Some states have used civil commitment proceedings to remove habitual sex offenders from society for extended periods of time, often indefinitely. In The United States Supreme Court case of Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) the Court ruled that such laws do not violate the Constitution's double jeopardy or ex post facto clauses. What reasoning did the Court use to arrive at this conclusion? Also, in the case of Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) explain the reasoning the court used to differentiate between a civil commitment and life in prison. Please answer both parts of the question.
Sample Solution