................................................................38The authors wish to thank state representatives for their responses to survey and telephoneinquiries, with particular appreciation to Bonnie Lee (Minnesota), Sarah Sappington(Washington), and Dennis Doren (Wisconsin).
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...