The amended provisions of the Sexually Violent Predator Act, as contained in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600 et seq., providing for an indeterminate term of confinement, do not violate due process and equal protection rights and do not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws. The court reasoned that the indefinite commitment does not violate due process because the provisions provide for an initial jury trial, with the state bearing the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant qualified for the program. The court rejected the ex post facto claim, finding that the purpose of the act and its effect was not punitive, but was aimed at treatment. There was no equal protection violation, as compared with those committed as MDO’s and NGI’s, as the three classes are different and not similarly situated.