Fact: ex-post facto laws were violated. Then
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. 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 SVP Act limits individual’s eligibility for an individual who isn’t able to control their dangerousness.
Hendrick’s double jeopardy and the ex-post-facto weren’t violated. This explains why the Act isn’t punitive if it fails to offer treatment for the untreatable condition. The state’s 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 civil commitment adopts the commitment procedures with the necessary sufficient safeguards and procedures, adequate standards.
The Kansas Act involves the mental abnormality and the 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.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. Barefoot V. Estelle 1. It seems that in Barefoot V.
Estelle there are many questioning on whether the District Court is permissible to reject the petition for habeas corpus and whether the Court of Appeal is permissible to execute the fifth amendment denying the execution of the death penalty? Whether the use of psychiatrists knowledge can determine future dangerousness unconstitutional?2. The Court explained that the Court of Appeals may deny the stay but it doesn’t necessarily mean that the treatment of the merit that was inadequate or cursory. In Barefoot V. Estelle there isn’t a way to predict with a one hundred percent surety that a particular criminal will commit other crimes in the future, or could represent a danger to the community which was explained that psychiatrist is incompetent to make such predictions.The psychiatric testimony concerning future dangerousness is constitutional and is admissible during the sentencing hearing for a capital crime.3.The scientific evidence that was presented in Supreme Court was that Psychiatrists said Barefoot was likely to commit acts of violence in the future.One psychiatrist said Barefoot was a criminal sociopath and that there are no treatments available for his condition.
Another psychiatrist said Barefoot has a sociopathic personality disorder. The court accepted their testimonies even though the testimonies lacked empirical evidence. Also the fact that their predictions of a future dangerousness was not 100% accurate and cannot be proven true.
4. It is justified because psychiatrists can’t say something is 100% accurate if it hasn’t be tested true/accurate.the reason why this is justified is because they found sufficient evidence proving that there is no way one hundred percent guarantee that the individual won’t commit more crimes or that they aren’t going to be a danger to the community.5. Some changes I would like to make are to make a test or have a guideline to determine whether an individual is/will be a danger to the community/society. Also, I think the death penalty for killing a police officer is very strict because I have seen police officers being shot or killed and I haven’t seen them be sentenced to death. I would say give the individual a lesser sentence because it seemed cruel and unusual punishment in my point of view.
But I also believe that if you kill an individual you should face the consequences. I also would like to change the fact that psychiatrists say they are 100% accurate when it has been tested that nothing can be 100% accurate.