Therapeutic Jurisp & Sexual Predator Laws - Defense for SVP

n171 See, e.g., Briefs of the State of Washington, In re Young, 857 P.2d 989 (Wash. 1993) (Nos.57837-1, 578389).n172 See supra notes 16-34, 51-54 and accompanying text.n173 See supra notes 77-102 and accompanying text.n174 Brief for Cross Petitioner [Leroy Hendricks] at 6, Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1996)(Nos. 95-1646, 95-9075) (emphasis added).n175 Id. at 7.n176 Greenberg Report, supra note 156 (emphasis added).n177 See La Fond, supra note 24; Scheingold et al., supra note 155.n178 See infra notes 224-27 and accompanying text.n179 See Winick, supra note 8.n180 See id. at 538-39.n181 See id.n182 See id.n183 Id. at 539.n184 See id. at 540-41.n185 Id. at 541. See also Robert M. Wettstein, A Psychiatric Perspective on Washington'sSexually Violent Predators Statute, 15 U. Puget Sound L. Rev. 597 (1992). Dr. Wettsteinconcludes that "treatment for sexual offending that begins man years after the underlying sexualoffense is relatively more difficult than that which occurs soon thereafter." Id. at 617. In hisopinion, delay allows cognitive distortions to become consolidated over time, making it moredifficult for the offender to accept responsibility for his earlier behavior. The passage of time alsocauses memory loss, which may already have been impaired initially because of intoxication.Objective recollection vital for successful treatment becomes even more difficult. See id.n186 See Winick, supra note 8.n187 See supra notes 52-54 and accompanying text.n188 See supra notes 77-99 and accompanying text.n189 Turay v. Weston, No. C91-664WD, at 3 (June 3, 1994) (Order and Injunction).