While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Civil confinement page were merged into Sexually violent predator laws on 31 March 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On the use of the term "Sexually Violent Predator " (S.V.P.) to describe Civil Detainees. The term "S.V.P." has a meaning in many state's laws quite distinct from that of any reasonable person. As it is now defined, neither actual violence nor coercion is needed for a crime to meet the statutory definition of "sexually violent". The age of the victim, non-familial victims or past convictions are some criteria useful in branding someone " S.V.P." That this definitional shift has occurred during a period of mass hysteria over sex offenders cannot be seen as coincidental. California prisons and state hospitals have been launched on a wave of distorted public opinion. We insist that non-violent offenders not be smeared by this scurrilous and damaging defamation. Mik 20:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Through a legal procedure called “civil commitment,” you can be classed as a sexually violent predator based solely on the subjective opinion of a state-employed psychologist or sex expert.
— James Ridgeway, The Guardian
— Ríco 21:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The first sentence was edited to read: "Sexually violent predator (SVP) laws permit states to confine someone that has been convicted of a past sex offense if that person is likely to reoffend." The grammar errors aside, that's not correct because it's so overly broad and includes persons and violations not triggering SVP status. If someone reads only that and moves on, then they've seriously misinformed. I recognize the need to make Wikipedia easy to read, but that shouldn't be done to the point of making something wrong. Blue Sheepdog ( talk) 16:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
One part of the article said forty states had SFP stats, another said sixteen. Therefore at least one of those numbers has to be wrong. Which is it? I removed the higher number. Blue Sheepdog ( talk) 16:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The CRS report has a nice table with those. We could probably have an abbreviated version of that here. I've added the California one in "see also" for now. Tijfo098 ( talk) 18:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Deisenbe, same goes for this article, as goes for that other article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Reverted Deisenbe yet again. Reverted on this. And per Template:Globalize, "This tag should only be applied to articles where global perspectives are reasonably believed to exist (e.g., that people in China have a different view about an idea or situation than people in Germany or South Africa). If additional reliable sources for a worldwide view cannot be found after a reasonable search, this tag may be removed." Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 04:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
The changes made by Flyer22 Reborn were contrary to Neutral Point of View policy of Wikipedia. While some of the changes seemed justified, the majority suggested a biased point of view that caused for the disregarding of those who believe "sexually violent predator" laws are unconstitutional (i.e. the view held by US District Court Judge Donovan Frank, the UK High Court, the New York Times and other reputable sources).
In order to ensure Wikipedia is neutral both the proponents' and the opponents' viewpoints should be noted in an unbiased factual manner. The alternative, is the forbidden appearance that Wikipedia is merely a political tool as opposed to a neutral encyclopedia. CathyR 2015 ( talk) 02:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
____
References
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Civil confinement page were merged into Sexually violent predator laws on 31 March 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On the use of the term "Sexually Violent Predator " (S.V.P.) to describe Civil Detainees. The term "S.V.P." has a meaning in many state's laws quite distinct from that of any reasonable person. As it is now defined, neither actual violence nor coercion is needed for a crime to meet the statutory definition of "sexually violent". The age of the victim, non-familial victims or past convictions are some criteria useful in branding someone " S.V.P." That this definitional shift has occurred during a period of mass hysteria over sex offenders cannot be seen as coincidental. California prisons and state hospitals have been launched on a wave of distorted public opinion. We insist that non-violent offenders not be smeared by this scurrilous and damaging defamation. Mik 20:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Through a legal procedure called “civil commitment,” you can be classed as a sexually violent predator based solely on the subjective opinion of a state-employed psychologist or sex expert.
— James Ridgeway, The Guardian
— Ríco 21:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The first sentence was edited to read: "Sexually violent predator (SVP) laws permit states to confine someone that has been convicted of a past sex offense if that person is likely to reoffend." The grammar errors aside, that's not correct because it's so overly broad and includes persons and violations not triggering SVP status. If someone reads only that and moves on, then they've seriously misinformed. I recognize the need to make Wikipedia easy to read, but that shouldn't be done to the point of making something wrong. Blue Sheepdog ( talk) 16:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
One part of the article said forty states had SFP stats, another said sixteen. Therefore at least one of those numbers has to be wrong. Which is it? I removed the higher number. Blue Sheepdog ( talk) 16:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The CRS report has a nice table with those. We could probably have an abbreviated version of that here. I've added the California one in "see also" for now. Tijfo098 ( talk) 18:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Deisenbe, same goes for this article, as goes for that other article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Reverted Deisenbe yet again. Reverted on this. And per Template:Globalize, "This tag should only be applied to articles where global perspectives are reasonably believed to exist (e.g., that people in China have a different view about an idea or situation than people in Germany or South Africa). If additional reliable sources for a worldwide view cannot be found after a reasonable search, this tag may be removed." Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 04:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
The changes made by Flyer22 Reborn were contrary to Neutral Point of View policy of Wikipedia. While some of the changes seemed justified, the majority suggested a biased point of view that caused for the disregarding of those who believe "sexually violent predator" laws are unconstitutional (i.e. the view held by US District Court Judge Donovan Frank, the UK High Court, the New York Times and other reputable sources).
In order to ensure Wikipedia is neutral both the proponents' and the opponents' viewpoints should be noted in an unbiased factual manner. The alternative, is the forbidden appearance that Wikipedia is merely a political tool as opposed to a neutral encyclopedia. CathyR 2015 ( talk) 02:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
____
References