The arguments in favor of involuntary holding of certain dangerous offenders in prisons usually relates to sex offenders or others with mental disorders. A case which would argue strongly in favor of this is that of Elmer Spencer (Vatz, 2001). In 1974, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity for trying to strangle an 11-year-old boy, and three years later was convicted of assault and battery and imprisoned for three years. In 1982, he was convicted of raping and 11-year-old boy and trying to strangle him, and served 14 years of a 20-year sentence. Less than a year after his release, he was arrested for an attempted attack on an 8-year-old boy, but the case was dropped for lack of evidence. He was then alleged to have committed a sexual offense against a 7-year-old girl, but again the case was dropped for lack of evidence. A few months later he was charged with an attempted rape and an assault on two police officers, for which he served three and a half years of a 10-year sentence. After his release, he was charged with the brutal sexual murder of a 9-year-old boy.
Many blame the law or the parole boards for letting such a person out to continue committing their crimes (Vatz, 2001). Sexual predators are usually repeat offenders, whether or not they receive treatment, so people wonder why they are released after serving their sentences. Some states, like Maryland, where Spencer committed his offenses, allow for the "reconsideration hearings" at which sentencing judges can reduce the sentences of convicted felons without notifying victims' families, even in the case of plea bargains.
In the mid-20th century, almost half of the states had mentally disabled sex offender laws which generally allowed those accused of sex crimes to be confined for an indeterminate period of time if they suffered from a mental disease or defect (Vatz, 2001). The popularity of these sentences slowly declined, but has risen again in rec...