The civil commitment of offenders as sexually violent predators (SVPs) is a highly contentious area of U.S. mental health law. The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) is frequently used in mental health evaluations in these cases to aid legal decision making. Although generally perceived to be a useful assessment tool in applied settings, recent research has raised questions about the reliability of PCL-R scores in SVP cases. In this report, we review the use of the PCL-R in SVP trials identified as part of a larger project investigating its role in U.S. case law. After presenting data on how the PCL-R is used in SVP cases, we examine the reliability of scores reported in these cases. We located 214 cases involving the PCL-R, 88 of which included an actual score and 29 of which included multiple scores. In the 29 cases with multiple scores, the intraclass correlation coefficient for a single evaluator for the PCL-R scores was only .58, and only 41.4% of the difference scores were within 1 standard error of measurement unit. The average score reported by prosecution experts was significantly higher than the average score reported by defense-retained experts, and prosecution experts reported PCL-R scores of 30 or above in nearly 50% of the cases, compared with less than 10% of the cases for defense witnesses (κ = .29). In conjunction with other recently published findings demonstrating the unreliability of PCL-R scores in applied settings, our results raise questions as to whether this instrument should be admitted into SVP proceedings.

A recent series of highly publicized campus sexual assaults and the questionable responses by the academic institutions where they occurred has led some policymakers and academic administrators to call for legislative and institutional change. For such changes to be effective, academic administrators and legislators need solutions that effectively protect victims, punish perpetrators, and encourage institutional compliance with relevant legislation. Furthermore, there has been significant debate about how much the criminal justice system can and should be involved when sexual assaults occur on college campuses. To address these questions, there needs to be a more thorough understanding of existing state sexual assault laws and their capacity to handle sexual assaults that occur on college campuses. This project identified and systematically examined all U.S. state statutes relating to sexual assault to evaluate to what extent these laws are appropriate and accessible for victims of campus sexual assault. Results revealed that all 50 states have at least 1 criminal statute addressing sexual assault, with a total of 432 statutory subsections being identified for inclusion. Across statutes, key concepts relating to consent and incapacity were often ill defined or undefined, and many of the statutes appear to be poorly suited to handling campus sexual assaults. These findings have implications for the adjudication of campus sexual assaults, and such results can potentially be used to amend existing legislation and inform future legislation.

Sexually Violent Person (SVP) commitment statutes provide for indeterminate civil confinement of certain sex offenders after completion of their criminal sentences. In the United States, SVP laws raise important concerns relating to due process, ex post facto claims, and protection against double jeopardy. However, it is unclear to what extent current legislation addresses or neglects these issues. Without a systematic review of SVP legislation and related case law, it remains unknown to what degree U.S. states have incorporated different strategies to protect individual rights outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court. In this study, SVP statutes from each U.S. state, the federal government, and the District of Columbia, along with related case law, were examined to evaluate (1) the requirements of SVP confinement, (2) the procedures by which SVP hearings occur, and (3) the degree to which the requirements enumerated by the U.S. Supreme Court have been followed. Although nearly half of all states have SVP statutes, findings reveal that statutes differ considerably regarding standards of proof, commitment procedures, appeals standards, definitions of important terms, and procedural safeguards. Moreover, case law provides important information on how SVP laws actually operate. Findings are discussed in light of psychological, legal, and policy implications.

No abstract

No abstract