Petitioner
State of Kansas
Respondent
Leroy Hendricks
Petitioner's Claim
That the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act, which provides for civil commitment of persons convicted of crimes of sexual violence to be civilly committed to a mental institution for treatment, did not violate the Constitution.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Carla J. Stovall
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Thomas J. Weilert
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
23 June 1997
Decision
That the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act did not violate the defendant'srights to due process, and was not a criminal penalty which violated the Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Constitution.
Significance
The Court's decision granted wide latitude to the states to fashion measuresfor protecting society from repeated crimes by violent sexual predators.
In the early 1990s, a number of states enacted tough laws to deal with the rising problem of violent sexual crimes, particularly those against children. States imposed harsher sentences on those convicted of violent sexual crimes and required sexual offenders to register their address with the police following their release from prison. In 1994, Kansas took an innovative approach byenacting the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act. This law allowed the state to confine sexual offenders that suffered from a "mental abnormality" to amental institution through a process known as civil commitment. Civil commitment is a process apart from the criminal justice process in which a person can be committed involuntarily to a mental facility. Civil commitment generallyis used only for people who are a danger to themselves or to others.
The Kansas law provided a detailed procedure for committing violent sexual offenders. First, the prison was required to notify the prosecuting attorney who handled the case 60 days before the sexual offender was to be released fromprison. The prosecutor then had 45 days in which to file a petition in the state court asking that the person be involuntarily committed. If such a petition was filed, the state court was then required to determine whether there was sufficient evidence that the person was a "sexually violent predator." Under the law, "sexually violent predator" was defined as a person suffering from a mental abnormality which makes the person likely to commit sexually violent acts and who is convicted of or charged with a sexually violent offense. If the court determined that there was sufficient evidence, the person was evaluated by a psychological professional. After the evaluation, a trial was held, and if the person was found to be a sexually violent predator beyond a reasonable doubt, he was committed to a mental facility for care and treatment.Finally, after a person's commitment, the trial court was required to conductan annual review to determine whether the person should remain committed. Also, the person could petition the court for release at any time.
Kansas Law Applied to Hendricks
One of the first people to be committed under the Kansas law was Leroy Hendricks. In 1984, Hendricks, a pedophile, was convicted of sexually abusing two 13-year-old boys. This was his sixth conviction for sexually abusing children.After serving 10 years of his sentence, Hendricks was scheduled to be released from prison. Before his release, however, the state sought to have Hendricks committed as a sexually violent predator under the newly enacted law. Thejury unanimously found that Hendricks was a sexually violent predator, and the court determined that Hendricks's pedophilia was a "mental abnormality" covered by the law. Accordingly, the state court committed Hendricks to a mentalinstitution.
Hendricks appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court. He argued that the Kansas lawviolated his right to "substantive" due process of law. He also argued thatthe law actually imposed a criminal penalty, and was thus unconstitutional under the Ex Post Facto and Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Constitution. The Kansas Supreme Court did not address the ex post facto or double jeopardy arguments, but did find that the law violated Hendricks's right to due process oflaw. The state appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Court Upholds Law
The Supreme Court reversed the Kansas Supreme Court's decision and upheld thelaw. Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, a state may not deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Although it is written in terms of "process," the Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment to protect various substantive rights, not just procedural rights. This is known as "substantive due process." Based on earlier U.S. Supreme Court cases, the Kansas court concluded that substantive due process requiredthat the state prove, before imposing civil commitment, that the person to becommitted suffers from a mental illness, not merely a mental abnormality, and that the person is a danger to himself or others. The Supreme Court concluded that its earlier cases do not require "mental illness," and that it is sufficient if the state shows that the person suffers from a "mental abnormality" which makes the person unable to control his behavior and which makes him adanger to others. Because the Kansas law required such a showing, the Courtconcluded that it did not violate Hendricks rights to substantive due process.
The Supreme Court also rejected Hendricks's argument that the Kansas law imposed a criminal penalty which violated both the Ex Post Facto and Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Constitution. The Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits a state from imposing a criminal penalty on conduct which occurred before the law wasenacted, while the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits a state from punishing aperson twice for the same conduct. Hendricks claimed that the Kansas law, asapplied to him, violated these clauses because his crime occurred in 1984, ten years before the law was passed, and because he had already been punished for his crime by being sent to prison. The Court rejected these arguments because the Ex Post Facto and Double Jeopardy Clauses apply to only criminal penalties, and the Kansas law regarded only civil proceedings. In order to be a criminal penalty, a law must have either the purpose or effect of punishing aperson. The Court concluded that the purpose of the Kansas law was not to punish violent sex offenders, but to treat them so that they can safely re-entersociety. Justice Breyer, who was joined by three other justices, disagreed with the majority. Justice Breyer concluded that the real purpose of the Kansas law was to permanently confine violent sex offenders, and therefore the lawviolated the Ex Post Facto Clause as applied to Hendricks.
Importantly, however, all nine justices agreed that the law did not violate asex offender's right to substantive due process. Thus, the Court's decisioneffectively validated the civil commitment laws in 16 other states which provided for civil commitment of violent sexual offenders. Also, the Court's decision opened the door for more legislative experimentation by the states in dealing with the problems posed by violent sexual assaults by repeat offenders.
Related Cases
State of Kansas
Respondent
Leroy Hendricks
Petitioner's Claim
That the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act, which provides for civil commitment of persons convicted of crimes of sexual violence to be civilly committed to a mental institution for treatment, did not violate the Constitution.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Carla J. Stovall
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Thomas J. Weilert
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
23 June 1997
Decision
That the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act did not violate the defendant'srights to due process, and was not a criminal penalty which violated the Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Constitution.
Significance
The Court's decision granted wide latitude to the states to fashion measuresfor protecting society from repeated crimes by violent sexual predators.
In the early 1990s, a number of states enacted tough laws to deal with the rising problem of violent sexual crimes, particularly those against children. States imposed harsher sentences on those convicted of violent sexual crimes and required sexual offenders to register their address with the police following their release from prison. In 1994, Kansas took an innovative approach byenacting the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act. This law allowed the state to confine sexual offenders that suffered from a "mental abnormality" to amental institution through a process known as civil commitment. Civil commitment is a process apart from the criminal justice process in which a person can be committed involuntarily to a mental facility. Civil commitment generallyis used only for people who are a danger to themselves or to others.
The Kansas law provided a detailed procedure for committing violent sexual offenders. First, the prison was required to notify the prosecuting attorney who handled the case 60 days before the sexual offender was to be released fromprison. The prosecutor then had 45 days in which to file a petition in the state court asking that the person be involuntarily committed. If such a petition was filed, the state court was then required to determine whether there was sufficient evidence that the person was a "sexually violent predator." Under the law, "sexually violent predator" was defined as a person suffering from a mental abnormality which makes the person likely to commit sexually violent acts and who is convicted of or charged with a sexually violent offense. If the court determined that there was sufficient evidence, the person was evaluated by a psychological professional. After the evaluation, a trial was held, and if the person was found to be a sexually violent predator beyond a reasonable doubt, he was committed to a mental facility for care and treatment.Finally, after a person's commitment, the trial court was required to conductan annual review to determine whether the person should remain committed. Also, the person could petition the court for release at any time.
Kansas Law Applied to Hendricks
One of the first people to be committed under the Kansas law was Leroy Hendricks. In 1984, Hendricks, a pedophile, was convicted of sexually abusing two 13-year-old boys. This was his sixth conviction for sexually abusing children.After serving 10 years of his sentence, Hendricks was scheduled to be released from prison. Before his release, however, the state sought to have Hendricks committed as a sexually violent predator under the newly enacted law. Thejury unanimously found that Hendricks was a sexually violent predator, and the court determined that Hendricks's pedophilia was a "mental abnormality" covered by the law. Accordingly, the state court committed Hendricks to a mentalinstitution.
Hendricks appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court. He argued that the Kansas lawviolated his right to "substantive" due process of law. He also argued thatthe law actually imposed a criminal penalty, and was thus unconstitutional under the Ex Post Facto and Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Constitution. The Kansas Supreme Court did not address the ex post facto or double jeopardy arguments, but did find that the law violated Hendricks's right to due process oflaw. The state appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Court Upholds Law
The Supreme Court reversed the Kansas Supreme Court's decision and upheld thelaw. Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, a state may not deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Although it is written in terms of "process," the Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment to protect various substantive rights, not just procedural rights. This is known as "substantive due process." Based on earlier U.S. Supreme Court cases, the Kansas court concluded that substantive due process requiredthat the state prove, before imposing civil commitment, that the person to becommitted suffers from a mental illness, not merely a mental abnormality, and that the person is a danger to himself or others. The Supreme Court concluded that its earlier cases do not require "mental illness," and that it is sufficient if the state shows that the person suffers from a "mental abnormality" which makes the person unable to control his behavior and which makes him adanger to others. Because the Kansas law required such a showing, the Courtconcluded that it did not violate Hendricks rights to substantive due process.
The Supreme Court also rejected Hendricks's argument that the Kansas law imposed a criminal penalty which violated both the Ex Post Facto and Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Constitution. The Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits a state from imposing a criminal penalty on conduct which occurred before the law wasenacted, while the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits a state from punishing aperson twice for the same conduct. Hendricks claimed that the Kansas law, asapplied to him, violated these clauses because his crime occurred in 1984, ten years before the law was passed, and because he had already been punished for his crime by being sent to prison. The Court rejected these arguments because the Ex Post Facto and Double Jeopardy Clauses apply to only criminal penalties, and the Kansas law regarded only civil proceedings. In order to be a criminal penalty, a law must have either the purpose or effect of punishing aperson. The Court concluded that the purpose of the Kansas law was not to punish violent sex offenders, but to treat them so that they can safely re-entersociety. Justice Breyer, who was joined by three other justices, disagreed with the majority. Justice Breyer concluded that the real purpose of the Kansas law was to permanently confine violent sex offenders, and therefore the lawviolated the Ex Post Facto Clause as applied to Hendricks.
Importantly, however, all nine justices agreed that the law did not violate asex offender's right to substantive due process. Thus, the Court's decisioneffectively validated the civil commitment laws in 16 other states which provided for civil commitment of violent sexual offenders. Also, the Court's decision opened the door for more legislative experimentation by the states in dealing with the problems posed by violent sexual assaults by repeat offenders.
Related Cases
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).
- Minnesota ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court of Ramsey City, 309 U.S. 270 (1940).
- Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107 (1966).
- Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 (1984).
- Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364 (1986).
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993).
- California Department of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 (1995).
User Comments Add a comment…