n 1984, Leroy Hendricks was convicted of having indecent liberties with two 13-year old boys. As punishment for his action, Mr. Hendricks was remanded to the penal institutional system to serve his prison sentence. After serving ten years in prison, Mr. Hendricks was going to be stepped down to a halfway house. In the state of Kansas, they implemented the Sexually Violent Predator Act in 1994. This act “establishes procedures for the civil commitment of persons who, due to a mental abnormality or a personality disorder, are likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence (Brody & Acker, 2010, p.4). Due to the extensive sexually offensive history against minors that Mr. Hendricks had, he was deemed to continue to pose a threat to those in society. It was his past history of performing sexual acts against children and his own admission that he could not control his urges, that inclined the District Attorney’s ofice to file a motion to have Leroy Hendricks civilly committed under the Sexually Violent Predator Act. Mr. Hendricks attorney requested that his client be evaluated to determine if he could be labeled as a sexually violent offender. Based on Mr. Hendricks testimony …show more content…
Hendricks (1997). First and foremost, if Mr. Hendricks 5th amendment rights were violated. If an inmate has successfully fulfilled his punishment to the court, would it not be considered double jeopary by imposing a secondary confinement for the same crime that sent him to prison in the first place? Additionally, in the same instance, would Mr. Hendricks constitutional rights against ex post facto have been violated? Mr. Hendricks defense attorney argued that the Sexually Violent Predator Act punished persons who had fulfilled their court ordered obligations a second time but under a civil statute. Mr. Hendricks and his attorney felt that the act created a conflict between criminal and civil proceedings (Campbell, 1998,