Kentucky uses a "clear and convincing" standard in commitment proceedings for the mentally retarded, while a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is used in commitment proceedings for the mentally ill. The author challenges the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, as well as the belief that mental retardation is easier to diagnose than mental illness and that the mentally retarded should have fewer constitutional rights than the mentally ill. She also contends that the U.S. Supreme Court should have struck down the Kentucky statute on the basis of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Her conclusions are based on burden of proof required for involuntary commitment, level of difficulty in mental health diagnoses, proof of dangerousness, treatment methods, and strict scrutiny review. 202 footnotes