Document: 534 U.S. 407122 S.Ct. 867151 L.Ed.2d 856 KANSAS, PETITIONERv.MICHAEL T. CRANE No. 00-957. Argued October 30, 2001Decided January 22, 2002 Syllabus In upholding the constitutionality of Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act, this Court characterized a dangerous sexual offenders confinement as civil rather than criminal, v. Hendricks, 521 346, 369, and held that criterion embodied in statutes words mental abnormality or personality disorder satisfied substantive due process, id., at 356, 360. Here, District ordered commitment respondent Crane, previously convicted offender. reversing, State Supreme concluded Hendricks requires finding defendant cannot control his behavioreven if (as provided by law) problems emotional, not volitional, capacity prove source behavior warranting commitment. And trial court had made no such finding. Held:Hendricks set forth requirement total complete lack control, but Constitution does permit type offender considered without any lack-of-control determination. referred to Act requiring an makes it difficult, impossible, for [dangerous] person behavior. Id., 358 (emphasis added). The word difficult indicates was absolute. Indeed, absolutist approach is unworkable would risk barring highly persons suffering severe abnormalities. Yet distinction between subject other who are perhaps more properly dealt with exclusively through criminal proceedings, 360, necessary lest become mechanism retribution general deterrence, 372-373. did give particularly narrow technical meaning, cases where issue, inability will be demonstrable mathematical precision. It enough say there must proof serious difficulty controlling Constitutions liberty safeguards area illness always best enforced precise bright-line rules. States retain considerable leeway defining abnormalities disorders make individual eligible commitment; psychiatry, which informs ultimate legal determinations, ever-advancing science, whose distinctions do seek precisely mirror those law. Consequently, has sought provide constitutional guidance proceeding deliberately contextually, elaborating generally stated standards objectives specific circumstances require, Henricks. That limited its discussion volitional disabilities surprising, case involved pedophiliaa involving what lay might describe control. But when considering commitment, ordinarily distinguished purposes cognitive impairments. See, e.g., Jones United States, 463 354. occasion consider whether based solely on emotional constitutional, so here. Pp.4-8. 269 Kan. 578, 7 P. 3d 285, vacated remanded. On writ certiorari supreme Breyer, J., delivered opinion Court, Rehnquist, C.J., Stevens, OConnor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Justice Breyer Court. 1 This concerns requirements substantively limiting offender--a matter 346 (1997). argues interpreted our decision overly restrictive manner. We agree vacate courts judgment. 2 * upheld Stat. Ann. 5929a01 et seq. (1994), against challenge. U.S., 371. doing so, issue civil, confinement. 369. statutory process requirements. 3 reaching conclusion, Courts pointed out have certain forcible detainment people unable their thereby pose danger public health safety. 357. said we consistently involuntary (1) takes place pursuant proper procedures evidentiary standards, (2) dangerousness either ones self others, (3) coupled some additional factor, abnormality. 357-358. noted unambiguously 357, then links existence behavior, (citing 5929a02(b) (1994)). ultimately determined consistent narrows class dangerousness. 358. 4 went respond claim earlier required finding, disorder, illness. 358-359. traditionally left legislators task [such] terms. 359. that, extent criteria relating individuals dangerousness, sets comparable criteria. added own condition doubtless satisfies criteria, he suffers from pedophilia, psychiatric profession itself classifies conceded urge molest children. admitted prediction future adequately distinguishes proceedings. Ibid. II 5 present asks us review application Hendricks. here seeks Michael who, according least one witnesses, both exhibitionism antisocial disorder. re 580-581, P.3d 287 (2000); cf. also American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic Statistical Manual Mental Disorders 569 (rev. 4th ed. 2000) (DSMIV) (detailing exhibitionism), 701706 disorder). After jury trial, Cranes Kan., 579-584, P.3d, 286-288. reversed. 586, 290. view, Federal insists upon behavior--even bad Ibid., see (2000 Cum. Supp.) (defining [m]ental affects capacity). 6 now wrongly read completely reading, says Kansas, far too rigid. III insofar different amici opposite sides agree, unworkable. Brief Association Treatment Sexual Abusers Amicus Curiae 3; al. Amici 10; Statement Insanity Defense 11 (1982), reprinted G. Melton, J. Petrila, N. Poythress, & C. Slobogin, Psychological Evaluations 200 (2d 1997) (The line irresistible impulse resisted probably sharper twilight dusk). Moreover, most severely ill people--even commonly termed psychopaths--retain ability See Morse, Culpability Control, 142 U.Pa. L.Rev. 1587, 1634-1635 (1994); Winick, Sex Offender Law 1990s: A Therapeutic Jurisprudence Analysis, Hence, Psychol. Pub. Poly L. 505, 520-525 (1998). Insistence absolute 8 State, however, permits Petitioner 17; Tr. Oral Arg. 30-31. underscored importance distinguishing deterrence--functions law, 372-373 (Kennedy, concurring); Moran, Epidemiology Antisocial Personality Disorder, 34 Social Psychiatry 231, 234 (1999) (noting 40%-60% male prison population diagnosable Disorder). presence classifie[d] helped critical feature consisted special 9 recognizing fact, phrase meaning. recognize this, viewed light features nature diagnosis, severity itself, sufficient distinguish illness, abnormality, subjects him typical recidivist ordinary case. 357-358; Foucha Louisiana, 504 71, 82-83 (1992) (rejecting indefinite after completion term). 10 provides less standard definite rules parties argued. human law For thing, 359; 374375 (Breyer, dissenting). another, science also, Ake Oklahoma, 470 68, 81 (1985) (psychiatry exact science); DSMIV xxx (concept lacks operational definition); xxxii-xxxiii imperfect fit questions concern information contained [the DSMs] clinical diagnosis). require. approach. IV how often problem lies heart points state statute permitting suffered impairment impairment. 583, 289. adds absolutely forbids person. 585-586, wrong way. 11; 5. 12 disabilities. fact surprising. critically involves 571572 (listing diagnostic pedophilia acted on, been affected by, urges toward children). himself could addition, suggest normally involve find behavior--in sense described above. Cf. Seling Young, 531 250, 256 (2001); Abel Rouleau, Male Offenders, Handbook Outpatient Adults: Non-psychotic 271 (M. Thase, B. Edelstein, M. Hersen eds. 1990) (sex compulsive, repetitive, driven appears illness). appropriate individuals, English, they supra, 13 Regardless, context. draw clear purely sexually related volitional. areas may overlap defective understanding appreciation [an] Defense, 140 Am. 681, 685 (1983) (discussing psychotic individuals). Nor, among 354 (1983); Addington Texas, 441 418 (1979). likewise 14 15 these reasons, judgment vacated, remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 16 ordered. 17 Scalia, filed dissenting opinion, Thomas, 18 whom Thomas joins, dissenting. 19 Today holds (SVPA) cannot, so-called applied written. even though, five years ago, very same contention appeal petitioner (the Kansas) court. Not only new announces today wrong, manner promulgating it--snatching back victory recently awarded--cheapens currency judgments. I reverse, vacate, 20 Respondent lewd lascivious pleaded guilty aggravated battery two incidents took day 1993. first, exposed tanning salon attendant. second, 30 minutes later, entered video store, waited until customer present, clerk. stopping there, grabbed clerk neck, demanded she perform oral sex him, threatened rape her, before running store. Following respondents plea battery, petition evaluated adjudicated predator under SVPA. detention several enumerated offenses, proven beyond reasonable doubt abnormality--a affecting predisposes commit violent offenses--or likely engage repeat acts violence. 5929a02(a), (b) Supp.). 21 Several psychologists examined Though alone support classification predator, psychologist combination within range covered SVPA, cit[ing] increasing frequency [respondent], intensity incidents, [respondents] disregard rights daring aggressiveness. 579, (2000). Another testified marked impulsivity failure plan ahead, indicating unlawfulness willful uncontrollable 584-585, experts agreed, [r]espondents impair degree 581, 288. 22 moved summary judgment, arguing comport merely requires--that reason violence--but denied motion, instructed terms statute. 287288. found, doubt, defined reversed, holding SVPA unconstitutional someone, like respondent, meaning person, held, show likelihood violence, 23 and, case, found swept broadly. basis evidence showing met 355; 259 246, 247, 912 P.2d 129, 130 (1996). (to repeat) [him] court, determining committed. 355356. constitutionally inadequate. Absent [of illness], said, satisfy standard[s], 261, P.2d, 138. (Mental detainee [i]s disorder; informed concerning treatment; cause harm others. 592902(h) (1994).) granted Kansass certiorari. 24 first dealing merits were follows: Acts definition agree. 356. clearly stated: 25 plainly kind [that approved]: [viz., committed violence], (1994). 26 italicized language foregoing excerpt today's majority relies establishing separate Ante, 4. 27 simply permissible reading passage, reasons. First, because authority cited statement--in immediately following reference Statutes Annotated--is section defines contains control.* What obviously saying SVPAs causal connection violence necessarily establishes impossibility confirmed next sentence reads 28 pre-commitment 29 clearer estimation, causes requisite passage question possibly nowhere verdict reinstated contain difficulty, impossibility, said) embraced causing finally, notion every comfortably broader never legislatures adopt particular nomenclature drafting statutes. Rather, medical significance. 45 (quoting 360). written--without benefit supplemental finding--already achieves objective. conditions mere re-offend, (beyond doubt) recidivism 5929a02(a) Ordinary recidivists choose re-offend therefore amenable deterrence law; affliction choice, unlikely deterred. specifically Those are, definition, prevents them exercising adequate over Such deterred threat 362-363. 31 content written require determination, ante, 4, reopens closed Hendricks: allows illnesses says, question. 8. 32 avoided it? affirmed asked impairment, charged statute, quite covers non-volitional escaped attention. To contrary, explicitly repeatedly recognized reaches disorders, 352, 353, 358, quoted (5929a02(b)), plain embraces impairments, 352. true Hendrickss problems--because evidently sort had. accorded significance fact--as done, since determine. qualification, comports [substantive] requirements, 371, 33 argue indeed (even though nothing fact), narrowest statement entirety can ignored. 78. correct. charge given wit, SVPA); neither Constitution. resist observing distinctive status mangles preserve worth preserving legitimate means. There good why, accurately [have not] 7. done sense. obvious able exercise volition yet unfit turn loose society. man steel, delusionally believes woman meets inviting crude advances, surely predator. 35 disagree gutting Hendricks; desirability, coherence, test (on analysis except misreading Hendricks) substitutes. Under find, offenses renders Both findings coherent, (with assistance expert testimony) well normal jury. Today's addition third finding: behavior--not utter inability, constant degree, vary 36 formulation certainly displays elegant subtlety mind. Unfortunately, gives courts, many similar Kansas's clue supposed jury! remand, judge ask find? fine talk about desirability 6, think produce elaboration should Proceeding synonymous all. 37 suspect avoids passes laugh impossible. How frame which, require? Will percentage (Ladies gentlemen jury, you Mr. Crane 42% penchant violence)? Or ratio times 10)? adverb appreciably--or moderately, substantially, almost totally--unable None seems me satisfactory. 38 possible elaborate novel test, obligation know expected remand. irresponsible leave indeterminacy. 39 40 circumstances. pronounced, distorts degrades authority. apply legislation erroneous view Constitution, received achieved reversal, still prevented operation, grounds, once again. again certiorari, asking reaffirmation 5-year-old opinion--only told unsay. lesson jurisprudence: ignoring try. 41 combined exhibitionism, making all requires, demands. Since already another (which, remarkable feat jurisprudential jujitsu decision), reverse below. Notes: As congenital acquired constituting menace safety

Category: 3