Does the majority of the Court of Appeal rely on prior cases for the purpose of determining whether a mentally disordered sex offender should be confined to a penal institution?

The majority's reliance on In re Winship, supra, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 and People v. Burnick, supra, 14 Cal.3d 306, 121 Cal.Rptr. 488, 535 P.2d 352, is misplaced. Unlike the situation presented in the instant case, those cases involved criminal proceedings. In both cases the consequence of an adverse decision subjected the individual to the possibility of confinement in a penal institution. The state's asserted interest was primarily the protection of society. Both cases concerned much greater deprivation of liberty than is here at issue. In Burnick the defendant was confined for an indeterminate period. In Winship the defendant was subject to potential confinement for six years. [23 Cal.3d 239] Further, the proceedings reviewed in Winship carried the greater stigma of a criminal conviction and in Burnick the additional burden of mentally disordered sex offender.