Carla B. Keegan


This Comment argues that the SVP statute is not only constitutionally sound, but is also the best alternative for the problem of sexually violent predators. Part II describes the SVP statute and how it came to be enacted. Next, in examining the constitutionality of the statute, Part III briefly describes the decision rendered by the Washington Supreme Court in 1993 which upheld the SVP statute, as well as the federal district court's 1995 ruling, which held the statute to be unconstitutional. In arguing that the statute is constitutional, Part IV addresses and refutes the arguments made by the federal district court. Lastly, Part V looks at the alternative solutions available for the problem of sexually violent predators, and argues that neither mandatory life sentences nor an expansion of the current civil commitment system is the proper answer to this dilemma.

Included in

Criminal Law Commons