Two-year extension of defendant's commitment to the California Youth Authority under juvenile Extended Detention Act (EDA) is affirmed over claims that: 1) the EDA deprived him of equal protection of the law by treating him differently from similarly situated adult prisoners who are subject to civil commitments under the Sexually Violent Predators Act and the mentally disordered offender laws; 2) the order extending his commitment was unconstitutional as it is penal in nature, violates substantive due process, and results in cruel and unusual punishment; 3) there was insufficient evidence that his mental disorder caused him serious difficulty in controlling his dangerous behavior or that any risk of reoffense was a result of a mental disorder; and 4) the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct in arguing to the jury.