Out of Sight,Out of Mind: An Analysis of Kansas V. Crane and the Fine Line between Civil and Criminal Sanctions

Abstract

The social intolerance surrounding repeat sexual offenders has spawned numerous legal remedies through the years including sexual psychopath laws, Megan’s Law, chemical castration, and sexually violent predator (SVP) legislation. In the past 12 years, several states have implemented what many consider to be the resurrection of the old sexual psychopath laws of the 1930s and 1940s. This newest legal remedy is most often referred to as SVP legislation and allows for the indefinite civil commitment of those offenders who have served their prison sentences but have been determined to be SVPs still. Based on this legislation, this article analyzes the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court case of Kansas v. Crane, the latest in a series of cases that address an issue that many feel runs dangerously close to crossing the fine line between civil commitment and criminal sanctions.

Keywords

civil commitment Kansas Hendricks Crane Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act sexually violent predator

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Psychiatric Association . (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Arnone, K. L. (2000). Megan’s Law and habeas corpus review: Lifetime duty with no possibility of relief? Arizona Law Review, 42, 157-182.

Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107 (1966).

Cohen, S. (1980). Folk devils and moral panics (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin’s.

Del Carmen, R. V. , Ritter, S. E. , & Witt, B. A. (2002). Briefs of leading cases in corrections (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Doe v. Poritz, 516 U.S. 986 (1995).

Dorsett, K. A. (1998). Kansas v. Hendricks: Marking the beginning of a dangerous new era in civil commitment. DePaul Law Review, 48, 113-159.

Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992).

Friedland, S. I. (1999). On treatment, punishment, and the civil commitment of sex offenders. Colorado Law Review, 70, 73-154.

10.

Horwitz, A. V. (1990). The logic of social control. New York: Plenum.

11.

Kaimowitz v. Dept. of Mental Health, Civ. No. 73019434 (Cir. Ct. Wayne County, MI, July 10, 1973).

12.

Kansas Statute Annotated §59-29a02 (2000).

13.

Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002).

14.

Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997).

15.

Kappeler, V. E. , Blumberg, M. , & Potter, G. W. (2000). The mythology of crime and criminal justice. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

16.

Kappeler, V. E. , Sluder, R. D. , & Alpert, G. P. (1998). Forces of deviance: Understanding the dark side of policing. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

17.

La Fond, J. (1999). Therapeutic jurisprudence: Can therapeutic jurisprudence be normatively neutral? Sexual predator laws: Their impact on participants and policy. Arizona Law Review, 41, 375-419.

18.

Minnesota ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court of Ramsey County, 309 U.S. 270 (1940).

19.

Morris, G. H. (2000). The evil that men do: Perverting justice to punish perverts. University of Illinois Law Review, 2000(4), 1199-1231.

20.

O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975).

21.

Potter, G. W. , & Kappeler, V. E. (1998). Constructing crime: Perspectives on making news and social problems. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

22.

Rennie v. Klein, 462 F. Supp. 1131, 1143-44 (D. N.J. 1978).

23.

Rogers v. Okin, 478 F. Supp. 1342 (MA Dist. Ct. 1979).

24.

Smith, K. L. (1988/1999). Making pedophiles take their medicine: California’s chemical castration law. The Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal, 17, 123-175.

25.

Spierling, S. E. (2001). Lock them up and throw away the key: How Washington’s violent sexual predator law will shape the future balance between punishment and prevention. Journal of Law and Policy, 9, 879-915.

26.

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969).

27.

Sutherland, E. (1950). The diffusion of sexual psychopath laws. American Journal of Sociology, 56, 142-148.

28.

Van Duyn, A. L. (1999). The scarlet letter branding: A constitutional analysis of community notification provisions in sex offender statues. Drake Law Review, 47, 635-659.

29.

Websdale, N. (1996). Predators: The social construction of “stranger danger” in Washington State as a form of patriarchal ideology. In J. Ferrell & N. Websdale (Eds.), Making trouble: Cultural construction of crime, deviance, and control (pp. 91-114). New York: Aldine De Gruyter.