LSJ 361 Final Exam Questions With Accurate Solutions

Kansas v. Hendricks: Facts - ANSWER-Defendant had been convicted of sexually molesting children on several occasions. Upon release from prison, Defendant would continue to offend. In 1984, after a conviction for indecent liberties, Defendant was scheduled to be released after serving ten years of his sentence. Kansas passed the Sexually Violent Predator Act around this same time and filed a petition to commit Defendant under the new Act. Defendant was a diagnosed pedophile and did not believe that he could be successfully treated. Under the Act, a jury found Defendant to be a sexually violent predator and Defendant appealed. The Kansas Supreme Court held the Act unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. Kansas v. Hendricks: Question - ANSWER-Did the Act's civil commitment provisions, based on its definition of what constitutes a "mental abnormality," violate substantive due process and double jeopardy requirements? Kansas v. Hendricks: Decision - ANSWER-5-4 for Kansas, delivered by Thomas: No. Despite Hendricks' claim that a certification of "mental illness" alone was too arbitrary to sustain a civil commitment order, the Court held that the Act met substantive due process standards by requiring considerable evidence of past violent sexual behavior and a present mental inclination to repeat such offenses. Furthermore, the Court held that since it required the release of confined persons who became mentally stable and no longer dangerous, did not speak of scienter, and lacked other procedural safeguards characteristic of criminal trials, the Act did not violate double jeopardy guarantees since it merely authorized "civil" rather than "criminal" commitments. Smith v. Doe: Facts - ANSWER-Under the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act, (Often referred to as Megan's Law), any sex offender or child kidnapper incarcerated in Alaska must register with the Department of Public Safety, which maintains a central registry of sex offenders. While some of the data is kept confidential, some, such as the offender's name, photograph, and physical description, is published on the Internet. The Act's requirements are retroactive. John Doe I and John Doe II were convicted of aggravated sex offenses before the Act's passage are thus covered by it. Both brought suit, seeking to declare the Act void as applied to them under the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I Section 10 of the United States Constitution. The Ex Post Facto Clause criminalizes any conduct that was legal when originally performed.