Kansas V. Hendricks Case Study

The case of Kansas v. Hendricks involves the respondent Hendricks filing suit against the State of Kansas in regards to the Sexually Violent Predator Act. Hendricks believed his incarceration through this Act would be considered double jeopardy and he was being convicted of the same crime twice. Hendricks had been found guilty of sexually molesting children. He was incarcerated and was nearing the end of his sentence when he filed the suit against the state of Kansas.

The Sexually Violent Predator Act was enacted in Kansas in 1994 and allowed for the commitment of these sexually violent predators convicted of or charged with a sexually violent offense and who suffered from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in repeat acts of sexual violence ( Kansas Legislature, 1994). Hendricks contended that where newly enacted punishment is predicated upon past conduct for which
Some would say Hendricks had suffered enough and his prison incarceration time would be sufficient punishment. Others would say Hendricks is a threat to society. He still had a fascination for children and according to him the only way to be cured is by the act of death. Therefore, he should be committed to a facility indefinitely so that he can not harm any more children. If Hendricks stated the only way to rehabilitate him is by death, how is a facility he has been sentenced to indefinitely, going to help Hendricks or any other violent offender by rehabilitation, monitoring and treatment? What is the difference between releasing him from prison and incarcerating him indefinitely in another facility? Both could technically be considered an incarceration facility. This could potentially become a budgeting issue for the state. Could the prison system keep Hendricks and provide the treatments instead of having to change facilities? One could say the state is duplicating work and wasting taxpayers