Fact: petitioned the U.S.Supreme Court for a writ

Fact:  Leroy Hendricks was convicted with five convictions for molesting children. Hendrick served 10 years of his sentence and then was released from prison because Kansas filed a petition under the Sexually Violent Predator Act in state court to involuntarily commit Hendrick. The State of Kansas passed the SVPA that allows prosecutors to pursue Hendrick’s civil commitment of being likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence.Hendrick was diagnosed pedophile and he didn’t think he could be treated successfully. Hendrick qualified as a sexually violent predator.Hendricks appealed and argued that his rights such as due process, protection of double jeopardy, and the ex-post facto laws were violated.The Supreme Court of Kansas agreed to Hendrick’s due process claim. Then the Supreme Court concluding that for Hendrick’s civil commitment they are required to have a proven documents of mental illness to prove Hendrick is an imminent threat of danger. Status: Hendrick appealed of his commitment sentence to the U.S.Supreme Court claiming that the state was unconstitutionally using ex-post facto and the double jeopardy law. They  ruled that the Sexually Violent Predator Act was invalid due to mental abnormality. The SVP Act did not satisfy the presence of a mental illness. Kansas petitioned the U.S.Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which the court granted.Issue:  Whether the Act’s civil commitment provisions, based on what constitutes as a ” mental abnormality”, violates due process and double jeopardy and the ex-post facto law?Holding (decision): No. Individuals who were confine dangerous and aren’t able to control their behavior due to mental abnormalities cannot be deprived of their rights to due process, double jeopardy, and the ex-post facto laws. The Sexual Violent Predator Act limits individual’s eligibility for confinement to an individual who isn’t able to control their dangerousness.The court decided that the Act doesn’t violate the Constitution’s double jeopardy or bans the ex-post-facto law because the Act doesn’t establish the criminal proceedings and the involuntary confinement is not punishment. The court explained that the Act isn’t punitive if it fails to offer treatment for the untreatable condition. The state’s procedures that indefinite civil commitment procedures for sex offenders must meet the Supreme Court’s definition of a mental abnormality before being released from prison.Rationale( reasoning):  This case implicates a particular type of commitment as it applies to criminal sentences of Sexually Violent Predators.The constitutionally acceptable civil commitment adopts the commitment procedures with the necessary sufficient safeguards and procedures, adequate standards. The Kansas Act requires a determination of mental abnormality and likelihood of engaging in the predatory sexual behavior. The commitment proceedings were civil so they didn’t  impose punishment and if they were criminal they would impose punishment. Commitment serves neither to deter or provide retribution to the two classic functions of a punitive law. The Sexual Violent Predator Act is not punitive because they lack available treatment or ancillary purpose. The Sexually Violent Predator Act is not an ex-post facto law as that prohibition only applies to criminal laws.   Comments: The significance of Kansas v. Hendrick case is that we will have a better understanding of whether the Act’s civil commitment violates due process and double jeopardy, the ex-post facto and what is the reasoning behind the court’s decision. This case is important to forensic behavioral science because it helps us understand that some illnesses or capabilities cause us to commit crimes.Also knowing that routines cause us to believe what we are doing is normal. It helps us identify any methods or techniques we can use to better handle or have a solution to these illnesses, capabilities that may reduce the violent sexual predator rate, crimes.The changes are that the court has sustained a commitment statue if it couples proof of dangerousness with proof of dangerousness with proof of the mental illness or mental abnormality. What failed to change is that people/individuals use this excuse because of their illness or mental capabilities when many individuals have a similar illness, mental capabilities and don’t commit crimes.The significance of this case is that we would be able to use this court case on future trials when violent sexual predators feel like their rights are violated they would be able to bring this case in to question if their rights are violated.


I'm Johnny!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out