the initial commitment are what I would call backward looking justifications, that is, justifications that do turn on the fact that he, it -- was found to have committed a criminal act beyond a reasonable doubt. And whether they're treated as purely punitive or not doesn't seem to me is, is, is, is important, or the label that we attach to them it doesn't seem to me is important. The point is, though, those rationales all do turn on the nature of his act, and his act is one which, we submit, justifies confinement only for a year. But hasn't this Court, as well as the United States Court of Appeals in the D.C. Circuit, said there's no rational connection between the possible sentence and the possible length