commitment standards. I don't think that this Court has, has uh, has addressed that question, and I then think this is the first case that raises it. Oh, the Court has said expressly that there's no connection, in one case some time ago. Well, excuse me. Well, it is true in Lynch v. Overholser this Court suggested certain, uh, rationales for a commitment, but it didn't then go on to say whether those rationales were ones which would justify an indefinite commitment or simply one that would persist as long as the sentence that might have been imposed. And it's our view that those rationales, whether you call them punitive or not, are, are all ones which evaporate once the accou- -- once the insanity acquittee has been