Published on
LAW SUMMARY
Paige Harris*
I. Introduction
In the United States, the Federal Government, District of Columbia, and twenty states have enacted Sexually Violent Predator (“SVP”) laws.[1] These laws allow for the indefinite civil commitment of thousands of individuals to mental health facilities after they have served their criminal sentences. There are over 6,300 people currently committed as a result of these SVP laws.[2]
In Missouri, the Sexually Violent Predator Act (“Act” or “SVP Act”) is a series of statutes that allow for the civil commitment of individuals who have been convicted of a sexually violent offense and been found to suffer from a mental abnormality that makes them likely to commit a sexual offense in the future.[3] Although these proceedings focus on the crimes an individual has committed and involve a protected liberty interest, both the Missouri and United States Supreme Courts have consistently held they are civil proceedings.[4] The majority of scholarship in this area has focused on whether Sexually Violent Predator laws should exist.[5] This paper instead addresses how states that have enacted these laws, particularly Missouri, can make these laws more effective in achieving their intended goals.
Missouri currently only determines whether someone is an SVP after they have served their entire prison sentence and are up for parole.[6] This process, however, fails to achieve the rehabilitative goals which are at the heart of the Sexually Violent Predator statutes. Determining SVP status at an earlier point in the judicial process during a bifurcated trial would make the Sexually Violent Predator Act more effective.
Part I of this paper provides the legal background of Missouri’s Sexually Violent Predator Act, beginning with its passage, objectives, and the process for determining whether an individual qualifies as a sexually violent predator under the law. Part II examines recent legal developments, with a particular focus on the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision in Kirk v. State, which upheld the Act’s constitutionality.[7] Finally, Part III outlines how the Missouri legislature can more effectively achieve the SVP Act’s goals by determining an individual’s status as a Sexually Violent Predator at the initial trial phase rather than when the offender is up for parole.
II. Legal Background
In 1998, the Missouri State Legislature passed the Sexually Violent Predator Act.[8] The SVP Act, which was modeled after a similar Kansas law, went into effect on January 1, 1999.[9] When enacting the law, Missouri legislators had two main goals.[10] First, they wanted to protect citizens from convicted sex offenders who had not been rehabilitated while serving their sentences in prison.[11] Second, they wanted to provide inpatient treatment for convicted sex offenders.[12]
The SVP Act defines a Sexually Violent Predator as “any person who suffers from mental abnormality which makes the person more likely than not to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility and who [has] been found guilty . . . of a sexually violent offense . . . .”[13] To civilly commit someone as a Sexually Violent Predator, the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the person committed a sexually violent offense; (2) they suffer from a mental abnormality; and (3) this mental abnormality makes the person more likely than not to engage in predatory acts of violence if not confined to a secure facility.[14] This Part walks through the processes laid out within the Act, including those for the initial evaluation and detention, judicial determination of SVP status, yearly evaluations and petitions for release, and conditional release.
A. Sexually Violent Predator Act as a Special Statutory Proceeding
The Sexually Violent Predator Act is a special statutory proceeding.[15] A special statutory proceeding is one that is entirely unknown to the common law and therefore must be born from statutes.[16] In these proceedings, a court is limited to the powers granted to it by statute.[17] Accordingly, these statutes must set forth all the rules and procedures governing the action to guide the court.[18] Sexually violent predator proceedings, although they involve criminal convictions and liberty interests, are considered civil proceedings.[19] Thus, the process due to someone being tried as an SVP is determined by the Missouri Revised Statutes, rather than the common law criminal procedures.
B. Initial Evaluation and Detention
There are two ways a Sexually Violent Predator case begins. First, a licensed psychologist can evaluate a prisoner prior to their release from the Missouri Department of Corrections and refer them for potential classification as a Sexually Violent Predator.[20] The Missouri Department of Corrections or the Missouri Department of Mental Health can flag a person who they believe may meet the criteria of an SVP.[21] This person must have been convicted of a sexually violent offense to be flagged.[22] Upon making this determination, the agency who flagged the individual gives notice to the attorney general and to a multidisciplinary team, which consists of no more than seven members from the Department of Mental Health, the Department of Corrections, and other state agencies.[23] This team assesses whether the person meets the definition of a Sexually Violent Predator and notifies the attorney general of its conclusion.[24] Additionally, the multidisciplinary team establishes a separate five-member prosecutors’ review committee to review the records and determine whether or not they believe the person meets the definition of a Sexually Violent Predator.[25] If the individual is no longer in custody, the attorney general may file a petition for detention and evaluation in the jurisdiction where the person was convicted.[26] This petition must allege that the person may meet the criteria of a Sexually Violent Predator and should be detained for a period of up to nine days for evaluation.[27]
Alternatively, cases may begin when someone convicted in another state commits an “overt act” in Missouri that creates reasonable apprehension of sexually violent harm.[28]
After the initial referral, the Court must evaluate the attorney general’s petition and, upon determination that the person may meet the criteria of a Sexually Violent Predator, order the detention and transportation of the individual to a secure facility.[29] The Department of Mental Health then conducts another evaluation to determine whether the person meets the criteria of an SVP.[30] At this stage, the attorney general can provide all available records for the individual from the Department of Mental Health or Department of Corrections.[31] If the Department of Mental Health determines the individual meets the criteria for an SVP, the results are given to a prosecutors’ review board who will, by majority vote, determine if they also believe that individual meets the criteria.[32]
If both the Department of Mental Health and the prosecutors’ review board determine the individual meets the criteria of a Sexually Violent Predator, the attorney general files a petition in the probate division of the circuit court where the person was convicted, alleging the person is an SVP.[33]
C. Judicial Determination of Sexually Violent Predator Status
After the attorney general files his petition, the court must determine whether probable cause exists that the respondent is a Sexually Violent Predator.[34] If the court determines there is probable cause, the person is taken into the custody of either the Department of Mental Health or the local county jail.[35] Within seventy-two hours of finding probable cause, the individual must be given notice and the opportunity to be heard at a probable cause hearing.[36] The court requires that the respondent be represented by counsel and have the opportunity to present evidence, cross examine witnesses, and view and copy petitions and reports.[37]
Once probable cause has been found, the respondent is evaluated again by the Department of Mental Health and/or by a psychologist of their choosing.[38] Within sixty days of the mental health evaluation, the court must conduct a trial.[39] Unlike criminal proceedings, both parties and the judge have the right to demand a trial by jury.[40]
At the trial, the attorney general and the respondent may each present psychologists to testify about whether the respondent meets the definition of an SVP.[41] Each party may also present other witnesses who provide evidence that is relevant to determining whether the respondent meets the criteria.[42] The jury need only find by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent meets the definition of a Sexually Violent Predator, another factor which makes these proceedings distinct from criminal trials.[43] If the judge or jury determines the person is a Sexually Violent Predator, the person is committed to the Department of Mental Health “until such time as the person’s mental abnormality has so changed that the person is safe to be at large.”[44]
D. Post-Commitment Procedures
After a person is committed to the Department of Mental Health as a Sexually Violent Predator, they have a yearly examination of their mental condition.[45] The court then conducts an annual review of the person’s status.[46] Each committed person can petition for conditional release at any time.[47]
Two things can happen after the petition is filed. First, the court can determine by a preponderance of the evidence that the person no longer suffers from the mental abnormality that made them likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if released.[48] The court must determine by a preponderance of the evidence that the individual no longer suffers from the mental abnormality that got them committed as an SVP.[49] The judge must decide this at a hearing, where the attorney general continues to have a role similar to the one he had at the original trial.[50] At the hearing, the burden is on the SVP to prove that the abnormality no longer remains or has changed.[51] If the court determines the mental abnormality no longer exists, it sets a trial on the issue.[52] At trial, the burden of proof then shifts to the attorney general, who must show the mental abnormality still exits by clear and convincing evidence.[53]
In some cases, the director of the Department of Mental Health determines whether the person’s mental abnormality has sufficiently changed.[54] In this case, the director can authorize the individual to petition for release.[55] Other parties (including the prosecutor of the jurisdiction where the person will be released, the head of the facility housing the person, and the attorney general) must be served this petition.[56] If the court determines that a hearing or trial should be held on the issue, it follows the same procedures described above.[57]
The second possibility when an individual files a petition for conditional release is the court finds the petition to be frivolous.[58] The court may also determine the person’s condition has not changed.[59] In either of these scenarios, the court is required to deny any subsequent petitions from the individual automatically unless it is shown that the facts have changed such that a hearing is warranted.[60]
E. Conditional Release
If after the trials the court determines the person’s mental abnormality has changed such that they no longer meet the definition of a Sexually Violent Predator, it places the person on conditional release.[61] The primary purpose of the conditional release is to provide outpatient treatment and monitoring to prevent the person’s condition from deteriorating such that they would need to be returned to a secure facility.[62] Although characterized as a release, a person on conditional release is subject to many restrictions that limit their behavior.[63] The Department of Mental Health must approve the person’s housing and employment.[64] The person must not contact children, possess firearms, consume alcohol, leave the state without permission, or engage in other restricted activities.[65]
Although the person is monitored by a probation and parole officer, they are still under the control, care, and treatment of the Department of Mental Health.[66] If the person violates any condition of their release, a petition is filed to revoke their conditional release, and they are taken back into custody.[67] Conditional release is the most freedom someone who has been found to be a Sexually Violent Predator can achieve; there is no way they can ever achieve a less restrictive release after commitment.[68]
III. Recent Developments
The Missouri Supreme Court in Kirk v. State held that the SVP Act does not violate either the Missouri Constitution or the United States Constitution.[69] In addition to its importance in determining the constitutionality of the Act, this case provides an excellent example of how the SVP process works in practice.
In 1985, Carl Kirk pleaded guilty to assaulting a young boy.[70] He was released from the Department of Corrections in 1987, but assaulted his juvenile nephew just three months later.[71] This second assault was considered a sexually violent crime under section 632.480(4) of Missouri Revised Statutes.[72] He was convicted and sentenced to prison.[73] While serving his time, Kirk completed the Missouri Sex Offender Treatment Program (MOSOP).[74] Completion of MOSOP is mandatory for release prior to an inmate’s original sentence completion date, and it consists of approximately twelve months of therapy.[75] Critically, at his SVP trial decades later, Kirk could not articulate any of the tools he had learned in MOSOP to reduce his risk of reoffending.[76] He also admitted that in a letter he wrote in prison, he characterized MOSOP as “a joke for real.”[77] Kirk was set to be paroled in 2013.[78]
Prior to his release from prison, Kirk was evaluated by a licensed psychologist from the Department of Mental Health to help determine if he was an SVP.[79] Based on Kirk’s propensity to assault young boys, this psychologist diagnosed Kirk as suffering from pedophilia, as that term is defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders (DSM-IV-TR).[80] In the psychologist’s opinion, Kirk had serious difficulty controlling his behavior due to his pedophilia diagnosis.[81] Further, the psychologist determined that Kirk met the criteria of an SVP.[82]
Another psychologist from the Department of Mental Health evaluated Kirk and came to the same conclusions—he met the definition of an SVP and would more likely than not commit a future sexually predatory act if not securely confined.[83]
Notably, the multidisciplinary team established by the Department of Mental Health and Department of Corrections unanimously determined that Kirk did not meet the criteria of a Sexually Violent Predator.[84] The prosecutors’ review committee, however, determined that he did.[85] Subsequently, the attorney general filed a petition to have him detained and tried to determine his SVP status.[86] The jury found that Kirk was an SVP, and the court found the same.[87] Accordingly, Kirk was committed to the custody of the Department of Mental Health for control, care, and treatment.[88]
Kirk appealed his commitment, arguing that the trial court violated his right to due process, equal protection, double jeopardy, ex post facto laws, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment as articulated in the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as article I, sections two, eight, nine, ten, thirteen, and twenty-one of the Missouri Constitution.[89] Kirk argued the purpose and effect of the SVP Act is to punitively commit offenders who have served their sentences, claiming it amounted to no more than a second punishment for past offenses.[90] Kirk also argued that the Act provides a more restrictive means of release and permits commitment based solely on emotional capacity without proof of behavioral impairment.[91]
The court found that both Kirk’s commitment and the SVP Act were constitutional.[92] The court rejected Kirk’s arguments, finding the statutory scheme was permissible because it (1) disavowed any punitive intent, (2) limited confinement to a small segment of particularly dangerous individuals, (3) provided strict procedural safeguards, (4) directed confined individuals to be segregated from prison populations and afforded the same status as other civilly committed individuals, (5) recommended treatment, and (6) permitted release upon showing that the individual is no longer dangerous or mentally impaired.[93] Additionally, the court reaffirmed the idea that trials under the Act are civil proceedings, not criminal ones.[94]
Thus, the court ultimately held that the Missouri Sexually Violent Predator Act was constitutional largely because the purpose of the law is rehabilitative, not punitive.[95]
IV. Discussion
Just because a statute is constitutional does not mean it is effective. The SVP Act, constitutional as it may be, still has room for improvement. Accordingly, the focus of this paper is not the legality of the Act, but the ways that the Missouri Legislature can improve it and make it more successful in achieving its stated goals.
The Missouri Legislature had two goals when it passed the Act: protecting the community from convicted sex offenders who were not rehabilitated in prison, and providing inpatient treatment for convicted sex offenders.[96] Both goals could be more effectively achieved if the SVP Act were amended so SVP status would be determined and adjudicated at the initial trial stage, rather than after the offender has served out their sentence in the Department of Corrections.
A. Rehabilitation in the Criminal Justice System
Nationally, criminal justice reform has increasingly prioritized the rehabilitation side of sentencing and incarceration, rather than its punitive aspects.[97] In Missouri, the state legislature enacted multiple laws in the past decade that have prompted the correctional system to become more focused on rehabilitation.[98] In 2012, Missouri passed a reform bill that established the Sentencing and Corrections Oversight Commission and changed laws regarding criminal offenders under the supervision of the Department of Corrections.[99] This Commission was tasked with determining ways to reinvest any cost savings in recidivism reduction programs, research, and restitution for crime victims.[100] Similarly in 2017, the Governor signed an executive order forming a bipartisan task force to improve public safety, reduce corrections spending, and reduce recidivism.[101]
Missouri legislators responded to the policy goals established by these actions.[102] In 2018, the legislature passed a law ensuring that juvenile offenders are not placed in prisons with adults.[103] The next year, lawmakers passed legislation exempting nonviolent offenders from the rule requiring inmates to serve eighty percent of their sentence before being parole eligible.[104] Additionally, the Missouri Department of Corrections Division of Offender Rehabilitative Services, which is responsible for the development of programs for offenders who are currently incarcerated, has established services which provide for all levels of education, vocational skills, mental health services, and substance recovery treatment.[105]
Although the SVP Act deals with violent sexual offenders, it is a rehabilitative effort at its core. This is clear when looking at the intent of the legislators who passed the bill, as well as at the analyses of the courts who have upheld its constitutionality. The Missouri Supreme Court in Kirk v. State made it clear that the rehabilitative—rather than punitive—nature of the bill helped it pass constitutional muster.[106] If Missouri is going to take itself seriously in its promise to try rehabilitating those with mental abnormalities that make them likely to continue committing violent sexual offenses, it needs to reevaluate its current methods to make them more effective.
B. Amending the Sexually Violent Predator Act to Achieve Mental Rehabilitation
To make the SVP Act more effective in achieving its goals of both protecting victims and rehabilitating individuals with mental abnormalities, Missouri should amend the statute so that status as a Sexually Violent Predator is determined and adjudicated at the trial stage, rather than at the end of an offender’s time in the Department of Corrections.
This amendment would take the form of a bifurcated trial, where one stage is focused on determining guilt for the index offense, and the other is focused on determining SVP status. The proposed bifurcated trial would occur as follows: first, a traditional criminal trial to determine guilt for the underlying sexually violent offense; second, if convicted, a separate proceeding using the existing SVP criteria to determine whether the defendant suffers from a mental abnormality making them likely to reoffend. Those found to meet SVP criteria would serve their sentence in the Department of Mental Health rather than the Department of Corrections, with the same conditional release procedures currently available. Additionally, like setting minimum sentences for those convicted of sexually violent crimes, the court, upon determining that someone is an SVP, could set a minimum amount of time that must be spent in the Department of Mental Health. After that set amount of time, however, an offender could be conditionally released on the same terms that currently exist within the SVP Act. Finally, this amendment would not impact so-called “overt act” cases, i.e. those cases where someone was convicted of an offense in another state but commits an overt act that creates a reasonable apprehension of harm of a sexually violent nature in Missouri.[107]
This amendment will help the SVP Act better achieve its goals in two main ways. First, unlike the current system, determining SVP status at the trial date will ensure that every individual who meets the criteria of a Sexually Violent Predator receives access to the intensive mental health treatment they require. Second, determining SVP status at the initial trial date and allowing individuals to serve out their sentences in the Department of Mental Health will allow the committed persons to make better use of their time in the system, increasing their chances of rehabilitation.
1. Ensuring SVPs Gain Access to Mental Health Facilities
Amending the SVP Act will help achieve its goals by ensuring that every individual who meets the definition of a Sexually Violent Predator gains access to the treatment they need. Right now, incongruent statutes make it so that some people who meet the definition of an SVP do not receive treatment until decades after they begin serving their sentences. Current sentencing guidelines also make it so that some individuals who meet the definition of an SVP will never receive treatment.
For example, Missouri law states that someone who is a Persistent Sexual Offender shall be imprisoned for life without eligibility for parole.[108] A Persistent Sexual Offender is someone who has previously been found guilty of attempting to commit or committing one of the following offenses: statutory rape or sodomy in the first degree, rape in the first degree, forcible rape, forcible sodomy, rape, or sodomy.[109] Additionally, that person must have been found guilty and face sentencing for committing or attempting to commit one of those same offenses.[110] Similarly, Missouri law states that someone who is a Predatory Sexual Offender shall be imprisoned for life, but with the eligibility for parole.[111] A Predatory Sexual Offender is defined as someone who has previously been found guilty of committing or attempting to commit child molestation, one of the above crimes, or has committed acts against more than one victim regardless of whether or not those acts resulted in a conviction.[112]
It is likely that some people who meet the definition of a Persistent Sexual Offender or Predatory Sexual Offender would also meet the definition of a Sexually Violent Predator, since they may suffer from a mental abnormality which makes them more likely than not to engage in further acts of predatory violence. Although one of the goals of the SVP Act is to rehabilitate these individuals, many of them will never be evaluated for SVP status or will only be evaluated decades later at the end of their sentence. This means that many people who may currently meet the definition of an SVP will never gain access to the mental health treatment outlined in the Act.
Determining SVP status at the initial trial level will help to more effectively sort individuals into the department for which they are best suited. Those who are found to have a mental abnormality after their initial trial will serve their sentence in the Department of Mental Health, which can more effectively meet their requirements for mental health services and treatment. Alternatively, those who have committed these heinous crimes without suffering from a mental abnormality will serve their time in the Department of Corrections, which is better suited to deal with individuals who consciously violate the law.
2. Allowing SVPs Earlier Access to More Effective Treatment
Another way that determining SVP status at the initial sentencing phase will enhance the effectiveness of the SVP Act is by ensuring those with mental abnormalities have earlier access to more comprehensive mental health treatment.
Currently, SVPs are forced to carry out their sentences in the Department of Corrections before being evaluated. [113] Prior to being released on parole, if the individual is determined to be an SVP, they are sent to the Department of Mental Health for treatment.[114] These sentences can be lengthy.[115] While serving time in the Department of Corrections, the only services inmates receive for treatment, rehabilitation, and education regarding sexual assault is MOSOP.[116] Consisting of approximately twelve months of therapy, this program takes up only a fraction of the time SVPs typically serve in the Department of Corrections.[117] As demonstrated in Kirk, these offenders often cannot remember the tools or insights they learned while taking the program.[118]
MOSOP, while an important tool for the general population in the Department of Corrections, provides nowhere near the individualized treatment SVPs would receive if initially placed in the Department of Mental Health.[119] For example, while MOSOP provides only twelve months of therapy on average,[120] those who are placed in the Sex Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services (SORTS) program (the program designed for SVPs) meet individually with a resident psychologist at the Department of Mental Health who assesses their treatment needs.[121] Additionally, SVPs placed in the SORTS program spend as much time in therapy as needed to demonstrate internalization, integration, and application of the material they learn.[122]
In other areas of the law, legislators have recognized the importance of sending those with mental abnormalities to the Department of Mental Health as soon as possible.[123] In Missouri, whether someone could appreciate the nature of their criminal conduct because of a mental disease or defect is determined at the initial trial for all other criminal charges.[124] If a defendant is found to be not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, they are immediately placed in the custody of the Department of Mental Health. When it comes to sexual crimes, however, Missouri wastes valuable time that could be spent rehabilitating SVPs by sending them to the Department of Corrections for years, sometimes decades, before they are sent to the Department of Mental Health. If courts were to determine someone’s status as an SVP during their initial trial, as they do in other criminal cases, that person could immediately be placed in the intense therapy needed to overcome their mental abnormality.[125]
V. Conclusion
Missouri’s Sexually Violent Predator Act plays an important role in protecting the public from dangerous individuals who are likely to continue committing sexually violent crimes if not treated for their mental abnormality. At the same time, however, the legislative and judicial branches have made it clear that this Act also serves to promote the rehabilitation of individuals who suffer from severe mental abnormalities. These goals can be better served if status as a Sexually Violent Predator is determined at the initial trial stage, rather than decades later when someone is facing the possibility of parole. The current system’s delay in providing specialized treatment undermines both the statute’s public safety and rehabilitative objectives. Amending the SVP Act to implement bifurcated trials at the onset would ensure that more individuals get access to the treatment they need while also receiving that access earlier in their sentence. The Missouri Supreme Court explicitly endorsed the SVP Act’s rehabilitative nature as crucial to its constitutional validity.[126] Enhancing that rehabilitative function through earlier intervention would strengthen the Act’s legal foundation.
* B.A. in History and Political Science, University of Missouri, 2023; J.D. Candidate, University of Missouri School of Law, 2026; Senior Lead Articles Editor 2025–2026, Associate Member 2024–2025, Missouri Law Review. Thank you to Rachel Carlson, Lucas Reed, William Perryman, and the entire blog team for their help getting this article ready for publication. Special thanks to Professors Eric Hintz and Chelseá Mitchell for providing their expertise and guidance throughout the writing process. Finally, I would like to thank my friends in the Public Protection Unit at the Missouri Attorney General’s Office for not only inspiring this article but also exemplifying what passionate legal advocacy looks like so early in my career.
[1] Trevor Hoppe, et al., Civil Commitment of People Convicted of Sex Offenses in the United States 5 (2020), https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/civil-commitment-us/.
[2] Id. at 1.
[3] Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 632.480–.513 (2017).
[4] Kirk v. State, 520 S.W.3d 443, 449 (Mo. 2017).
[5] See Laura A. Barnickol, Missouri’s Sexually Violent Predator Law: Treatment or Punishment?, 4 Wash. U. J. L. & Pol’y 321 (2000); Sam Newman, Missouri’s SVP Law; Time for a Change?, 60 St. Louis U. L. J. 711 (2016).
[6] Mo. Att’y Gen.’s Off., Missouri’s Sexually Violent Predator Act: Understanding the Process (2025), https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/svp-process.pdf.
[7] Id.
[8] §§ 632.480–632.513.
[9] Soc. Sec. Admin., Program Operations Manual System GN KC02607.360 (2024), https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0202607360KC#:~:text=The%20Missouri%20Sexually%20Violent%20Predator,%C2%A7%C2%A7%20632.480%2D632.513.
[10] Barnickol, supra note 5, at 322.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Mo. Rev. Stat. § 632.480.5 (2017).
[14] Kirk v. State, 520 S.W.3d 443, 449 (Mo. 2017).
[15] Id.
[16] Fogle v. Koster, 382 S.W.3d 139, 144 (Mo. App. 2012).
[17] Id.
[18] Id. Other examples of special statutory proceedings are the dissolution of marriage and the juvenile code. Id.
[19] Kirk, 520 S.W.3d at 449.
[20] Missouri Attorney General’s Office, supra note 6.
[21] Mo. Rev. Stat. § 632.483 (2017).
[22] Id. These offenses include the felonies of rape in the first degree, forcible rape, rape, statutory rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, forcible sodomy, sodomy, statutory sodomy in the first degree, or an attempt to commit any of the preceding crimes, or child molestation in the first, second, third, or fourth degree, sexual abuse, sexual abuse in the first degree, rape in the second degree, sexual assault, sexual assault in the first degree, sodomy in the second degree, deviate sexual assault, deviate sexual assault in the first degree, or the act of abuse of a child involving either sexual contact, a prohibited sexual act, sexual abuse, or sexual exploitation of a minor, or any felony offense that contains elements substantially similar to the offenses listed above. Id.
[23] Id.
[24] Id.
[25] Id.
[26] Id.
[27] Id.
[28] Mo. Rev. Stat. § 632.486 (2017).
[29] Id.
[30] Id.
[31] Id.
[32] Id.
[33] Id.
[34] Mo. Rev. Stat. §632.489.
[35] Id.
[36] Id.
[37] Id.
[38] Id.
[39] Mo. Rev. Stat. § 632.492 (2017).
[40] Id.
[41] Mo. Rev. Stat. § 632.495 (2017).
[42] Id.
[43] Id. In criminal trials, the State has a burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, meaning the jury must be “firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 402.03 (2017).
[44] Mo. Rev. Stat. § 632.495 (2017).
[45] Mo. Rev. Stat. § 632.498 (2017).
[46] § 632.495.
[47] Id.
[48] Id.
[49] Id.
[50] Id.
[51] Id.
[52] Id.
[53] Id.
[54] Mo. Rev. Stat. § 632.501 (2017).
[55] Id.
[56] Id.
[57] Id.
[58] § 632.495.
[59] Id.
[60] Id.
[61] Mo. Rev. Stat. § 632.505 (2017).
[62] Id.
[63] Id.
[64] Id.
[65] Id.
[66] Id.
[67] Id.
[68] Id.
[69] Kirk v. State, 520 S.W.3d 443, 449 (Mo. 2017).
[70] Id.
[71] Id.
[72] Id.; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 632.480 (2017).
[73] Kirk, 520 S.W.3d at 449.
[74] Id.
[75] Division of Rehabilitative Services, Mo. Dep’t of Corr., https://doc.mo.gov/divisions/rehabilitative-services (last visited Nov. 24, 2025).
[76] Brief for Respondent at 1–2, Kirk v. State, 520 S.W.3d 443 (Mo. 2017) (No. SC 95752).
[77] Kirk, 520 S.W.3d at 449.
[78] Brief for Appellant at 12, Kirk v. State, 520 S.W.3d 443 (Mo. 2017) (No. SC 95752).
[79] Brief for Respondent, supra note 76 at 2.
[80] Kirk, 520 S.W.3d at 449.
[81] Id.
[82] Id. The psychologist’s opinion was confirmed by Kirk’s scores on two risk assessment tests, the Static-99R and the Stable-2007. Id. The Static-99R is a ten-item actuarial assessment instrument which is used with adult males at least 18 years old with a history of sexual offending. Static-99R Users, SAARNA, https://saarna.org/static-99/ (last visited Nov. 12, 2025). It is the most widely used sexual recidivism risk assessment instrument, with scores ranging from -3 to 12. Id. The Stable-2007 is an interview and file-review-based instrument which is designed to assess risk factors for sexual recidivism. Stable-2007/Acute-2007, SAARNA, https://saarna.org/stable-accute-2007/ (last visited Nov. 12, 2025). The following items are included in the Stable 2007: (a) significant social influences, (b) capacity for relationship stability, (c) emotional identification with children, (d) hostility toward women, (e) general social rejection and loneliness, (f) lack of concern for others, (g) impulsivity, (h) poor problem solving skills, (i) negative emotionality/hostility, (j) sex drive/sex preoccupation, (k) sex as coping, (l) deviant sexual preference, and (m) cooperation with supervision. Id. Scores range from 0 to 26 for individuals who have offended against children, with higher scores being associated with a greater likelihood of sexual recidivism. Id. Kirk scored a 7 on the Static-99R assessment, which put his likelihood of reoffending in the 97th percentile. Kirk, 520 S.W.3d at 449. Based on the coding form currently in use, offenders with a score of 7 have been found to sexually recidivate at 14% to 24.7% after five years. Revised Static-99 Coding Form, UNC Sch. of Gov’t, https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/default/files/course_ materials/3.0%20Static-99R-Coding-Form_0.pdf (last visited Nov. 12, 2025). Additionally, Kirk scored a 16 on the Stable-2007 assessment, which placed him in the high-risk category for reoffending. Kirk, 520 S.W.3d at 449.
[83] Id. This was confirmed by Kirk’s score of nine on the Stable-2002R test, an assessment similar to the Static-99R and the Stable-2007, which placed Kirk in the high-risk category for reoffending. Id.
[84] Brief for Appellant, supra note 78, at 12.
[85] Id.
[86] Id.
[87] Id. at 19.
[88] Id.
[89] Kirk v. State, 520 S.W.3d 443, 449 (Mo. 2017).
[90] Id.
[91] Id. at 450.
[92] Id.
[93] Id. (quoting Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 368–69 (1997)).
[94] Id. The court used these general holdings to strike down the rest of Kirk’s arguments. First, it held that because SVP proceedings are civil and not criminal, they do not violate the prohibition on ex post facto laws. Id. Next, it found that the SVP Act was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest and was therefore not required to provide exactly the same rights to SVPs as are afforded to other civilly committed persons. Id. Finally, the court held that the Act requires the state to prove that the mental abnormality would cause offenders serious difficulty in controlling his behavior, as required by the United States Supreme Court in Kansas v. Crane. Id. at 451.
[95] Id. at 450.
[96] Barnickol, supra note 5, at 322.
[97] Nicole D. Porter, Top Trends in Criminal Justice Reform, 2022, The Sentencing Project (Dec. 14, 2022), https://www.sentencingproject.org/fact-sheet/top-trends-in-criminal-justice-reform-2022/.
[98] Criminal Justice Reform in Missouri, Nolan Center for Justice, https://perma.cc/627U-FFGW (last visited Nov. 24, 2025).
[99] H.B. 1525, 96th Gen. Assemb., 2nd Reg. Sess. (Mo. 2012).
[100] Criminal Justice Reform in Missouri, supra note 98.
[101] Id.
[102] Id.
[103] Id.
[104] Id.
[105] Division of Rehabilitative Services, supra note 75.
[106] Kirk v. State, 520 S.W.3d 443, 450 (Mo. 2017).
[107] Mo. Rev. Stat. § 632.484 (2017).
[108] Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.125 (2017).
[109] Id.
[110] Id.
[111] Id.
[112] Id.
[113] Mo. Rev. Stat. § 632.483 (2017).
[114] Id.
[115] See e.g. Kirk v. State, 520 S.W.3d 443, 449 (Mo. 2017).
[116] Division of Rehabilitative Services, supra note 75.
[117] Id.
[118] See Brief for Respondent, supra note 76, at 1–2.
[119] Program Structure, Mo. Dep’t of Mental Health, https://dmh.mo.gov/smmhc/sorts/programs (last visited Nov. 24, 2025).
[120] Division of Rehabilitative Services, supra note 75.
[121] Program Structure, supra note 119.
[122] Id.
[123] See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 552.030.
[124] Id.
[125] Id.
[126] Kirk v. State, 520 S.W.3d 443, 450 (Mo. 2017).