Advertisement

Special Dispositional Alternatives for Abnormal Offenders

Developments in the Law
  • George E. Dix
Part of the Perspectives in Law & Psychology book series (PILP, volume 6)

Abstract

Other chapters of this book deal with what might usefully be regarded as “indirect” methods of diverting criminal offenders into the mental health system. None of the procedures discussed in the other chapters permit a convicting court to determine that a particular defendant, although criminally responsible, is most appropriately dealt with by the mental health system and to implement that determination by committing the offender to a mental health program. Incompetency to stand trial, covered in Chapter 1, comes into play before the defendant’s guilt or innocence is considered. Commitment following acquittal by reason of insanity, addressed in Chapter 3, assumes the absence of criminal responsibility and thus “guilt.” Transferring imprisoned offenders from correctional to mental health placements, considered in Chapter 7, does not involve the convicting court. But a number of jurisdictions traditionally have provided a “direct” means of accomplishing diversion by authorizing convicting courts, in lieu of standard sentencing, to commit certain convicted defendants to mental health programs. These programs for direct diversion during the dispositional stage of the criminal trial are the subject of the present chapter.

Keywords

Mental Health System Correctional Institution Jury Trial Civil Commitment Guilty Plea 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, F. A. The decline of the rehabilitative ideal in American criminal justice. Cleveland State Law Review, 1978, 27, 147–156.Google Scholar
  2. Boslow, H. M., & Kohlmeyer, W. A. The Maryland Defective Delinquency Law: An eight year follow-up. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1963, 120, 118–124.Google Scholar
  3. Bower, B. California reverses: Sex offenders to prison. Psychiatric News, Feb. 19, 1982, 17(4), 6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cronin, D. J. Defending the sex offender. Criminal Justice Journal, 1980, 4, 85–94.Google Scholar
  5. Dershowitz, A. The role of psychiatry in the sentencing process. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 1978, 1, 63–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dix, G. E. Participation by mental health professionals in capital murder sentencing. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 1978, 1, 283–308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dix, G. E. Differential processing of abnormal sex offenders: Utilization of California’s mentally disordered sex offender program. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1976, 67, 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry. Psychiatrically deviated sex offenders. Topeka: Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry, 1950.Google Scholar
  9. Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry. Psychiatry and sex psychopath legislation: the 30s to the 80s. New York: Mental Health Center, 1977.Google Scholar
  10. Guthman, D. H. MDSO law: The assumption challenged. Criminal Justice Journal, 1980, 4, 75–83.Google Scholar
  11. Guttmacher, M. S., & Weihofen, H. Psychiatry and the law. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1952.Google Scholar
  12. Hodges, E. F. Crime prevention by the indeterminate sentence law. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1971, 128, 291–295.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kittrie, N. N. The right to be different. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  14. Kohlmeyer, W. A. The first year of operation under the new Patuxent law. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 1979, 7, 95–102.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Konecni, V. J., Mulcahy, E. M., & Ebbesen, E. B. Prison or mental hospital: Factors affecting the processing of persons suspected of being “mentally disordered sex offenders.” In P. D. Lipset & B. D. Sales (Eds.), New directions in psycholegal research. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1980.Google Scholar
  16. LaFave, W. R., & Scott, A. W. Handbook on criminal law. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1972.Google Scholar
  17. Levy, S. S. Interaction of institutions and policy groups: The origin of sex crime legislation. The Lawyer and Law Notes, 1951, 5 (no. 1), 3–12.Google Scholar
  18. Lewis, C. T. The indeterminate sentence. Yale Law Journal, 1899, 9, 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Luther, C. Prison terms for sex crimes urged. Los Angeles Times, March 31, 1981, Part I, p. 22.Google Scholar
  20. Miller, F. W., Dawson, R. O., Dix, G. E., & Parnas, R. I. The mental health process. Mineola, N.Y.: The Foundation Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  21. Monahan, J., & Ruggiero, M. Psychological and psychiatric aspects of determinate criminal sentencing. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 1980, 3, 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Monahan, J., & Wexler, D. A definite maybe: Proof and probability in civil commitment. Law and Human Behavior, 1978, 2, 37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ransley, M. T. Repeal of the Wisconsin Sex Crimes Act. Wisconsin Law Review, 1980, 1980, 941–975.Google Scholar
  24. Reiblich, G. K., & Hubbard, H. H. An indeterminate sentencing law for defective delinquents, Research Report No. 29, Baltimore: Legislative Council of Maryland, 1950.Google Scholar
  25. Ricker, C. S. A critique of the Defective Delinquency Law. Law Society Journal, 1934, 6, 94–111.Google Scholar
  26. Robinson, L. N. Institutions for defective delinquents. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology & Police Science, 1933, 24, 352–399.Google Scholar
  27. Schreiber, A. M. Indeterminate therapeutic incarceration of dangerous criminals: Perspectives and problems. Virginia Law Review, 1970, 56, 602–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Spece, R. G. Preserving the right to treatment: A critical assessment and constructive development of constitutional right to treatment theories. Arizona Law Review, 1978, 20, 1–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Sutherland, E. H. The diffusion of sexual psychopath laws. American Journal of Sociology, 1950, 56, 142–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sutherland, E. H. The sexual psychopath laws. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 1950, 40, 543–554.Google Scholar
  31. Swanson, A. H. Sexual psychopath statutes: Summary and analysis. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology & Police Science, 1960, 51, 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tappan, P. W. Some myths about the sex offender. Federal Probation, 1955, 19 (No. 2), 7–12.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • George E. Dix
    • 1
  1. 1.School of LawUniversity of TexasAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations