[CHAPTER 353E]
278 words·~1 min read·
/hi/353eA research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
[CHAPTER 353E]
STATEWIDE INTEGRATED SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAM
Section
353E-1 Sex offender treatment; statewide program established
353E-2 Interagency coordination
Law Journals and Reviews
Right Against Self-Incrimination v. Public Safety: Does Hawai`i's Sex Offender Treatment Program Violate the Fifth Amendment? 23 UH L. Rev. 825 (2001).
Case Notes
District court correctly granted defendant's summary judgment on claim, where inmate argued that being labeled a sex offender and being forced to participate in sex offender treatment program violated Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. 131 F.3d 818 (1997).
Inmates' claim that sex offender treatment program violated ex post facto clause was ripe; sex offender treatment program did not violate ex post facto clause. 131 F.3d 818 (1997).
Inmate who had never been convicted of a sex offense and had never had opportunity to formally challenge imposition of sex offender label in adversarial setting did not receive required minimum due process protections and was entitled to injunctive relief; inmate who was convicted after formal criminal proceedings of a sex offense received all of process to which inmate was due. 131 F.3d 818 (1997).
Requiring inmates labeled as sex offenders to admit their offenses and take responsibility for their sexual behaviors as part of treatment program did not violate privilege against self-incrimination. 131 F.3d 818 (1997).
No equal protection violation, where plaintiff claimed that sex offender treatment program violated right to equal protection because it was overinclusive in that it included inmates who had not actually been convicted of a sex offense. 905 F. Supp. 813 (1995).
Prison's policy of not placing untreated sex offenders in minimum custody did not violate ex post facto clause. 905 F. Supp. 813 (1995).