Earlier this week, we began a discussion of the sufficiency of the civil commitment process in both ensuring the rights of defendants and in protecting potential victims of future crimes. Specifically, we discussed a Seattle jury that made history by determining, for the first time, that a defendant did not meet the criteria for civil commitment. That defendant is currently serving five life sentences for allegedly committing multiple assault crimes following his release from jail.

During the defendant's civil commitment case, the forensic psychologist hired by the King County prosecutor testified that the man was a "sexual sadist" who was more likely than not to commit another sexually violent crime. While the man only received a recidivism rate of 40 percent in the Static-99 assessment tool, she said, he had several additional characteristics not covered by the test that made him more dangerous, such as hostility toward women and his refusal to participate in treatment.

In response, the psychologist that testified on behalf of the defense told the jury that he did not consider the defendant to be a sexual sadist. He said that the defendant had found religion and that he was unlikely to reoffend. The jury agreed, and released the defendant. Less than a year later, he attacked four women, killing one.

This case, while an extreme example, sheds light on the civil commitment process and one of the many ways in which it can go wrong. Not only do such subjective determinations potentially release people who may reoffend, but they may also easily violate the defendant's constitutional protection against excessive punishment.

Source: The Seattle Times, "Swayed by a psychologist, jury frees 'monster' who attacks again," Christine Willmsen, Jan. 23, 2012