Sexually violent predators: civil commitment.

Existing law provides for the civil commitment of criminal offenders who have been determined to be sexually violent predators for treatment in a secure state hospital facility, as specified. Existing law requires the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to refer a prisoner for evaluation by the State Department of State Hospitals when the secretary determines that the person may be a sexually violent predator and specifies the judicial processes necessary for civil commitment as a sexually violent predator, including, but not limited to, the right to a jury trial. Existing law establishes provisions by which a committed person is annually reviewed to determine his or her status and by which the committed person may petition for conditional release or unconditional discharge. Proposition 83 of the November 7, 2006, statewide general election, made various changes to the sexually violent predator civil commitment process. Proposition 83 permits the Legislature to amend its provisions, either by a 23 vote of the membership of each house, or by a majority vote of the membership of each house if the amendments expand the scope of the application of the provisions of the proposition or increase the punishments or penalties provided in the proposition. This bill would clarify which provisions are to be used when a committed person petitions for conditional release and which provisions are to be used when a committed person petitions for unconditional discharge and would make nonsubstantive, organizational changes to the provisions. The bill would also require the community program director designated by the State Department of State Hospitals to submit a report to the court in response to the petition that makes a recommendation as to the appropriateness of placement of the person in a state-operated forensic conditional release program before a hearing can be held. The bill would require, as part of the conditional release hearing, that a designated attorney represent the state and have the committed person evaluated by experts chosen by the state, and would give the committed person the right to the appointment of experts, if he or she so requests. The bill would also prohibit, if unconditional discharge is denied, the committed person from petitioning for unconditional discharge for one year. Existing law places the burden of proof in a hearing for conditional release on the petitioner, by a preponderance of the evidence. This bill, when the annual report determines that conditional release to a less restrictive alternative is in the best interest of the person and that conditions can be imposed that would adequately protect the community, would shift the burden of proof to the state to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that conditional release is not appropriate. Existing law prohibits action on a petition for conditional release that was not made by the director of the treatment facility to which the person is committed without first obtaining the written recommendation of the director of the treatment facility. This bill would, instead, prohibit action on a petition for conditional release that was not made with the consent of the director of the treatment facility without first obtaining the written recommendation of the director of the treatment facility.