misconstrued the act to one require proof of more than one sex offense and two to permit commitment for treatment only upon proof that the respondent had either a committed or attempted an act of penetration or be touched the sex organ breast or anus of a child for the purpose of sexual gratification and this construction is inconsistent with both the president of this court and with the legislative intent and therefore we ask this court take as an opportunity to clarify the proper scope and construction of the s t p act and the act as to purpose two main purposes one on the one hand we want to protect the public by sequestering the sexually dangerous person until such time as they have recovered and can be term sexual solve and sexual molestation of a child in the third or demonstrated propensities element in defining criminal sorry sorry i'm defining sexual assault in the act  definition in the criminal code since the act the phrase sexual assault is the by neither in the act nor in any decision of this court and interest during the phrase sexual molestation of a went even farther afield it started out with the administrative code regulations for the d c fs provision and especially moved to to finish of sexual conduct and ultimately came around to a definition that looks like put in the criminal code is defined as criminal sexual abuse but this narrow construction of this element is inappropriate because first if the general assembly had intended to equate sexual assault or sexual molestation of a child with those criminal offenses it couldn't would have done so certainly either by direct reference to those provisions of the code or even by using the same language but we know we have proof that they did not intend that there was no such offense as criminal sexual assault or criminal sexual abuse so the legislature could not have intended those current definitions when it in acted that demonstrated hence the selman isn't there consistent with future practice that's what masterson talk ok and you do have a problem with their record absolutely not in fact the legislature has since the time of the trial and this proceeding codified this court's holding in masters this court has never held that fact in people versus salem from one thousand nine hundred five this court said there's nothing that requires proof of more than one sex crime in fact requiring proof of any sex crime it doesn't it doesn't belong in the second element proof of future behavior if we're talking about propensities and not sex offenses or multiple acts of sexual assault or multiple acts of sexual abuse child so we read out the word offenses of the statute we don't have to it doesn't need you agree that it has to be a sex offense in the sense of a sex crime right what i'm saying is that the proof proof of that actual commission of some disorder predispose them to commit it get they have propensities as a result of this mental disorder they have propensities to commit sexual offenses but we're not going to commit people based on that the experts opinions alone  propensity evidence mean that that's why the general simply added that third element that demonstrated propensity selman requires proof of one at least one act of sexual assault or sexual molestation of a child what to do about the language in the definition of mental disorder mental disorder music in general or choir condition affecting the emotional and delusional capacity to preach a book proposal predisposes a person to engage in acts of sexual violence right this sex offenses sexually the metal the definition of mental disorder includes a propensity to engage in acts of sexual violence because what we do with that language mistakenly required to stay for more than that so that that the bennett alone would be enough to find her sexually dangerous so i want to bet that one of them would be enough to find her sexually dangerous yes yes because we know that the general assembly did not intend for this term sexual assault or sexual molestation of a child to have dispatched armies in the criminal code because those definitions were not there and so instead we should give these  it touching a child is done for the purpose of sexual gratification if you poll the courts limitations on touching of a child to those three areas the breast sex organ or anus excludes from sexual assault do not commit to the code until nine hundred eighty four and so the general assembly when it inactive the demonstrated propensities element that uses the phrase a sexual assault and sexual molestation of a child could not have intended a definition statutory definitions because there really is no statutory definition for sexual molestation of a child the court had to go round the back way time through the administrative code regulations sexual conduct and then come back around to criminal sexual abuse of a child before it could incorporate that  you said that based on her conduct of kissing the teacher and touching the teacher that was sufficient to show that she was it was that this vision to show that she was a dangerous potentially dangerous person what's going to happen to her she was nineteen years old  place what can happen to this girl so what would happen when she's been found sexually dangerous correct she was found sexually dangerous based on what you just described what happens to someone who's found sexually dangerous what happens when she sexual danger she's committed to the director of the department of corrections for caring treatment until such time as she's no longer sexually dangerous dr jekyll testified that the department of corrections would prepare an individualized treatment protocol for her what happens then is if the administrator but in their opinion they feel that she's no longer sexually dangerous they can petition for discharge or the responde herself can file a petition for discharge actually there are petitions for recovery and the act but essentially saying that i am no longer sexually dangerous here is my expert here is my progress in treatment and i should be  long can should be how much partner corrections for this can be held indefinitely until she's recovered until she no longer sexual beings you can we adapt your burner definition of sexual molestation of children and what evidence was presented showing that the defendant engaged in peoples proved a trial the p p relied on the context and respond its context with the then sixteen year old girl katie caperton who was it grace house where she had apparently been following case going around the group home that  made it's just that we're not saying that is not required certainly masterson does require we're just saying on this record it's plainly harmless because dr killian used the appropriate standard nobody ever employed a different standard a lesser burden of proof respondents never argued that she was prejudiced that's that's the only reason this court very well could remain for compliance with masters please the court counsel my name is monica hawkins and i represent miss being i'm the defendant in this case the appellate court in this case reversed the trial court on three separate reasons the first reason was because the trial court failed to make the explicit indicated with regard to the second element of the sexy dangerous persons act the state is required to prove that the mental disorder is coupled with the permanent propensity to the commission of a sex offense in this case one sex offender and that is a correct ruling showing one sex offense would not have been enough you needed to show more than one then they went on to define sex offense by utilizing the criminal code again that was a proper procedure to do they defined sex offense to both include sexual penetration as well as sexual conduct pursuant to the criminal code when you put those together with regard to the facts in this case the only thing that was presented at the trial court was with regard to the teacher where the defendant pushed her only have to show want that's already been stated in and out then the appellate court went on to define sexual assault and sexual molestation of children again they turn to the criminal court which is the proper thing to do in fact this court did in allen hundred eighty five referred to the criminal code under the sexual dangerous persons act to define sexual assault in that case the supreme court was looking to see what the defendant actually committed a sexual assault as defined in the third element it was done matter of fact there was no big issue that the supreme court utilized the criminal code to define sexual acts assault or suffer molestation in this case sexual molestation of child then comes to an intentional or direct clothing intentional or indirectly touching of the child or accused either directly or through clothing of the sex organs anus or breast of the child or the cues for purpose of arousal or gratification that didn't occur in this case the only evidence they had was a sixteen year old girl who lived at the group home who  similar age to the defendant the miss kagan who was who was a child testified cross examination she wasn't even sure whether the touching of her buttocks was even intentional and she even testified on cross examination that she wasn't even sure that the defendant looked down for sure that was the only evidence they had for sexual station of time they had nothing else that's all they showed because there was not in evidence to prove the th in that decision this crash don't construe agree that the respondent has a mental disorder i do agree but just because she has a mental disorder does not automatically make her specter dangerous person is not out of magically mean a she needs to be locked up indefinitely in the department of corrections she can get help somewhere else there are other avenues for help there there's other inpatient treatment she could have received but not to be locked up in the department of corrections just because she's meant the state objects to the utilization of the criminal code for the definition of these terms we have discussed that argument is incorrect for as i stated because this court has already utilized the criminal code and allen in defining sexual assault as well as the fact that the basis the factual basis for the experts testimony about respondents propensity to commit sex offenses it was entirely unfounded the expert testified that respondent this is not something that  happens come up just today she had a problem her entire life with sex offenses of the experts cited twelve separate incidents against nine separate victims in fact the commitment petition itself listed and numerous offenses the petition alleged those events that you're just describing correct they were yes they're alleging was there any proof of those events at trial her father with a knife in the church continued to have these problems all along and they simply did not know what to do with her so that there's no question that the factual basis the underlying factual basis for the experts propensity testimony on that second element was not challenged in fact based on a lengthy history of similar sexual type offenses she did minute to dr jekyll during the interview that when she sees a pretty girl that she like she