Sexually Violent Predator Case Law In California

The object of the Sexually Violent Predators Act "is to identify individuals who have certain diagnosed mental disorders which make them likely to engage in acts of sexual violence and to confine them for treatment of 'their disorders only as long as the disorders persist and not for any punitive purposes.' (Stats. 1995, ch. 763, 1.)" (In re Parker (1998) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1453, 1466 [71 Cal. Rptr. 2d 167].) The SVP law requires that the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspected SVP suffers from "a currently diagnosed mental disorder" which predisposes him to "engage in sexually violent criminal behavior." ( 6600, subd. (a), italics added; Hubbart v. Superior Court, supra, 19 Cal. 4th 1138, 1158.) The Welfare and Institutions Code circumscribes, in detail, the number and timing of psychological examinations. the suspected SVP is to be examined by two practicing psychiatrists or psychologists. ( 6601, subds. (c) and (d); Hubbart v. Superior Court, supra, 19 Cal. 4th at p. 1146.) Prior to the examination, the suspected SVP is notified of the SVP evaluation and is asked if he or she consents to an interview. (See post, appen. A, 4th par., p. 430.) If there is disagreement in the two evaluations, "two independent professionals" are selected and "further examination" of the suspected SVP occurs. ( 6601, subd. (e).) These examinations are then reviewed by the district attorney to determine whether to file an SVP petition. ( 6601, subd. (i).) Significantly, there is no mention in Welfare and Institutions Code authorizing further precommitment mental examinations. After actual Sexually Violent Predators commitment, "various provisions seek to ensure that any commitment ordered under section 6604 does not continue in the event the SVP's condition materially improves. To this end, annual mental examinations are required. the SVP may request appointment of an expert to perform the examination, and relevant records must be made available for this purpose. ( 6605, subd. (a).)" (Hubbart v. Superior Court, supra, 19 Cal. 4th at p. 1147.)