Case of Leroy Hendricks: A Blueprint for Successful Implementation of a Sexual Predator Statute

• NCJ Number: 177876
• Journal: Criminal Justice Policy Review Volume: 9 Issue: 3-4 Dated: September/December 1998 Pages: 451-463
• Author(s): Robert F. Scott Jr.; Shala Mills Bannister; Michael Copeland
• Date Published: 1998
• Length: 13 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

In the case of Hendricks v. Kansas (1997), the U.S. Supreme Court apparently resolved the issue that has plagued mental health and correctional practitioners alike, namely, whether sexually deviant and predatory individuals are best served by the criminal justice system or through the services of mental health facilities; in the Hendricks' case, the Court has held that both are appropriate and constitutional.

Abstract

Leroy Hendricks was the first person committed under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act (KSVPA). The KSVPA was modeled after a Washington State statute, which allows the State to civilly commit violent sexual predators following the completion of their criminal sentence if the State determines that they are a significant threat to public safety and if they are viewed as imminent recidivists. The State of Kansas viewed Hendricks to be such an individual, because he had a history of sexual crimes that spanned several decades. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Hendricks' claim that the KSVPA, as applied, was criminal in nature, thus constituting double jeopardy. The Court noted that the Act was not retributivist and did not require a criminal conviction. The Hendricks' case has provided States interested in developing a dangerous sexual predator statute with a blueprint for success. Even the dissenters on the Court acknowledged the value such mental health units may have if operated under certain conditions. These conditions include the provision of substantive treatment and an individualized program of treatment planned and implemented under the control of mental health professionals rather than correctional staff. Further, the State must establish guidelines that clearly specify who qualifies as a dangerous sexual predator, and these guidelines must be applied consistently and uniformly. Also, persons civilly committed under the statute must receive appropriate hearings as dictated by due process rights, so as to ensure that initial and continued civil commitment meets all legal requirements. 14 references