Introduction
Civilian populations in the United States have been angered by sex deviants and the types of offenses they commit. The key catalyst to this public anger is the number of horrendous crimes perpetrated by convicted sexual offenders against women and children. The criminal justice system is dependent on a punitive and deterrent strategies in the prevention harm to the community. People are thought to have free will and competent enough to make meaningful choices. Punishment can only be applied if an individual carries out a voluntary act that is morally culpable (Patrick, 2018) . Retributivists believe that individuals who are inclined to commit criminal offences deserve to be punished for their actions. On the other hand, deterrence theorists believe that the risk of punishment will act as a deterrent to the offender, and others who may envisage committing a similar offense from engaging is criminal behavior.
The criminal justice system's social control system adopts a predictive and preventive method in averting harm in the community. The social control system asserts that individuals suffering from mental illnesses that render them unable to make informed decisions makes them dangerous are to be identified and confined. The state must also provide treatment to the offender and release them when they are no longer dangerous or mentally disturbed. Sexual violence is a severe public health problem which society has to face continually. Historically, understanding sexual deviance has been a problematic endeavor, partly due to the disagreements in the definition of sexual deviance (Patrick, 2018) . The disagreements, in definition, have affected the study of sexual violence, which is critical to understanding sexual deviance and the development prevention and intervention programs. Literature strongly supports that individuals who engage in violent behaviors tend to engage in not just one specific type of violence. Domestic abusers' trend to engage in child abuse or sexually abuse their partners as well as other forms of violent and nonviolent criminal behavior (Patrick, 2018) . Therefore, a thorough psychological and risk assessment and a criminal background check should be conducted to understand the scope of the perpetrator’s criminal history fully.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Hendricks Decision: Kansas v. Hendricks
The supreme court in the United States established the constitutionality of civil confinement of certain sexual offenders in the Kansas v. Hendricks case. Mr. Kendricks was found to be of unstable mind as a result of a diagnosis of paedophilia (Koehle, 2016). The United States Supreme Court held a dissenting opinion (5-4) by legislating a law that permits the civil commitment of individuals who, due to a personality disorder or mental abnormality, are inclined to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence (La Fond, 2000) . In the judgment, the minority established that the law did not provide timely and adequate treatment in applicable restrictive conditions to persons the state deems treatable (Koehle, 2016). In Hendricks, the Supreme Court asserted that sexual predator laws were a constitutional and legitimate exercise of the state's authority of involuntary commitment. However, these laws deviated from traditional civil commitment laws.
Analysis
The majority in the Hendricks case held the Kansas Sexually Violent Predators Act constitutional when they considered the procedures, effects, and purpose that accompanied the act in isolation of one another (La Fond, 2000) . The majority in the case failed to recognize that the Kansas Violent Predators Act, in its entirety, was considered punitive in nature. In committing sexually violent predators to very long prison terms, do not constitute punishment; hence the majority misinterpreted the cleats proof standards on what constitutes the core of punishment (Koehle, 2016). The majority in the Hendricks case did not examine the statute's legislative history, thus failing to interpret and apply the clearest proof standard properly. Had the majority examined the same types of evidence from other cases such as Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, a different outcome would have been reached.
The intent of the Sexually Violent Predators Act of 1994 was punitive. The Attorney General hailed the legislative for Kansas as "the most significant preventive criminal justice law." The Attorney General also asserted that the law was to keep dangerous sexual offenders incarcerated past their scheduled prison sentences (Koehle, 2016). Hence, the punitive purposes of the law should have been considered by the majority before they finalized the ruling. Based on the statements made by the previous Kansas Attorney Generals indicated that the nature of the law was meant to be retributive with the indefinite nature of the commitment that was imposed as a deterrent (Koehle, 2016). The Sexually Violent Predators Act was disguised as a form of "civil" legislation that was a route around the Fifth Amendment's protections (La Fond, 2000) .
The dissenting opinion in the Hendricks case was inconsistent with the previous court decision. Had the majority applied case law from the Mendoza-Martinez case, they would have concluded that the nature of Hendricks' punishment was a criminal punishment and not a civil sanction (Singleton,2015). The fact that Henricks was incarcerated based on previous convictions essentially asserts that the statute was committed to preventing the accused from committing future crimes. The enactment of the Sexually Violent Predators act was to provide treatment to sex offenders with perceived mental abnormalities (Koehle, 2016). However, the majority never provided an alternative treatment purpose to Hendricks's indefinite confinement. This proves that the law was enacted to punish criminals. In Allen v. Illinois, there was no indication that the law was designed to keep sexual predators incarcerated forever (Singleton,2015). There were no doubts that treatment was provided those to committed to the provisions of the law. In the Allen case, the court asserted that treatment had been given; then, the outcome would have been different. The dissent in the Hendricks case prompted that no treatment was provided; thus, the Allen v. Illinois case's application could have envisioned a different outcome in the Hendricks case (Koehle, 2016).
It can be concluded that in Hendricks, the Supreme Court was focused on sacrificing individual liberty in return for public safety. The case results indicate that the state was committed to protecting its children rather than to safeguard the constitutional rights of an individual who was deemed to be mentally ill (Singleton,2015).
Implications and Conclusions
Sexual predator commitment laws are being used by states to imprison sexual offenders who may no longer be held in the criminal justice system. There has been an increasing public demand for the use of involuntary commitment to keep individuals with high recidivism incarcerated (La Fond, 2000) . Therefore, Courts in the United States have established constitutionally acceptable parameters for civil commitment. Local and state governments do not have to establish that an individual has a recognized mental abnormality. The state reserves the right to civilly commit an individual whose mental conditions may be causing him to be dangerous (Koehle, 2016). Past crimes can be used to establish an individual's mental state resulting in volitional dangerousness and impairment. Also, there is no statutory requirement that commitment is for the purposes of treatment.
Hendricks empowered states to employ the use of involuntary civil commitment as a preventive measure without the need for evidence of mental illness or the provision of treatment. Thus, Hendricks enabled the courts to evade individual constitutional rights and protections in the name of promoting public safety.
References
Koehle, J. T. (2016). Twenty Years After Kansas V. Hendricks: Reforming the Kansas Sexual Predator Treatment Program Is Crucial to the Future of the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act. Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy , 26 (1), 1–23.
La Fond, J., 2000. The future of involuntary civil commitment in the U.S.A. after Kansas v. Hendricks. Behavioral Sciences & the Law , 18(2-3), pp.153-167.
Patrick, C., 2018. Handbook of Psychopathy . 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press.
Singleton, D. A. (2015). What is Punishment? The Case for Considering Public Opinion Under Mendoza-Martinez. Seton Hall Law Review , 45 (2), 435.
