vacated in the supreme court but i'm grounds that soros orders were not appeal so they were on grounds that sorow did not constitute punishment but on grounds that you have to follow supreme court case law but this court also has a continuing responsibility to to evaluate the constitutionality statues as a lot about us and frankly since the supreme court has weighed in on whether s p p commitment constitutes punishment a lot has changed with respect to the way that we think about young people and sentencing will st of all this is  to have just the sorra restrictions on them and this corps has found in those decisions and green and they were vacated  but on different on different grounds this court has found that sort of constitutes punishment so i don't know how this  conclusion that being locked up in a secured v h s to sell it after one has completed his sentence does not constitute an issue it is far more restrictive if you look at the even those of martinez factors that the court relied on and in tender local bar and you apply them to s cases the it is much more punitive than that sora restrictions in every way and it is very similar in terms of when the it and in some respects it's even more regis because at least the sorra registration requirement starts at the beginning of a defendant's sentence whereas civil commitment necessarily by statute starts after one has finished its sentence so you're placing  restrictions on a defendant who has finished his sentence versus less restrictions on a defendant who is just beginning his  found that in those in in part in those particular two cases that that was unconstitution and if you look at just to debrief we revisit and ozone martinez factors there has to be affirmative restrain pain your own cause the consequences into offenses i think that all of those boxes are checked here with respect to civil commitment and that civil commitment does fall within the continuum of punishment that the court has described to work from i think  i understand that that the road that i'm travelling right now it is an up hill road but i think that the law is heading in this direction constantly there's a constant we'd have all the recognition of the severity of civil collateral consequences criminal convictions that is becoming more and more apparent not just in the state of illinois but nationwide and we're starting to recognize that these collateral consequences that we always say oh that's just collateral it's not a direct thing that these c consequences can be more serious than the direct consequences of conviction and as such are words are starting to true these collateral consequences as just and as it were as the direct consequences that in treatment and i wanted to take a moment to address an issue that the state has brought where they're saying well he wasn't committed just based on his juvenile education alone or other facts that that led to his commitment but those other facts are even if he had made a fast in these sexually a very behaviors even if he had sexually molested a number of different children but was never actually act and i think that it is it is very important to focus then on the fact that that jude knowledge occasion is needed now when the legislature pas didn't have room we didn't have green didn't have any of that and now we do and i think that we should start look being that those juvenile adjudications different and we should and this is this is a a unique situation because most of the time when individuals are committed as as d p s they have multiple convictions and not only  multiple offenses but multiple adult convictions this is a rare case in which the case in which the defended was committed based on a single juvenile adjudication so a lot of times s t p committees will have a juvenile adjudication as part of their criminal history but it won't be the predicate of facts and i think that that's what makes this case distinguish  relied on hundreds kansas versus hendricks which is a us supreme court case from one thousand nine hundred and seven that looked at a very similar kansas s v p act and actually addressed many of the arguments that responde law required either a conviction or not read not guilty by reason of insanity you've heard it before committing someone and they rejected those arguments and found that all of those requirements did not make the statute  really arguing today was about recognizing that we're moving toward something and it's not necessarily the court's role to recognize and implement changes to the law the legislature can the reexamination proceedings didn't respond it did not try to fit this within the narrow criteria for discharge or for conditional release so what is the motion and it's clear requirements usually two years from the date the judgment with entered again this was almost ten years after the judgment was entered very untimely and thompson which is the illinois supreme court case  this case is controlled by a female c n n hendrix and the motion itself is untimely should a firm on that think that the substantive issue is properly for the core and i think that it can be reached i did want to respond to  comment that the state made in its argument and that's essentially that the states are going that we're not there yet that core has already decided this issue and that this lower court is bound by law but i'd like to once again remind the score that in the two instances in which  been made before and it wasn't an issue of st impression as this is it was it an issue of law that had been settled and when the supreme court vacated those decisions it didn't make any comment on whether the court's reasoning was improper or whether it wasn't following it wasn't following precedent it remanded for an entirely different reason and the court knows this particular panel knows having been involved in both of those decisions that there was clearly a lot of thought that went into those decisions and it was not easy to step outside of basically established precedent to make a determination that in my opinion was a correct application of the law especially with respect to how the law has been trending recently and that is what we're asking the court to do in this case it's it's a relatively straightforward application of of that reasoning from those decisions to this very similar situation so essentially what we're asking is to take the reasoning of a tetter and apply it to this case which is worse than us and reach the same result so for those reasons we would ask the court to reverse