KANSAS v. HENDRICKS
1. Mentally abnormal persons needing special procedures vs. protection of individuals under the due process clause.
1. The Act does not violate the Constitution's double jeopardy prohibition
2. The Act's definition of "mental abnormality" satisfies "substantive" due process requirements.
3. The Act does not establish criminal proceedings, and involuntary confinement under it is not punishment.
1. The state should have considered post-release supervision and other alternatives.
2. The U.S. Supreme Court has never made this a standard for preventive detentions.
3. The laws of other States confirm, through comparison, that Kansas' "civil
commitment" objectives do not require the statutory features that indicate a punitive
3. Plaintiff hole: The Act did not provide Hendricks with any treatment until after his release date from prison and only inadequate treatment thereafter.
Defendant hole: The Court’s opinion only pertains to Hendricks. Other cases will need to be viewed differently
4. The plaintiff wins.
Counterargument: It should be permitted to postpone treatment until after punishment in order to make certain that the punishment in fact occurs.
Point for the plaintiff: the psychiatric profession itself classifies the kind of problem from which Hendricks suffers as a serious mental disorder.
5. Propaganda: (1) The Kansas law was clearly passed as a response to public hysteria and was intended to be a way to keep certain prisoners locked up, with little regard for treatment. (2) the intent of the legislature was to get around the ex post facto clause and use civil commitment to do what they could not do under the criminal law.
Bias: (1) The state was so short-sighted as to not even make a pretense of providing treatment certainly undermines its claim that this is just another mental health law. The court...