Kansas v hendricks. Kansas v. Hendricks 2022-10-22
Kansas v hendricks
Rating:
4,7/10
132
reviews
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered the constitutionality of a Kansas law that allowed the involuntary civil commitment of sexually violent predators. The law was challenged on the grounds that it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution.
The case involved Leroy Hendricks, who had been convicted of several sexual offenses and was deemed to be a sexually violent predator under the Kansas law. Hendricks argued that the law was unconstitutional because it allowed for his indefinite detention without the opportunity for parole or review, effectively punishing him for past crimes. He also argued that the law was an ex post facto law, as it retroactively applied to offenses that he had already been convicted of.
The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the constitutionality of the Kansas law, finding that it was not a punishment for past crimes, but rather a preventive measure to protect the public from future harm. The Court noted that the law provided for periodic reviews of an individual's detention, and that it allowed for the release of individuals who no longer posed a threat to society.
In its decision, the Court also recognized the important role that states play in protecting their citizens from sexually violent predators. The Court noted that states have a legitimate interest in protecting the public from dangerous individuals, and that the Kansas law was a reasonable means of achieving this goal.
Overall, Kansas v. Hendricks is an important Supreme Court case that addressed the balance between the rights of individuals and the state's interest in protecting its citizens. It affirmed the constitutionality of laws that allow for the involuntary civil commitment of sexually violent predators, as long as those laws provide for adequate due process and do not punish individuals for past crimes.
Kansas v. Hendricks, 117 childhealthpolicy.vumc.org 2072, 138 childhealthpolicy.vumc.org2d 501 (1997).
If, at any time, the confined person is adjudged "safe to be at large," he is statutorily entitled to immediate release. And second, in a footnote, a Kansas trial judge's statement, in a state habeas proceeding nearly one year after Hendricks was committed, that Kansas is providing treatment. The Act's purpose is not retributive because it does not affix culpability for prior criminal conduct. The prohibition on facts found outside the record is designed to ensure the reliability of the evidence before the Court. In Allen, we confronted a similar argument. B In 1984, Hendricks was convicted of taking "indecent liberties" with two 13-year-old boys.
Next
Kansas v. Hendricks Case Brief
Setting aside the question of whether a prison term exacerbates or minimizes the mental condition of a sex offender, it plainly delays the treatment that must constitutionally accompany commitment pursuant to the Statute. The record reflects that treatment for sexually violent predators is all but nonexistent. But why, one might ask, does the Act not commit and require treatment of sex offenders sooner, say soon after they begin to serve their sentences? This case does not require us to consider whether the Due Process Clause always requires treatment-whether, for example, it would forbid civil confinement of an untreatable mentally ill, dangerous person. It did not address Hendricks' ex post facto and double jeopardy claims. We have sustained civil commitment statutes when they have coupled proof of dangerousness with the proof of some additional factor, such as a "mental illness" or "mental abnormality. We granted certiorari on both the petition and the cross petition, 518 U.
Next
Kansas v. Hendricks
He further opined that pedophilia qualifies as a "mental abnormality" within the Act's definition of that term. The Kansas Supreme Court, however, apparently rejected this assumption, explaining: "It is clear that the overriding concern of the legislature is to continue the segregation of sexually violent offenders from the public. That Kansas chose to afford such procedural protections does not transform a civil commitment proceeding into a criminal prosecution. Wellman and Mary E. The majority suggests that this is the very case I say it is not, namely a case of a mentally ill person who is untreatable. To find a violation of that Clause here, however, is not to hold that the Clause prevents Kansas, or other States, from enacting dangerous sexual offender statutes. Thus, to the extent that treatment is available for Hendricks' condition, the State now appears to be providing it.
Next
Kansas V. Hendricks
Others thought that effective treatment did not exist, id. Hendricks appealed and argued that his commitment violated his due process rights, protection against double jeopardy, and the prohibition upon ex post facto laws. The State invoked the Act for the first time to commit Leroy Hendricks, an inmate who had a long history of sexually molesting children, and who was scheduled for release from prison shortly after the Act became law. Brief for the Menninger Foundation et al. The Kansas law, with its attendant protections, including yearly review and review at any time at the instance of the person confined, is within this pattern and tradition of civil confinement. Weilert argued the cause for Hendricks in both cases.
Next
Kansas v. Hendricks :: 521 U.S. 346 (1997) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Finally, Hendricks offered testimony from Dr. United States , Blockburger, "where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not. United States, Baxstrom v. Moreover, the Act clearly does not have retroactive effect. These, and certain other, special features of the Act convince me that it was not simply an effort to commit Hendricks civilly, but rather an effort to inflict further punishment upon him.
Next
KANSAS v. HENDRICKS
See supra, at 378. III To find that the confinement the Act imposes upon Hendricks is "punishment" is to find a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. United States, 284 U. Then, in 1957, he was convicted of lewdness involving a young girl and received a brief jail sentence. That is, a State is free to commit those who are dangerous and mentally ill in order to treat them. This is not to say that each of the factors the Court mentioned in Martinez-Mendoza on balance argues here in favor of a constitutional characterization as "punishment.
Next
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346
One other case warrants mention. Although Hendricks recognized that his behavior harms children, and he hoped he would not sexually molest children again, he stated that the only sure way he could keep from sexually abusing children in the future was "to die. Morales, ex post facto concerns. For example, Hendricks testified that, when he gets "stressed out," he cannot "control the urge" to molest children, see ante, at 7. In fact, it is precisely where such disagreement exists that legislatures have been afforded the widest latitude in drafting such statutes.
Next
KANSAS, Petitioner, v. Leroy HENDRICKS. Leroy HENDRICKS, Petitioner, v. KANSAS.
§§ 13-4601, 4606B Supp. The statute does not tell us why it imposes this requirement. The failure of the Statute to provide for examination or treatment prior to the completion of the punishment phase strongly suggests that treatment is of secondary, rather than primary, concern. If so, we ordinarily defer to the legislature's stated intent. In that light, the provisions of the Act for treatment appear somewhat disingenuous. §59-29a03 a 1 1994. If, however, civil confinement were to become a mechanism for retribution or general deterrence, or if it were shown that mental abnormality is too imprecise a category to offer a solid basis for concluding that civil detention is justified, our precedents would not suffice to validate it.
Next