Therapeutic Jurisp & Sexual Predator Laws - Defense for SVP

n34 See, e.g., Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.090 (West Supp. 1999). For a more thorough discussionof the statutory release provisions, see infra notes 145-55 and accompanying text.n35 See National Ass'n of State Mental Health Program Directors, Sexual Predator LegislationTool Kit 4 (1997).n36 In a recent survey dated October 1, 1998, W. Lawrence Fitch, Forensic Director at theMaryland Mental Hygiene Administration, estimated that, nationwide, 423 individuals have beencommitted as SVPs to custodial facilities, 14 have been committed as SVPs to outpatient status,and 289 individuals have been committed as inpatients for evaluation or pending trial. Three ofthose committed are under 18 years of age. Thus, it appears that over 700 individuals are now incustodial facilities under SVP laws. W. Lawrence Fitch, Sex Offender Commitment in the UnitedStates tbl. 2 (Oct. 1, 1998) (on file with author.) This number will surely increase.n37 As of February 24, 1999, 84 offenders were committed to the Special Commitment Center atMcNeil Island in Washington State under the Washington sexually violent predator law.Approximately 35-40 were there as a result of a probable cause hearing. The remainder werecommitted after a trial at which they were determined to be SVPs. Telephone interview withCindy Nabbefeld, legal assistant at the SCC (Feb. 24, 1999). To date, no one has been releasedoutright in Washington state. Telephone interview with Chris Jackson, Office of the PublicDefender, Seattle, Wash. (Feb. 23, 1999) [hereinafter Jackson Interview].n38 According to Fitch, supra note 36, at tbl. 2, 14 individuals have been committed to outpatientstatus. Washington only permits outpatient commitment after an individual has been beencommitted as inpatient to a secure facility. See Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 71.09.090 (West Supp.1999). This subsection defines a sexually violent predator as an individual who is "likely toengage in predator acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility." Id. (emphasisadded). In states with similar laws, then, outpatient commitment is not available at the initial trial.An offender may be placed in a less restrictive placement only as part of a transitional releaseprogram from a secure facility.n39 See Sex Offender's Restrictions Eased, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Feb. 21, 1998, at B1.n40 See David Boerner, Confronting Violence: In the Act and in the Word, 15 U. Puget Sound L.Rev. 525 (1992); Man Charged in 7-Year-Old Neighbor's Killing, N.Y. Times, Aug. 1, 1994, atB2; Vlae Kershner & Carolyn Lochhead, Politicians React with Calls for Stiffer Sentences, S.F.Chron., Dec. 7, 1993, at A4.n41 The Washington state task force that proposed the first SVP law to be enacted stated in itsreport: "The Task Force was created principally to answer one question: What gaps in our law andadministrative structures allow the release of known dangerous offenders who are likely to commitvery serious crimes." Governor's Task Force on Community Protection, Dep't of Social and HeatlhServs., Office of the Secretary, Task Force On Community Protection: Final Report to BoothGardner Governor State of Washington II-20 (Nov. 28, 1989) [hereinafter Task Force Report]. Seealso infra notes 174-76.n42 See Task Force Report, supra note 41, at II-21 to II-22.n43 See Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 71.09.010 (West 1992). The Washington SVP law contained"legislative findings" concluding that "sexually violent predators generally have antisocialpersonality features which are unamenable to existing mental illness treatment modalities" and