Criminal Law Consulting
​For Writers & Filmmakers
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
  • Resources
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Free eBook

What Is a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP)?

4/16/2016

2 Comments

 
A sexually violent predator (SVP) is a legal designation.  An SVP is someone who has committed a sexually violent crime, and it is determined that he or she will likely commit other sexually violent crimes if released.

Legal Definition of a Sexually Violent Predator

In California, an SVP is defined as:
​

1) a person who has been convicted of certain offenses, including child molestation or rape, and

2) the person who has a diagnosed mental disorder, and


3) that mental disorder makes it likely that he or she will commit sexually violent acts in the future.

​All three of those elements must be met before someone can be designated an SVP.

​

Legal Process to Designate Someone a Sexually Violent Predator

Picture
Before a person can be designated an SVP, he or she must be evaluated by two independent psychologists or psychiatrists who conclude that he or she meets the legal definition of an SVP. 

Once he is designated an SVP, the person can go to trial.  At a trial, a jury has to decide whether they are an SVP beyond a reasonable doubt. 

If a jury finds the person to be an SVP, he or she is committed to the state hospital indefinitely, unless and until it is determined that he or she is no longer a danger to society.

An SVP designation is not considered punishment.  Although the person must have previously committed a crime to be considered as an SVP, an SVP commitment is considered a civil commitment for the protection of society. 


The civil commitment as an SVP happens after the person has served their time for the crime.

2 Comments

True Crime Book Illuminates the Italian Justice System in a High Profile Serial Killer Case Known as the Monster of Florence

5/31/2012

0 Comments

 
High profile cases are generally not the best examples of a criminal justice system at work.  I would certainly not want someone judging the American criminal justice system on the basis of the O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony trials, for example. 

With that caution, Italy's investigation into a serial killer known as the Monster of Florence (il Mostro di Firenze), as presented in a gripping true crime book, The Monster of Florence, by Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi, was nothing short of absurd.  
Although not well known in America, the Monster of Florence is one of the most famous serials killers known throughout the world.  The Monster preyed on young couples who used the hills surrounding Florence as an intimate escape. 

While the targeted couple was in the heat of passion in their car, the Monster would shoot the man, then the woman.  He would drag the woman from the car and cut out her vagina.  In later crimes he would also rip off the woman's left breast.

These horrific crimes, committed over a period of years, terrified people living in the Tuscany hills, and created a frenzy to find the killer or killers.

The book follows the decades of investigation and prosecution of several people accused of being the Monster, or being someone criminally associated with the Monster.  The investigators' theories evolve from a lone serial killer to a family of killers to a vast satanic consipracy involving most of Florence's upper class.  Even the book's authors were swept up in the investigation.

The authors convincingly present their own theory of the crimes and suspect.  My one complaint is that I wished the book had explained a little more was the Italian criminal justice system.  From the bits and pieces discussed, it appears the Italian system is very different from the U.S. system in some key respects (the prosecutor is a judge, a trial is heard by a panel of judges not lay jurors, an appeals court can hear new evidence). 

It would have been interesting to have a little more background on that.  Otherwise, I found the book to be a fascinating case study.  It's a must-read for any fan of true crime.  Despite the complexity of the story, it was a quick and enjoyable read.

There were also some interesting parallels for anyone who followed the Amanda Knox story (American exchange student Amanda Knox and her Italian boyfriend were convicted of murdering her roommate Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy).  The main prosecutor who believed in and investigated the satanic consipracy theories of the Monster killings was also Amanda Knox's prosecutor, and he advanced similar theories in that case.

For fans of The Silence of the Lambs (my favorite serial killer book and movie ever) and Hanibal, author Thomas Harris apparently followed the Monster investigations and used the case as inspiration for his books (click the images to order from Amazon). 
0 Comments

Penn State Football Coach Arrested on Charges from Two New Victims

12/7/2011

1 Comment

 
Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State Football Coach arrested last month for molesting eight young boys, was rearrested today.  He was charged with more counts involving two victims who came to light after his initial arrest.

It is common in cases of child molestation that victims do not report their abuse until other similar allegations surface. 

The facts alleged by these new victims appear to be similar to those alleged by the first eight victims.  The victims were all young boys who met Sandusky through his charity, The Second Mile.  Sandusky gave the boys gifts and took them to football games.  He began physically touching the boys, which eventually became sexual assaults. 

These kinds of similiarities tend to reinforce the truth of each of the allegations.  If specific enough, they can be classified as the defendant's modus operandi, or M.O.
1 Comment

Penn State and the Catholic Church: Why Do Men Protect Other Men Instead of Child Victims?

11/14/2011

1 Comment

 
The recent news about Jerry Sandusky, a Penn State football coach accused of molesting at least eight boys over a period of years, parallels stories from the 1990s of child molestation within the Catholic Church. 

In both cases, there was a man (or several men in the Catholic Church) accused of repeatedly molesting and even raping young children.  In both cases, reports of the molestation reached the man's superiors. 

In both cases, the superiors took minor measures, apparently to try to make sure no further acts of molestation occurred in their places of business.  At Penn State, the coaches and other superiors of Jerry Sandusky told him not to bring any more young boys to the college, where many of the attacks allegedly took place.  In the Catholic Church, priests who had molested young children were often transferred to other parishes. 

In both cases, none of the men who supervised the accused molesters contacted the police.  None of the men in charge acted to protect the children who had been abused.  The men in charge covered up for the accused molester, sweeped the problem under the rug, and went about their business, as if nothing had happened.  As if a child had not been sexually abused and likely scarred for the rest of his life.  As if more children would not be harmed because of their failures.

In both cases, the alleged sexual abuse was allowed to go on for many years.  In both cases, the failure of any one of the men in charge to contact the police, insulated the molester from any real consequences, and allowed more victims to be abused.  At least in the case of Penn State, two of the men who failed to step up and do the right thing have been charged for their failures. 

I'm not sure what this culture of silence and protecting abusive men at the expense of children is about.  I have to wonder if a woman had been involved somewhere along the way, whether it would have taken so long for these abuses to come out.

1 Comment

Penn State Accused Molester Doesn't Have to Pay

11/14/2011

0 Comments

 
Jerry Sandusky, the Penn State coach accused of molesting at least eight young boys is getting off scott-free, at least for now.  Sandusky was indicted on November 4, 2011 of 40 counts related to child molestation.  

Sandusky retired from his Penn State coaching job in 1999 and retired from The Second Mile charity last year.  He has been receiving a pension of almost $60,000 per year since 1999.  That will not be affected by his criminal charges.

When Sandusky first appeared in court, the prosecution asked for $500,000 bail and electronic monitoring.  Bail is intended to ensure a criminal defendant appears in court to face the charges.  Generally, the more serious the charges, the higher the bail.  Also, if a defendant has the resources to pay, he will usually be assessed higher bail.  That will ensure he comes to court instead of fleeing.

Sandusky's bail was set at $100,000, unsecured.  He was not required to be electronically monitored.  The bail amount is lower than the prosecution requested, and is quite low considering the crimes he is accused of and his resources.  Even more surprising is the fact that his bail is unsecured. 

Normally when bail is set, the defendant has to put up the amount of the bail for the court to hold.  Or they may give a bail bondsman 10% of the bail amount, and the bail bondsman ensures the court will receive the rest if the defendant does not show up.  If the defendant does not show up in court, he forfeits all the money he posted. 

When bail is unsecured, however, the defendant does not need to front any money.  He basically promises to pay the bail amount if he does not appear.  However, the defendant is already required to appear, so  it does not seem that an unsecured promise to pay would do much more to ensure a defendant's appearance.

The defendant is already required to appear by law, and a judge can issue an arrest warrant if he fails to appear.  An additional promise to pay an unsecured bail amount does not seem like any more of an incentive to appear. 

Sandusky can therefore continue to live at home, go about his daily life, continue receiving his pension, and need not pay a penny in bail as long as he appears.  That is highly unusual for someone accused of such serious crimes.

It is no wonder that people are crying foul now that they have learned that the judge who set Sandusky's bail has donated money to and volunteered for his charity, The Second Mile.  Judges have a duty to recuse themselves from a case if there is even the appearance of an impropriety.  

If Judge Leslie Dutchcot did volunteer for or donate money to The Second Mile charity, she should recuse herself from Sandusky's case.  This is particularly so since Sandusky got access to his victims through The Second Mile charity, according to the indictment.
0 Comments
    Get your FREE E-Book revealing The Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama:
    Send My Free E-Book!

    Author

    Blythe Leszkay is a successful and experienced criminal attorney, criminal law professor, and consultant to writers and filmmakers.  See About Me.  This blog is intended to answer common criminal law questions, dispel misconceptions, and explain misunderstood criminal law concepts.  It is also a place to discuss any crime or law related topics of interest.  Contact me for a free initial consultation on your film or writing project.

    Categories

    All
    Appeals
    Burden Of Proof
    Celebrity Crime
    Common Questions
    Constitution
    Consulting Services
    Courtroom
    Crime In The News
    Crime Novels
    Crime Tv
    Death Penalty
    Defenses
    Evidence
    Extortion
    Hate Crimes
    International Crime
    Juvenile Crime
    Legal Comedy
    Legal Definitions
    Legal Drama
    Manslaughter
    Movies
    Murder
    Search And Seizure
    Serial Killers
    Sex Crimes
    Supreme Court
    Trial
    True Crime
    Writing Tips

    RSS Feed

      Get Email Updates

    Join!
    Loading
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.