Kansas v Crane

• Decision Date: 22 January 2002
• Docket Number: 00-957
• Citation: 151 L.Ed.2d 856,122 S.Ct. 867,534 U.S. 407
• Parties: KANSAS, PETITIONER v. MICHAEL T. CRANE
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

534 U.S. 407

122 S.Ct. 867

151 L.Ed.2d 856

KANSAS, PETITIONER v MICHAEL T. CRANE

No. 00-957

Argued October 30, 2001

Decided January 22, 2002

Syllabus

In upholding the constitutionality of the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act, this Court characterized a dangerous sexual offenders confinement as civil rather than criminal, Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 369, and held that the confinement criterion embodied in the statutes words mental abnormality or personality disorder satisfied substantive due process, id., at 356, 360. Here, the Kansas District Court ordered the civil commitment of respondent Crane, a previously convicted sexual offender. In reversing, the State Supreme Court concluded that Hendricks requires a finding that the defendant cannot control his dangerous behavioreven if (as provided by Kansas law) problems of emotional, and not volitional, capacity prove the source of behavior warranting commitment. And the trial court had made no such finding.

Held:Hendricks set forth no requirement of total or complete lack of control, but the Constitution does not permit commitment of the type of dangerous sexual offender considered in Hendricks without any lack-of-control determination. Hendricks referred to the Act as requiring an abnormality or disorder that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the [dangerous] person to control his dangerous behavior. Id., at 358 (emphasis added). The word difficult indicates that the lack of control was not absolute. Indeed, an absolutist approach is unworkable and would risk barring the civil commitment of highly dangerous persons suffering severe mental abnormalities. Yet a distinction between a dangerous sexual offender subject to civil commitment and other dangerous persons who are perhaps more properly dealt with exclusively through criminal proceedings, id., at 360, is necessary lest civil commitment become a mechanism for retribution or general deterrence, id., at 372-373. In Hendricks, this Court did not give lack of control a particularly narrow or technical meaning, and in cases where it is at issue, inability to control behavior will not be demonstrable with mathematical precision. It is enough to say that there must be proof of serious difficulty in controlling behavior. The Constitutions liberty safeguards in the area of mental illness are not always best enforced through precise bright-line rules. States retain considerable leeway in defining the mental abnormalities and personality disorders that make an individual eligible for commitment; and psychiatry, which informs but does not control ultimate legal determinations, is an ever-advancing science, whose distinctions do not seek precisely to mirror those of the law. Consequently, the Court has sought to provide constitutional guidance in this area by proceeding deliberately and contextually, elaborating generally stated constitutional standards and objectives as specific circumstances require, the approach embodied in Henricks. That Hendricks limited its discussion to volitional disabilities is not surprising, as the case involved pedophiliaa mental abnormality involving what a lay person might describe as a lack of control. But when considering civil commitment, the Court has not ordinarily distinguished for constitutional purposes between volitional, emotional, and cognitive impairments. See, e.g., Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354. The Court in Hendricks had no occasion to consider whether confinement based solely on emotional abnormality would be constitutional, and has no occasion to do so here. Pp.4-8.

269 Kan. 578, 7 P. 3d 285, vacated and remanded.

On writ of certiorari to the supreme court of Kansas

Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C.J., and Stevens, OConnor, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.

Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case concerns the constitutional requirements substantively limiting the civil commitment of a dangerous sexual offender--a matter that this Court considered in Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997). The State of Kansas argues that the Kansas Supreme Court has interpreted our decision in Hendricks in an overly restrictive manner. We agree and vacate the Kansas courts judgment.

I

In Hendricks, this Court upheld the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. 5929a01 et seq. (1994), against constitutional challenge. 521 U.S., at 371. In doing so, the Court characterized the confinement at issue as civil, not criminal, confinement. Id., at 369. And it held that the statutory criterion for confinement embodied in the statutes words mental abnormality or personality disorder satisfied substantive due process requirements. Id., at 356, 360.

In reaching its conclusion, the Courts opinion pointed out that States have in certain narrow circumstances provided for the forcible civil detainment of people who are unable to control their behavior and who thereby pose a danger to the public health and safety. Id., at 357. It said that we have consistently upheld such involuntary commitment statutes when (1) the confinement takes place pursuant to proper procedures and evidentiary standards, (2) there is a finding of dangerousness either to ones self or to others, and (3) proof of dangerousness is coupled with the proof of some additional factor, such as a mental illness or mental abnormality. Id., at 357-358. It noted that the Kansas Act unambiguously requires a finding of dangerousness either to ones self or to others, id., at 357, and then links that finding to the existence of a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the person to control his dangerous behavior, id., at 358 (citing Kan. Stat. Ann. 5929a02(b) (1994)). And the Court ultimately determined that the statutes requirement of a mental abnormality or personality disorder is consistent with the requirements of other statutes that we have upheld in that it narrows the class of persons eligible for confinement to those who are unable to control their dangerousness. 521 U.S., at 358.

The Court went on to respond to Hendricks claim that earlier cases had required a finding, not of mental abnormality or personality disorder, but of mental illness. Id., at 358-359. In doing so, the Court pointed out that we have traditionally left to legislators the task of defining [such] terms. Id., at 359. It then held that, to the extent that the civil commitment statutes we have considered set forth criteria relating to an individuals inability to control his dangerousness, the Kansas Act sets forth comparable criteria. Id., at 360. It added that Hendricks own condition doubtless satisfies those criteria, for (1) he suffers from pedophilia, (2) the psychiatric profession itself classifies that condition as a serious mental disorder, and (3) Hendricks conceded that he cannot control the urge to molest children. And it concluded that this admitted lack of volitional control, coupled with a prediction of future dangerousness, adequately distinguishes Hendricks from other dangerous persons who are perhaps more properly dealt with exclusively through criminal proceedings. Ibid.

II

In the present case the State of Kansas asks us to review the Kansas Supreme Courts application of Hendricks. The State here seeks the civil commitment of Michael Crane, a previously convicted sexual offender who, according to at least one of the States psychiatric witnesses, suffers from both exhibitionism and antisocial personality disorder. In re Crane, 269 Kan. 578, 580-581, 7 P.3d 285, 287 (2000); cf. also American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 569 (rev. 4th ed. 2000) (DSMIV) (detailing exhibitionism), 701706 (detailing antisocial personality disorder). After a jury trial, the Kansas District Court ordered Cranes civil commitment. 269 Kan., at 579-584, 7 P.3d, at 286-288. But the Kansas Supreme Court reversed. Id., at 586, 7 P.3d, at 290. In that courts view, the Federal Constitution as interpreted in Hendricks insists upon a finding that the defendant cannot control his dangerous behavior--even if (as provided by Kansas law) problems of emotional capacity and not volitional capacity prove the source of bad behavior warranting commitment. Ibid., see also Kan. Stat. Ann. 5929a02(b) (2000 Cum. Supp.) (defining [m]ental abnormality as a condition that affects an individuals emotional or volitional capacity). And the trial court had made no such finding.

Kansas now argues that the Kansas Supreme Court wrongly read Hendricks as requiring the State always to prove that a dangerous individual is completely unable to control his behavior. That reading, says Kansas, is far too rigid.

III

We agree with Kansas insofar as it argues that Hendricks set forth no requirement of total or complete lack of control. Hendricks referred to the Kansas Act as requiring a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the [dangerous] person to control his dangerous behavior. 521 U.S., at 358 (emphasis added). The word difficult indicates that the lack of control to which this Court referred was not absolute. Indeed, as different amici on opposite sides of this case agree, an absolutist approach is unworkable. Brief for Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers as Amicus Curiae 3; cf. Brief for American Psychiatric Association et al. as Amici Curiae 10; cf. also American Psychiatric Association, Statement on the Insanity Defense 11 (1982), reprinted in G. Melton, J. Petrila, N. Poythress, & C. Slobogin, Psychological Evaluations for the Courts 200 (2d ed. 1997) (The line between an irresistible impulse and an impulse not resisted is probably no sharper than that between twilight and dusk). Moreover, most severely ill people--even those commonly termed psychopaths--retain some ability to control their behavior. See Morse,...