Comparing Sexual Offenders at the Regional Treatment Centre (Ontario) and the Florida Civil Commitment Center

• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X11434918
• Published date: 01 March 2013
• Date: 01 March 2013
• Subject Matter: Articles

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

57(3) 377 –395

© The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X11434918

ijo.sagepub.com

434918IJO57310.1177/0306624X11434918Wilson

et al.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

1Florida Civil Commitment Center, Arcadia, USA

2Correctional Service of Canada, Ontario, Canada

Corresponding Author:

Robin J. Wilson, Florida Civil Commitment Center, 13619 SE Highway 70, Arcadia, Florida 34266, USA.

Email: dr.wilsonrj@verizon.net

Comparing Sexual

Offenders at the Regional

Treatment Centre

(Ontario) and the Florida

Civil Commitment Center

Robin J. Wilson1, Jan Looman2,

Jeffrey Abracen2, and Donald R. Pake1

Abstract

Sexual offender civil commitment (SOCC) continues to be a popular means of

managing risk to the community in many U.S. jurisdictions. Most SOCC states report

few releases, due in large par t to the reluctance of the courts to release sexually

violent persons/predators (SVPs). Contemporary risk prediction methods require

suitable comparison groups, in addition to knowledge of postrelease behavior. Low

SVP release rates makes production of local base rates difficult. This article compares

descriptive statistics on two populations of sexual offenders: (a) par ticipants in high-

intensity treatment at the Regional Treatment Centre (RTC), a secure, prison-based

treatment facility in Canada, and (b) SVP residents of the Florida Civil Commitment

Center. Results show that these two samples are virtually identical. These groups are

best described as “preselected for high risk/need,” according to Static-99R normative

sample research. It is suggested that reoffense rates of released RTC participants may

serve as a comparison group for U.S. SVPs. Given current release practices associated

with U.S. SOCC, these findings are of prospective value to clinicians, researchers,

policy makers, and triers of fact.

Keywords

sexual offenders, civil commitment, Static-99R, treatment, risk management

378 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 57(3)

Sexual offender civil commitment (SOCC) is predicated on the belief that some

offenders will be “more likely than not” to commit a new sexual offense if they are not

preventively detained and offered treatment designed to lower their risk for recidi-

vism. However, once committed, a majority of civil committees are held for lengthy

periods, often because the courts have difficulty ascertaining which offenders are most

inclined to reoffend. This leads to low rates of release, which makes completion of

follow-up studies of this population difficult or impossible. Some (particularly,

Static-99 cocreator Karl Hanson) have suggested that prediction of recidivism in a

certain jurisdiction may require composition of a comparison sample of analogous

persons previously released in that same jurisdiction. Referred to as “local norms,”

such samples require that jurisdictions release enough participants to actually com-

prise the comparison sample against which those who might potentially be released

would be gauged. However, the aforementioned low rates of release currently observed

in most SOCC states makes this next to impossible.

One potential solution to this problem is to investigate whether a group of suffi-

ciently high-risk sexual offenders (analogous to typical civilly committed sexual

offenders) can be identified in a jurisdiction where no commitment laws have been

enacted and where offenders are therefore routinely released to the community.

Comparisons of these groups would provide insight as to the criminal trajectories of

such groups post release. Long-term follow-up data on such a population would also

provide helpful clarification as to whether such groups are actually “more likely than

not” to reoffend sexually if released to the community. In addition, information could

be extrapolated regarding the potential mediating effect of successful completion of

treatment and/or provision of coordinated postrelease follow-up treatment and

supervision.

Canada and the United States share the longest unprotected border in the world.

Both enjoy a very similar standard of living; however, in spite of the myriad similari-

ties between the United States and Canada, there are some key differences. In particu-

lar, correctional philosophies and practices can be quite different, with criminal

sentences in the United States tending to be longer and more frequently employed in

managing risk posed by offenders. In regard to sexual offending, the vast majority of

offenders in Canada receive determinate sentences and return to the community at the

end of those sentences. In the United States, nearly half of the 50 states have enacted

laws allowing for SOCC. As described above, this has resulted in the indeterminate

and involuntary preventive detention of many sexual offenders after their criminal

sanction has been satisfied.

Most SOCC statutes require the state to demonstrate that a potential candidate for

this measure has (a) a history of engaging in criminal sexual behavior and (b) a “men-

tal abnormality” that without treatment would preclude him (the overwhelming major-

ity of such persons are male) from being able to manage his criminal sexual propensities

in the community. These “criteria” form the principal basis for SOCC, and persons

committed as Sexually Violent Persons/Predators (SVPs) under SOCC laws are then

held until such time as the Court finds they no longer meet criteria. The Supreme Court