No Exceptions to the Rules: Professional Ethics Should Apply to Sexual Offender Civil Commitment Proceedings

Abstract

Purpose of review: We review the non-punitive intents and goals of sexual offender civil commitment ("SOCC") proceedings. We apply the impacts of open courtrooms in SOCC hearings to what is known about the provision of effective, ethical, and constitutional interventions to those committed and we examine whether open proceedings are consistent with evidence-based practices, including the risk, needs, and responsivity principles.

Recent findings: The use of open courtrooms in SOCC proceedings presents numerous barriers to ethical, effective, and efficient interventions. Open courtrooms fuel treatment resistance, low treatment enrollment, exacerbation of risk factors, and mental conditions, and they disrupt protective factors, undermining the integrity of SOCC systems. These negative consequences are punitive and inconsistent with evidence-based practices, the RNR principles, and do not facilitate positive treatment outcomes. The SOCC's purpose is to prevent sexual re-offense by helping those committed improve their sexual offense risk-related mental conditions. Open courtrooms and the harm they cause undermine the constitutionality pillars of SOCC proceedings and are inconsistent with best practice principles. Legislators, judges, attorneys, and policymakers should monitor and reform courtroom procedures to ensure they are consistent with evidence-based practices and the non-punitive intent and goals of civil commitment.

Keywords: Constitutionality; Court proceedings; Ethics; Evidence-based practices; Open courtrooms; Privacy; Risk needs responsivity; Sexual offender civil commitment.