Further Incarceration of Sexual Predators

Sexual Violent Predators Act

The state of Kansas enacted the Sexually Violent Predators Act on May 11, 1994 which attempted a procedure for the civil commitment of sexually violent predators. The law stated that because there was a small number of individuals who engage in violent sexual predation, and that these persons have a high likelihood of repeating their crimes but because they did not have a mental disease or defect which could allow for their commitment to a treatment facility, there was a need for a way to keep these individuals in confinement. As a result the Kansas legislature enacted the Sexually Violent Predators Act which "sets forth a procedure for the involuntary commitment of individuals who had been convicted and incarcerated for a sexually violent offense." (King 1438) In effect the state of Kansas wanted a way to keep violent sexual predators incarcerated beyond their sentences and created a law that could keep these individuals in prison after their sentence was over.

The idea of keeping a person in prison after their sentence has been served seems to be a violation of their constitutional rights and against everything the American sense of justice seems to favor. And the fact that sexually violent predators are, after their sentences are completed, being involuntarily committed for mental issues brings up the question of whether these individuals should have been prosecuted in the first place. On page 49 of the textbook it states that "persons who are mentally incapacitated" are not capable of committing crimes. (Hunt 49) But if a person has been convicted of a crime then how can the state later claim that this individual is mentally incapacitated and needs to be confined further?

However, there is a delicate balance in the justice system and the state must find a way to protect its most vulnerable citizens, its children, from this small group of violent sexual predators. This law was necessary because, as most experts in the field concur, the likelihood of these types of people repeating their crimes after they are released from prison is high. In addition, the laws which allowed for involuntary commitment were inadequate to deal with violent sexual predators. In effect a new legal definition of "mentally incapacitated" was needed to deal with violent sexual predators who were not legally mentally incapacitated under the old definition but did suffer from mental issues that were a threat to the public at large. While it may, at first glance, to appear as if these individuals are being treated unlawfully, the case law on this subject has found it to be not only legal but necessary.

The state of Kansas first used this law to keep Leroy Hendricks incarcerated after he had served his sentence. ("Kansas v. Hendricks") He was due to be released in 1994 after serving a ten-year prison sentence but Hendricks had a long history of violent sexual predation against children and the state argued that his pedophilia qualified as a "mental abnormality" under the new law. He immediately challenged this finding basing his challenge on his belief that pedophilia was not a mental abnormality, that keeping him in prison was a violation of double jeopardy, and that he was being punished for violating a law that was not enacted at the time of his crime (ex post facto). He lost in court but won his case on appeal which then sent the case to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court then decided that the statute's definition of "mental abnormality" did include pedophilia and that involuntary commitment was a legal remedy. In the Court's decision it stated that since involuntary incarceration, as defined under the law, was a civil matter, Hendricks' was not being criminally punished a second time nor was he being punished for a crime occurring before the enactment of the law. ("Kansas v. Hendricks")

Since the first laws enabling the incarceration of sexually violent predators after their sentences have been served were enacted in the 1990's there have been many cases in many states involving these types of criminals. One such case, which occurred in 2007, highlights how these types of laws have been applied. In the case of People v Gonzales a sexual predator named Ramiro Gonzales was due to be released from prison when the state sought to have him further incarcerated under California's Sexual Violent Predator Act (SVPA). ("People v. Gonzales") In the court proceedings Gonzales' psychological records were admitted into evidence as proof that he qualified for further incarceration. Gonzales argued that the inclusion of his personal medical records was a violation of his privacy rights while the state argued that Gonzales' case qualified it for the dangerous patient exception and his records were fair game. After appealing and re-appealing the case California's Supreme Court decided that while the inclusion of Gonzales' psychological records was a violation of his rights, it was only a state-law error and not a violation of his constitutional rights. Using the Watson standard for determining whether a legal mistake is prejudicial, the Court found that it was not and that Gonzales could be further incarcerated. ("People v. Gonzales")