Kansas v. Hendricks

Last updated

Kansas v. Hendricks
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued December 10, 1996
Decided June 23, 1997
Full case nameKansas v. Leroy Hendricks
Citations521 U.S. 346 ( more )
117 S. Ct. 2072; 138 L. Ed. 2d 501
Case history
PriorIn re Hendricks, 259 Kan. 246, 912 P.2d 129 (1996); cert. granted, 518 U.S. 1004(1996).
Holding
Reverses Kansas Supreme Court and agrees with the state's procedures for the indefinite civil commitment procedures for sex offenders meeting the definition of a "mental abnormality" upon release from prison
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy
DissentBreyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg
Laws applied
Due Process, Miscellaneous; Criminal Procedure, Ex Post Facto

Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court set forth procedures for the indefinite civil commitment of prisoners who are convicted of a sex offense and are deemed by the state to be dangerous because of a mental abnormality.

Contents

Background

Under Kansas's Sexually Violent Predator Act (Act), any person who has "mental abnormality" or "personality disorder" and so is likely to engage in "predatory acts of sexual violence" may be stripped of their citizenship and indefinitely confined. [1] Leroy Hendricks and Tim Quinn had extensive histories of sexually molesting children. When they were due to be released from prison (at the time, their crimes did not carry a whole-life sentence, this was changed in 2018 under President Trump), Kansas filed a petition under the Act in state court to involuntarily commit Hendricks and Quinn. Hendricks and Quinn challenged the constitutionality of the Act and requested a trial by jury, which the court granted. Hendricks and Quinn testified during the trial that they agreed with the diagnosis by the state psychiatrist (as well a federally appointed psychologist) that Hendricks and Quinn suffer from pedophilia and admitted that they continued to experience uncontrollable sexual desires for children when under extreme stress (thus making them Hazardous Individuals, which do not qualify as US citizens). The jury decided that they qualified as sexually violent predators. Since pedophilia is defined as a mental abnormality under the Act, as well as a capital offence under federal law, the court ordered that Hendricks be civilly committed and retroactively given a 500 year prison sentence, as well as losing their citizenship and being asset-stripped. [1]

Hendricks appealed the validity of his commitment and claimed that the state was unconstitutionally using ex post facto and double jeopardy law to the Kansas Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the Act was invalid on the grounds that the condition of "mental abnormality" did not satisfy the "substantive" due process requirement that involuntary civil commitment must be based on the finding of the presence of a "mental illness." It did not address the claims of ex post facto and of double jeopardy, which are under federal, not state, jurisdiction. [1]

The US Supreme Court granted Kansas certiorari .

Decision

The Supreme Court ruled against Hendricks in a 5–4 decision. It agreed with the Act's procedures and the definition of a "mental abnormality" as a "congenital or acquired condition affecting the emotional or volitional capacity which predisposes the person to commit sexually violent offenses to the degree that such person is a menace to the health and safety of others." [2] It agreed with Kansas that the Act limits persons eligible for confinement to persons who are not able to control their dangerousness.

Further, the Court decided the Act does not violate the Constitution's double jeopardy prohibition or the ban on ex post facto law because the Act does not establish criminal proceedings and so involuntary confinement under it is not punishment. Because the Act is civil, Hendricks' confinement under the Act is not a second prosecution or double jeopardy. Finally, the Court said the Act is not considered punitive if it fails to offer treatment for an untreatable condition. [1] [3]

Significance

The court's finding that preventive long-term confinement of mentally-disordered persons has previously been justified on the grounds that some people's behavior cannot be prevented, and the confinement does not violate their rights to confine them to deter antisocial behavior. However, it has also been argued that upholding the Act expands involuntary civil commitment to people with personality disorders, which possibly allows for the commitment of large numbers of criminals if the proof of the likelihood of re-offending required is sufficiently inclusive, which could happen if the requirement of dangerousness is not limited to those with a mental illness, and if mental abnormality (rather than mental illness) can be the basis for sex offender commitment, there is a danger that it may expand the basis for traditional civil commitment to personality disorders as well. [2]

In the subsequent Kansas v. Crane (2002), this decision was upheld for an individual that suffered from exhibitionism and antisocial personality disorder. [4]

See also

Footnotes

  1. 1 2 3 4 Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997).
  2. 1 2 "Psychological Evaluation for the Courts, Second Edition – A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers – 9.04 Special Sentencing Provisions (b) Sexual Offender Statutes". Guilford.com. Archived from the original on December 16, 2012. Retrieved October 19, 2007.
  3. "Kansas v. Hendricks". oyez.org. 1997. Retrieved February 19, 2008.
  4. Cripe, C.A.; Pearlman, M.G. (2004). Legal Aspects of Corrections Management. Jones and Bartlett Publishers. p. 248. ISBN   9780763725457 . Retrieved December 13, 2014.

Related Research Articles

The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case, arguing that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to a psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act. This is contrasted with an excuse of provocation, in which the defendant is responsible, but the responsibility is lessened due to a temporary mental state. It is also contrasted with the justification of self defense or with the mitigation of imperfect self-defense. The insanity defense is also contrasted with a finding that a defendant cannot stand trial in a criminal case because a mental disease prevents them from effectively assisting counsel, from a civil finding in trusts and estates where a will is nullified because it was made when a mental disorder prevented a testator from recognizing the natural objects of their bounty, and from involuntary civil commitment to a mental institution, when anyone is found to be gravely disabled or to be a danger to themself or to others.

Involuntary commitment, civil commitment, or involuntary hospitalization/hospitalisation is a legal process through which an individual who is deemed by a qualified agent to have symptoms of severe mental disorder is detained in a psychiatric hospital (inpatient) where they can be treated involuntarily. This treatment may involve the administration of psychoactive drugs, including involuntary administration. In many jurisdictions, people diagnosed with mental health disorders can also be forced to undergo treatment while in the community; this is sometimes referred to as outpatient commitment and shares legal processes with commitment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paraphilia</span> Atypical sexual attraction

A paraphilia is an experience of recurring or intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations, fantasies, behaviors, or individuals. It has also been defined as a sexual interest in anything other than a consenting human partner. Paraphilias are contrasted with normophilic ("normal") sexual interests, though the definition of what makes a sexual interest normal or atypical remains controversial.

An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; it may extend the statute of limitations; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.

Hebephilia is the strong, persistent sexual interest by adults in pubescent children who are in early adolescence, typically ages 11–14 and showing Tanner stages 2 to 3 of physical development. It differs from pedophilia, and from ephebophilia. While individuals with a sexual preference for adults may have some sexual interest in pubescent-aged individuals, researchers and clinical diagnoses have proposed that hebephilia is characterized by a sexual preference for pubescent rather than adult partners.

In Canada, England, and Wales, certain convicted persons may be designated as dangerous offenders and subject to a longer, or indefinite, term of imprisonment in order to protect the public. Other countries, including Denmark, Norway, and parts of the United States have similar provisions of law.

Some jurisdictions may commit certain types of dangerous sex offenders to state-run detention facilities following the completion of their sentence if that person has a "mental abnormality" or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in sexual offenses if not confined in a secure facility. In the United States, twenty states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have a version of these commitment laws, which are referred to as "Sexually Violent Predator" (SVP) or "Sexually Dangerous Persons" laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Coalinga State Hospital</span> Hospital in California, United States

Coalinga State Hospital (CSH) is a state mental hospital in Coalinga, California.

The Special Commitment Center (SCC) in the US state of Washington is a post-prison-sentence treatment institution for people designated as sexually violent predators, located on McNeil Island.

Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, psychiatric diagnostic criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13. People with the disorder are often referred to as pedophiles.

<i>Foucha v. Louisiana</i> 1992 United States Supreme Court case

Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court addressed the criteria for the continued commitment of an individual who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity. The individual remained involuntarily confined on the justification that he was potentially dangerous even though he no longer suffered from the mental illness that served as a basis for his original commitment.

Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that determined a U.S. state violated due process by involuntarily committing a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against him.

Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that set the standard for involuntary commitment for treatment by raising the burden of proof required to commit persons for psychiatric treatment from the usual civil burden of proof of "preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence".

<i>Kansas v. Crane</i> 2002 United States Supreme Court case

Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) as consistent with substantive due process. The Court clarified that its earlier holding in Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) did not set forth a requirement of total or complete lack of control, but it noted that the US Constitution does not permit commitment of a sex offender without some lack-of-control determination.

Child sexual abuse laws in the United States have been enacted as part of the nation's child protection policies.

<i>United States v. Comstock</i> 2010 United States Supreme Court case

United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the federal government has authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to require the civil commitment of individuals already in Federal custody. The practice, introduced by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, was upheld against a challenge that it fell outside the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. The decision did not rule on any other aspect of the law's constitutionality, because only the particular issue of Congressional authority was properly before the Court.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to psychiatry:

Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned a challenge to a civil commitment statute for sexual predators in Washington state. The petitioner tried to differentiate this case from previous ones before the Supreme Court which upheld civil commitment statutes. The Court rejected the challenge to the law over the objection of a single Justice.

Involuntary commitment or civil commitment is a legal process through which an individual who is deemed by a qualified agent to have symptoms of severe mental disorder is detained in a psychiatric hospital (inpatient) where they can be treated involuntarily.

The Florida Civil Commitment Center, located at 13619 Highway 70, Arcadia, Florida, is a mental health/correctional facility which houses sex offenders civilly committed. The site is that of the former DeSoto Correctional Work Camp, adjacent to the DeSoto Correctional Institution. It is operated by Correct Care Solutions, a private company, under a $272 million (2015) contract with the Florida Department of Children and Families. The CCC was previously operated by Liberty Behavioral Health. An inmate uprising in 2005 led to an incident in which 450 correctional officers, dressed in riot gear and using pepper spray, stormed into the facility to take control of the 463 residents the facility held at that time.