Document Type
Working Paper
Publication Date
5-4-2012
SSRN Discipline
*Humanities - Forthcoming Areas; LSN Subject Matter eJournals; Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence & Legal Philosophy eJournals; Legal Scholarship Network; Criminal Law & Procedure eJournals; Womens & Gender Studies Research Network; Law School Research Papers - Legal Studies; Law & Society eJournals; Law & Society: Public Law eJournals; Law School Research Papers - Public Law & Legal Theory; Humanities Network; Political Science Network; Anthropology & Archaeology Research Network
Abstract
Only "dangerous" individuals may be indefinitely detained Is a one percent chance of a future crime clear and convincing evidence of dangerousness For sex offenders fear and uncertainty in case law leave open this passage to limbo This article closes itThe due process balancing test used to evaluate standards of proof provides the framework This article explains the relationship between the standard of proof and the definition of "dangerous"and argues that only an approach combining the two is consistent with the ConstitutionApplying decision theory with assumptions favoring the government this article calculates a minimum likelihood of recidivism for commitment Of the 20 jurisdictions with sex offender commitment just one requires something close to that constitutional floor Thousands have been detained applying unconstitutional standards and the vast majority remains so
Recommended Citation
Fredrick E. Vars,
Delineating Sexual Dangerousness,
(2012).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/fac_working_papers/719