Old Age Alone and Sexually Violent Predator Commitment
There is abundant scientific evidence that with older age, a man’s testosterone level decreases and men become less prone to violence and crime in general. The person also becomes wiser and more responsible toward others with time.
However, does this trend necessarily bar commitment of an older man as a sexually violent predator (SVP) (Welfare & Institutions Code § 6600, et seq.)? In other words, is the law willing to stop committing an older man as an SVP once he or she reaches 70, for example?
The Reader’s Digest Version: An SVP may be civilly committed even at age 74 because, while it is true that such a person may slow down with age, there is no proof that sexual deviancy declines or declines to being undangerous to the public.
That issue was put to the test and answered by the Second Appellate District in a recent appeal by Earl Hoffman, a 74-year-old self-admitted child molester, who candidly told interviewing doctors that if released from an SVP civil commitment, he could not guarantee that he would not molest another child.
Nonetheless, he appealed a court trial finding that he was an SVP and the commitment order that followed, arguing that he is just too old to pose “a serious and well-founded risk” of sexually reoffending upon release to be committed.
Mr. Hoffman had an extensive history of sexual deviancy, including numerous convictions for sexual offenses against children. He has been arrested 19 times for sex offenses, most involving sexual aggression against children. One example is representative, according to the appellate court. In 1988, 32 years ago (when Hoffman was 42 years old), he accosted a 16-year-old female riding a moped. He told her he was a scout for models. He then sexually penetrated her vagina with his finger.
Five psychologists offered opinions at Hoffman’s SVP commitment trial. They were unanimous that Hoffman met the SVP commitment criteria.
However, he notes, he has not reoffended for 30 years, which the SVP trial court commented upon as a simply because Mr. Hoffman has been imprisoned or civilly committed for 30 years. Two of the psychologists testifying at his SVP trial opined that Hoffman was just old to support the opinion that he posed “a serious and well-founded risk” of sexually reoffending upon release.
One psychologist said that Hoffman’s age was the “paramount issue.” The other psychologist said that if Hoffman were younger, he would be an SVP, but “age” is “huge.” Thus, both these psychologists opined that Hoffman should not be committed as an SVP.
Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Los AngelesThe Second Appellate District noted that Hoffman declined treatment for 20 years and stated that he does not think he needs treatment. The appellate court commented that “If there is an attitude test, appellant has surely flunked it.”
The appellate court noted, too, that three experts opined that Hoffman still poses a serious and well-founded risk of sexually reoffending upon release. The experts noted that while a person may “slow down” with age, it does not necessarily follow that interest in sexual deviancy slows down. Therefore, the appellate court held that “old age,” standing alone, does not relieve a person of an SVP commitment. It is a factor to be considered by mental health professionals, but it is not solely determinative.
The appellate court then pointed out (with some sarcasm) that if it were to credit Mr. Hoffman’s claim, all 74-year-old SVP’s would have to be released. If such were the policy, the court would have to ignore Hoffman’s admission: “Nobody can predict what I can do in the future. Not even I can.” “People here think I’m a rapist because I’m aggressive in sports. But I’m a child molester.” That credible self-analysis undercut his appeal’s central argument that his old age was a bar to his future commitment. Therefore, the Second Appellate District court affirmed the trial court’s commitment order.
We present this summary because many of those imprisoned for sex crimes face SVP civil commitment upon finishing their prison sentences for their original sex crimes. There seems to be a common question of, “well, yes, but he’ll be 65 years old then, so won’t civil commitment be denied?” We present this summary of Mr. Hoffman’s appeal to exemplify how such an argument has been treated by the appellate court.
The citation for the Second Appellate District Court ruling discussed above is People v. Earl Hoffman (2nd App. Dist., 2021) 61 Cal. App. 5th 976, 275 Cal. Rptr. 3d 888.
For more information about SVP issues, please click on the following articles:
Client Reviews
★★★★★
"Thank you so much for putting so much effort in this case. We really appreciate it and we are happy that all turned out well." S.A., Torrance
★★★★★
"Greg Hill did an outstanding job on every level. He was efficient, thorough, knowledgeable, courteous, responsive & brilliant. He welcomed my input and my concerns. . . from the first conversation to the last - I always felt 'it mattered' to him." S.C., Rolling Hills Estates
★★★★★
"Thanks again for your hard work. We want you to know that we are very appreciative of all that you have done [on our son's] behalf. With warmest regards." L.H., Torrance
★★★★★
"Dear Greg, Thank you again for all your help. Your professionalism and thoroughness is greatly admired. I will definitely recommend you to my friends if they ever need legal help." V.L., Carson
★★★★★
"Thanks for investing in my case. I talked to other attorneys out there and they had an arms-length of attitude, but not you. Your intensity and interest helped a lot." C.R., Pomona