- Kansas v. Crane
Litigants=Kansas v. Crane
FullName=Kansas, Petitioner v. Michael T. Crane
Holding=The Constitution does not permit commitment of the type of dangerous sexual offender considered in Hendricks without determining the offender lacks self control.
JoinMajority=O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Rehnquist, Stevens
LawsApplied=U.S. Const. amend. VIII
Kansas v. Crane", ussc|534|407|2002 is a United States Supreme Courtcase in which the court held that the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) is not consistent with substantive due processif it is applied as written. The court recognized that, five years ago, they upheld the same statute they were now finding unconstitutional in an appeal to the court by Kansas.cite web
title=Kansas, Petitioner v. Michael T. Crane
pleaded guiltyto aggravated sexual battery for two incidents on the same day in 1993. In the first, Crame exposed himself to a tanning salon attendant. One half hour later, Crame eexposed himself to the clerk in a video store and demanded she perform oral sex on him, threatening to rape her before leaving. After Crames's guilty plea, the State petitioned to have Crame evaluated and adjudicated a sexual predator under Kansas' SVPA which permits the civil detention of a person convicted of any of several listed sexual offenses, if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubtthat he suffers from a "mental abnormality"—a disorder affecting his "emotional or volitional capacity which predisposes the person to commit sexually violent offenses"—or a "personality disorder," either of "which makes the person likely to engage in repeat acts of sexual violence." Kan. Stat. Ann. §§59-29a02(a), (b) (2000 Cum. Supp.).
Crane was evaluated by several psychologists examined Crane and diagnosed him with
exhibitionismand antisocial personality disorder. One psychologist concluded that the two diagnoses in combination placed Crane within the listed sexual disorders covered by the SVPA, "cit [ing] the increasing frequency of incidents involving [respondent] , increasing intensity of the incidents, [respondent's] increasing disregard for the rights of others, and his increasing daring and aggressiveness." Another psychologist testified that Cran's behavior was marked by "impulsivity or failure to plan ahead," indicating his unlawfulness "was a combination of willful and uncontrollable behavior," id., at 584-585, 7 P. 3d, at 290. The State's experts agreed, however, that " [r] espondent's mental disorder does not impair his volitional control to the degree he cannot control his dangerous behavior." Id., at 581, 7 P. 3d, at 288.
Crane moved for a
summary judgmentwhich was denied by the trial court and gave jury instructionsto the terms of the statute. Id., at 581, 7 P. 3d, at 287-288. The jury found that Crane was a sexual predator as defined by the SVPA. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding the SVPA unconstitutionalas Crane had only a personality disorder rather than a volitional impairment. For such a person, it held, the State must show not merely a likelihood that the defendant would engage in repeat acts of sexual violence, but also an inability to control violent behavior, based on " Kansas v. Hendricks" (1997).
The court decided, in a split 7–2 opinion that the Constitution does not permit commitment of the type of dangerous sexual offender considered in Hendricks without any lack-of-control evaluation. They concluded that the Kansas Supreme Court interpreted "
Kansas v. Hendricks" too restrictively when they ruled that a sexual offender, who has only an emotional or personality disorder, but not a volitional impairment, does not have the ability to control dangerous behavior.cite web
title=Oyez: Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002), U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument|publisher=www.oyez.org|accessdate=2008-03-15]
The required standard of proof had to be sufficient to make the distinction between a dangerous sexual offender whose serious mental illness or abnormality, made him eligible for civil commitment from the "dangerous but typical recidivist" offender convicted in an ordinary criminal case. The Court concluded that an absolute finding of lack of control was necessary, since otherwise there would be a risk of barring the civil commitment of some highly dangerous persons suffering severe mental abnormalities.
This ruling will make it substantially more difficult for States to place
sex offendersin civil confinementafter they've served their sentence.cite web
title=Children's Bureau Express Online Digest: Supreme Court Decision Will Impact Civil Confinement of Sex Offenders
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 534
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.