Opinion ID: 1518571
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Purpose and Effect

Text: Having found that the General Assembly intended the law to be civil and remedial rather than punitive, the second stage of analysis involves examining the factors identified by the Supreme Court in its seminal Mendoza-Martinez decision. Although neither exhaustive nor dispositive, this list of factors has proved helpful in considering whether a civil, remedial mechanism nevertheless provide[s] for sanctions so punitive as to transform what was clearly intended as a civil remedy into a criminal penalty. United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. at 249, 100 S.Ct. at 2641 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Smith, ___ U.S. at ___, 123 S.Ct. at 1147; Commonwealth v. McGee, 560 Pa. 324, 329, 744 A.2d 754, 757 (2000) (stating that the Mendoza-Martinez factors are useful guideposts in determining whether prison disciplinary confinement constitutes criminal punishment); Commonwealth v. Wingait Farms, 547 Pa. 332, 340-41, 690 A.2d 222, 226 (1997) (applying Mendoza-Martinez factors in deeming civil forfeitures non-punitive). The Mendoza-Martinez Court identified the following considerations: (1) whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint; (2) whether it has historically been regarded as punishment; (3) whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter; (4) whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishmentretribution and deterrence; (5) whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime; (6) whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it; and (7) whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned. See id. at 168-69, 83 S.Ct. at 567-68. In applying these factors, the Supreme Court has stated that only the clearest proof that a law is punitive in effect may overcome a legislative categorization to the contrary. See, e.g., Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 261, 121 S.Ct. 727, 734, 148 L.Ed.2d 734 (2001); Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 100, 118 S.Ct. 488, 493, 139 L.Ed.2d 450 (1997); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 361, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 2082, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997); accord Wingait Farms, 547 Pa. at 339 n. 5, 690 A.2d at 226 n. 5. While a precise definition of what constitutes the clearest proof is rarely articulated, such requirement mirrors the general presumption of validity enjoyed in Pennsylvania by all lawfully enacted legislation. See Commonwealth v. Stern, 549 Pa. 505, 512, 701 A.2d 568, 571 (1997). Thus, for present purposes we understand the clearest proof standard to indicate that the Mendoza-Martinez factors must weigh heavily in favor of a finding of punitive purpose or effect in order to negate the General Assembly's intention that the Act be deemed civil and remedial. With this in mind, we proceed to an examination of the challenged provisions of Megan's Law II using the Mendoza-Martinez factors. The following analysis pertains to the Act's registration, notification, and counseling requirements, which we ultimately conclude to be non-punitive, as the contrary has not been demonstrated by the requisite degree of proof. As a separate matter, the Act enforces these measures with penalty provisions which we conclude are constitutionally infirm, but severable. These latter provisions are discussed in Section C, infra.
First, the sanctions imposed here do not involve an affirmative disability or restraint. Public registration and notification, as mandated by the Act, do not significantly restrain registrants, who remain free to live where they choose, come and go as they please, and seek whatever employment they may desire. Femedeer v. Haun, 227 F.3d 1244, 1250 (10th Cir.2000) (upholding Utah's sex offender registration and notification statute); accord Smith, ___ U.S. at ___, 123 S.Ct. at 1151; Cutshall v. Sundquist, 193 F.3d 466, 474-75 (6th Cir.1999) (concluding that public notification under Tennessee's sex offender act imposes no restraint whatever upon the activities of a registrant); State v. Ward, 123 Wash.2d 488, 869 P.2d 1062, 1069 (1994) (same); State v. Noble, 171 Ariz. 171, 829 P.2d 1217, 1222 (1992) (same). Such liberty is, of course, tempered by the reality that registrants deemed sexually violent predators may, as a consequence of public notification, be foreclosed from certain employment positions, particularly those working with children. But any such restriction is in direct furtherance of the government's compelling interest in keeping sexually violent predators away from children to the extent possible. The conclusion that the provisions here at issue do not work an affirmative disability is buttressed by the fact that the source cases cited by Mendoza-Martinez in support of this factor each involved a statute imposing a deprivation or restraint upon the individual directly, rather than through a secondary effect. See Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. at 168 n. 22, 83 S.Ct. at 567 n. 22 (citing Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 617, 80 S.Ct. 1367, 1376, 4 L.Ed.2d 1435 (1960) (termination of social security benefits of aliens deported on specific grounds); United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 316, 106 Ct.Cl. 856, 66 S.Ct. 1073, 1079, 90 L.Ed. 1252 (1946) (prohibition on payment of salaries of certain government employees charged with subversive beliefs and associations); Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333, 18 L.Ed. 366 (1866) (exclusion from federal bar for having borne arms against the United States)). Here, by contrast, any disabilities imposed upon sexually violent predators flow solely from the secondary effects of registration and notification, and thus, constitute a potential collateral restraint. Cf. State v. Ward, 869 P.2d at 1075-76 (concluding that a criminal defendant need not be informed of collateral consequences of his guilty plea, including the requirement that he register as a sex offender after release from prison). Such secondary effects, therefore, do not fall within the same category as incarceration or deprivation of citizenship as they are not imposed directly by the state. See Herbert v. Billy, 160 F.3d 1131, 1137 (6th Cir.1998) (indicating that an affirmative disability or restraint is some sanction approaching the infamous punishment of imprisonment (citation and quotation omitted)); Cutshall, 193 F.3d at 474 (concluding that sex-offender registration requirements do not impose an affirmative disability or restraint, in view of more restrictive measures having previously been deemed non-restraining by the Sixth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court); cf. Hudson, 522 U.S. at 104, 118 S.Ct. at 496 ([T]he sanctions imposed do not involve an `affirmative disability or restraint,' as that term is normally understood; [w]hile petitioners have been prohibited from further participating in the banking industry, this is certainly nothing approaching the infamous punishment of imprisonment. (citation and quotation omitted)). Nor can Appellees' required attendance at monthly counseling sessions be compared to incarceration or deprivation of citizenship, or even to the liberty-restricting conditions of probation. See 42 Pa. C.S. § 9754(c). [15] Certainly, it is not evident, nor is there the clearest proof, that the counseling requirement is so onerous as to constitute an affirmative disability or restraint, particularly as it is designed, as the Attorney General notes, to assist[] the sexually violent predator, who is likely to be impulsive, irresponsible and burdened with poor behavioral controls, from relapsing into sexually predatory behavior. Thus, because the challenged provisions do not impose an affirmative disability or restraint, as that term has been understood, this factor weighs against finding that the statutory scheme is punitive in its purpose or effects.
In considering history, we are aided by the treatment given New Jersey's community notification provisions in the majority and dissenting opinions of the Third Circuit's Verniero decision. See Verniero, 119 F.3d at 1097-1101 (concluding that New Jersey's statute's objective purpose is remedial); id. at 1115-22 (Becker, J., concurring and dissenting) (opining that the statute's objective purpose is to punish). The Verniero panel majority rejected the appellants' proffered analogies to the punishments of public shaming, humiliation, and banishment as those practices were employed in colonial times, and cited instead to United States v. Criden, 648 F.2d 814 (3d Cir.1981), in which the court approved post-trial rebroadcast by the media of video and audio tapes played to the jury during a criminal trial. The Criden court had concluded that, although widespread publicity concerning a crime could adversely affect the accused or his relatives, such side effects were an inevitable consequence of public disclosure of accurate criminal information, which is highly valued by our society. Thus, the Criden panel explicitly rejected the district court's attempt to analogize rebroadcast to holding the defendant up to public ridicule by placing him in a cage or in stocks. See id. at 824-25. The Verniero majority then reasoned that, likewise, dissemination of accurate public record information regarding criminal histories has never been regarded as punitive. In this regard, the majority observed that governmental compilation and distribution of what it termed rap sheet information, to regulatory agencies, prospective employers, and interested members of the public, constitute far more compelling analogies than the stocks, cages, and scarlet letters referenced by appellants. Verniero, 119 F.3d at 1100. The panel majority ultimately determined that governmental warnings of threats to public safety which are designed to allow members of the public to take steps to protect themselvessuch as wanted posters, warning posters regarding escaped prisoners, and quarantine notices concerning individuals with infectious diseasesoffered a closer analogy to sex-offender public notice provisions, which also reflect a governmental purpose to alert the public to a risk of harm, and that the negative effects of such measures have not historically been regarded as punishment. See id. at 1101. The Verniero dissent criticized the majority's reliance upon Criden, pointing out that that case involved private actors seeking to publicly distribute the criminal information at issue, whereas in Megan's Law governmental authorities are appointed to the task. The dissent viewed this public/private distinction as controlling, see id. at 1115 (Becker, C.J., dissenting), and, unlike the majority, opined that shaming punishments, because they were carried out by the authorities, did indeed provide an apt analogy to public notification under Megan's Law, particularly as those punishments, like Megan's Law notification, served to warn the community that the individual might re-offend. The dissent, moreover, was unconvinced by the majority's comparisons to warning/wanted posters and quarantine notices, observing that such measures involve no judicial endorsement by a disinterested magistrate, but rather, proceed from other public agencies, id. at 1117, and are more limited in the scope of information revealed. See id. at 1118. Additionally, the dissent noted that the type of information subject to public disclosure under Megan's Lawincluding the offender's identity, description, address, and place of employmentis effectively the same as that which was disseminated in colonial public shaming punishments, inasmuch as the offender in colonial times would have been known to those who witnessed the shaming. There is certainly validity to the dissent's critique of the Verniero majority's analogies to warning/wanted posters and quarantine notices. Such notices are intended to facilitate capture or quarantine of the persons involved, and hence, they do not threaten to disrupt an individual's right to quietly live his life in the midst of his community. [16] Still, it is not clear that Megan's Law notification is analogous to shaming punishments either, as such measures were directly aimed at stigmatizing offenders. The fact that the offender in colonial times would have been known to his community, as the Verniero dissent pointed out, supports the position that such punishments were carried out primarily with a punitive intent. By contrast, the disclosure of factual information concerning the local presence of a potentially harmful individual is aimed, not at stigmatizing that individual, but at allowing potentially vulnerable members of the public to avoid being victimized. The critical issue for our present purposes is that, even to the extent that notification under Megan's Law II may have some punitive effect in terms of shaming the sex offender, such effect has not been demonstrated to be sufficient in itself to render the challenged measures criminal punishment for constitutional purposes. For one thing, whether a sanction constitutes punishment is not determined from the defendant's perspective, as even remedial sanctions carry the sting of punishment. Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767, 777 n. 14, 114 S.Ct. 1937, 1945 n. 14, 128 L.Ed.2d 767 (1994). Equally important, any punitive effect that results from being designated a sexually violent predator is not gratuitous, but rather, an inevitable consequence of the effectuation of the law's remedial objective of protecting vulnerable members of the public. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 747, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 2101, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) (Unless Congress expressly intended to impose punitive restrictions, the punitive/regulatory distinction turns on whether an alternative purpose to which the restriction may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and whether it appears excessive in relation to [such] purpose. (internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, unlike shaming punishments such as stocks and cageswhere there would have been alternative means of notifying the community that a certain individual had committed a particular crimethe notification provisions of Megan's Law appear to be reasonably calculated to accomplish self-protection only, and not to impose additional opprobrium upon the offender unrelated to that goal. See Poritz, 662 A.2d at 372 (concluding that the Constitution does not prevent society from attempting to protect itself from convicted sex offenders, no matter when convicted, so long as the means of protection are reasonably designed for that purpose and only for that purpose, and not designed to punish); Roe v. Office of Adult Probation, 125 F.3d 47, 55 (2d Cir.1997) (Modern day community notification measures serve vastly different purposes than those served by [traditional stigmatization penalties or banishment], operate without the physical participation of the offender, and lack the general social significance accompanying traditional shaming and banishment penalties.); see also Smith, ___ U.S. at ___, 123 S.Ct. at 1150 (rejecting any analogy to colonial shaming punishments, and noting that in [i]n contrast to [such punishments], the State does not make publicity and the resulting stigma an integral part of the objective of the regulatory scheme). The counseling requirement likewise does not implicate traditional methods of punishment. The trial court observed that mandatory, periodic counseling may be a condition of supervision incident to probation or parole, see Trial Court op. at 11, and Appellees presently note that probation has historically been a form of punishment. It does not follow, however, that the counseling requirement under Megan's Law II is historically analogous to punishment. Primarily, counseling does not serve punitive ends notwithstanding its use as a condition of probation or parole. While probation itself may be a form of punishment, probation conditions are imposed specifically to insure or assist the defendant in leading a law-abiding life. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754(b); see also Commonwealth v. Quinlan, 488 Pa. 255, 258, 412 A.2d 494, 496 (1980) (stating that parole and probation are primarily concerned with the rehabilitation and restoration to a useful life of the parolee or probationer); Commonwealth v. Kates, 452 Pa. 102, 115, 305 A.2d 701, 708 (1973) (observing that the basic objective of probation is to provide a means to achieve rehabilitation without resorting to incarceration). Indeed, counseling, by its very nature, is rehabilitative and not retributive. This is significant because the requisite historical analysis focuses upon whether the provision itself has traditionally been regarded as punishment, not whether it is an incident of other measures historically associated with criminal punishment. See Gaffney, 557 Pa. at 334, 733 A.2d at 619; Artway, 81 F.3d at 1263. Therefore, this factor supports a conclusion that the Act is non-punitive.
Under the statute, registration, notification, and counseling apply to individuals adjudicated to be sexually violent predators. The determination of an individual's status as such is only undertaken if the individual is convicted of a predicate offense. In this respect, the Act differs from the civil commitment statute at issue in Hendricks, under which a person could be deemed a sexually violent predator even if he had been acquitted by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial. See Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 352, 117 S.Ct. at 2077. Still, not all of Megan's Law II's predicate offenses require a finding of scienter for conviction; some can be committed whether or not the defendant is aware of certain facts that make his conduct criminal. For example, a defendant who creates a visual record or depiction of sexual acts by a minor child can be convicted of sexual abuse of children pursuant to Section 6312(b) of the Crimes Code, see 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(b), even where he has a good faith belief that the child is over eighteen years of age. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(e.1). The Act's provisions, then, do not become applicable only upon a finding of scienter, thus supporting the conclusion that Megan's Law II is non-punitive pursuant to this Mendoza-Martinez factor. Accord Doe I v. Otte, 259 F.3d 979, 989 (9th Cir.2001), rev'd on other grounds sub nom Smith v. Doe I, 538 U.S. 84, 123 S.Ct. 1140, 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003). It significant as well that, when considering the question of whether civil commitment could be imposed only upon a finding of scienter, the Hendricks court did not premise its negative answer upon the possibility that commitment could follow an acquittal. It observed, rather, that the commitment determination is made based on a `mental abnormality' or `personality disorder' rather than one's criminal intent. Id. at 362, 117 S.Ct. at 2082. Here, the relevant determination of sexually violent predator status is likewise made based upon a mental abnormality, thus bolstering the conclusion that the provisions do not come into play only upon a finding of scienter for purposes of Mendoza-Martinez.
Subjection to the registration and counseling requirements, like civil commitment in Hendricks, does not operate primarily to deter, or exact retribution for, blameworthy conduct. Given the substantial period of incarceration attached to the predicate offense, it is unlikely that the prospect of subsequent registration, notification, and counseling will have any marginal deterrent effect upon a sexually violent predator. See Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 362, 117 S.Ct. at 2082 (observing that a person suffering from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that prevents him from exercising adequate control over his behavior is not likely to be deterred, even by the threat of confinement). Although registration and notification may curtail opportunities to commit future sex offenses, these measures primarily protect innocent persons from victimization by permitting such persons to alter their own behavior according to the risks posed. Accord Roe, 125 F.3d at 55. Nor are the measures at issue primarily retributive, as they do not require the individual to pay his debt to society, Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 261, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 2032, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring), through the imposition of fines, restitution, or confinement. See generally BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1318 (7th ed. 1999) (defining retribution in terms of repayment or revenge for the offense committed); In re Murphy, 127 Vt. 198, 243 A.2d 788, 789 (1968) (recognizing that retribution subsumes the concept of payment for damage done). Any retributive effect of the challenged provisions, therefore, is ancillary to the results achieved in terms of societal awareness and self-protection, and rehabilitation of the offender. [17] Accordingly, this factor also weighs in favor of finding the Act non-punitive.
To the extent that the determination of sexually violent predator status is made based upon, not criminal activity, but a finding of a mental abnormality or personality disorder, it is not applied to conduct at all, but to an individual's status as suffering from a serious psychological defect. While it must be acknowledged that the procedures whereby an individual is potentially subjected to registration, notification, and counseling are triggered only after conviction of a predicate offense, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that this is of little significance in evaluating whether or not Megan's Law legislation is punitive; the Court explained in Smith that, where such legislation is concerned, application to past criminal conduct is a necessary beginning point, for recidivism is the statutory concern. Smith, ___ U.S. at ___, 123 S.Ct. at 1154; cf. State v. Ulesky, 54 N.J. 26, 252 A.2d 720, 722 (1969) ( per curiam ) (suggesting that municipal registration of criminals is prophylactic, not punitive). Thus, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that the fact that Alaska's statute applies only to behavior that is already criminal [supports] the conclusion that its effect is punitive. Otte, 259 F.3d at 991. This factor, then, does not support a finding that Megan's Law II imposes criminal punishment.
The Act's rational connection to a nonpunitive purpose is a `[m]ost significant' factor in our determination that the statute's effects are not punitive. Smith, ___ U.S. at ___, 123 S.Ct. at 1152 (quoting United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 290, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 2148, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996)). Here, the legislative findings are consistent with grave concerns over the high rate of recidivism among convicted sex offenders. Smith, ___ U.S. at ___, 123 S.Ct. at 1153. This Court has already determined that registration is regulatory and remedial, not punitive. See Gaffney, 557 Pa. at 339, 733 A.2d at 622. Notification and counseling can also be explained by reference solely to remedial objectives. As to notification in particular, while anyone may take certain steps to avoid victimization by a sex offender, reason dictates that awareness that a particular sexual predator lives near a home or school frequented by children will make a practical difference in avoiding predation. In this regard, it is significant that most of the notification provisions pertain to neighbors of a sexually violent predator, social service agencies, schools, or day care centers. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9798(b). The recipients under these provisions all have an interest in protecting the children or students under their care. So long as the state must prove its case by clear and convincing evidence, such community notification provisions have withstood constitutional scrutiny. See, e.g., Verniero, 119 F.3d at 1111; Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 662 A.2d 367, 406 (1995) (concluding that New Jersey's Megan's Law's registration and notification requirements are not punitive). Additionally, as noted in the historical analysis section above, the registration, notification, and counseling procedures do not appear designed to impose upon the sexually violent predator any gratuitous opprobrium or hardship beyond what is reasonably necessary to effectuate the Legislature's remedial and regulatory purposes. [18] Indeed, it appears that the crux of the issue with regard to public notification stems from Section 9798(d), which provides: (d) Public notice.All information provided in accordance with subsection (a) shall be available, upon request, to the general public. The information may be provided by electronic means. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9798(d). It is contended that this section is a mandate for wide dissemination of the stigmatizing fact that an individual is a sexually violent predator, and that no legitimate state interest exists for providing notification of sexually violent predator status to persons in other states who are unlikely to encounter the individual. This contention appears based upon the prospect that the state could choose to display a registrant's information on the Internet, where it would be viewable by anyone, anywhere in the world with Internet access. Such interpretation, however, is unwarranted by the statutory text. Although the information is made available to the general public, by the terms of the statute it is provided only upon request. Hence, the most natural interpretation of this provision is that, if any member of the public specifically requests the information, it will be made available to that person. Notably, much of the data involved is a matter of public record. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9798(a) (specifying the registration information subject to disclosure). It is difficult to see how disseminating it to a member of the public upon specific request is constitutionally problematic, particularly in light of the legislative findings and in the absence of evidence and judicial findings to the contrary. Moreover, because the data is made available primarily for the benefit of those having an interest in guarding themselves, or those under their care, against a risk of predation, any additional disclosure should be regarded as ancillary to the main remedial purpose sought to be accomplished by community notification. The provision allowing for dissemination of the requested information by electronic means, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9798(d), has raised similar concerns. However, this provision need not be read to authorize public display of the information, as on the Internet. In context, it merely indicates that, once a specific request is lodged, compliance can be accomplished electronically. It is thus unlike New Jersey's statute which specifically authorizes dissemination of sex offender information to the public over the Internet. See N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 2C:7-12-2C:7-14. Accordingly, we construe the section at issue as only authorizing electronic transmission (for example, by email or fax machine) to an individual who lodges a specific request for the data, and not electronic display of the data to the general public. We also disagree with the position that the state has no valid reason to transmit data concerning sexually violent predators to persons located outside of Pennsylvania. There would appear to be a legitimate governmental interest, for example, in informing individuals who are planning to move to the Commonwealth of the presence of a sexually violent predator residing in their prospective neighborhood. Similarly, it would be reasonable for organizations providing educational, athletic, or other services to minors, to conduct thorough background checks of prospective employees. All jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania, would thus appear to have a valid interest in providing, upon request, any information that exists concerning such prospective employee's history of convictions for relevant offenses, whether or not the request emanates from within or outside the Commonwealth. Cf. 42 U.S.C. § 14071(b)(2)(B) (requiring States, under the federal Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Program, to transmit sex offender registration information to a national database). In short, the provision allowing for dissemination of sexually violent predator information to individual members of the public, upon request, appears to be a reasonable means chosen by the Legislature to serve the legitimate governmental interest in providing persons who may be affected by the presence of a sexually violent predator with the information they need to protect themselves or those under their care against predation by tak[ing] the common-sense steps that might prevent such an occurrence. Poritz, 662 A.2d at 373. Accordingly, the community notification provisions of the statute are fully explainable without resort to theories of retribution or deterrence, the traditional aims of punishment. Hudson, 522 U.S. at 99, 118 S.Ct. at 493. Hence, this factor does support a conclusion that the Act's purpose or effect is punitive.
In general, and with due deference to the legislative findings and recognition of the present state of the record, measures requiring registration, notification, and counseling appear reasonably designed to serve the government's legitimate goal of enhancing public awareness and ensuring that offenders do not relapse into harmful behavior. Counseling serves the rehabilitative and prophylactic purposes subsumed by that goal, and the registration/notification measures appear calculated to advance appropriate public awareness. In this regard, it has been noted that Congress, and the legislatures of the several states, have considered the egregiousness of sexual crimes, particularly where children are concerned, and studies have indicated that sexual offenders have high rates of recidivism. Cutshall, 193 F.3d at 476; see also McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 34, 122 S.Ct. 2017, 2024, 153 L.Ed.2d 47 (2002) (When convicted sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault.), quoted in Smith, ___ U.S. at ___, 123 S.Ct. at 1153. Thus, although the duty to register with the police and verify one's residence quarterly may seem onerous to the sexually violent predator, the question is whether it is sufficiently so to transform an otherwise remedial statute into a punitive one. See Doe v. Pataki, 120 F.3d 1263, 1285 (2d Cir.1997) (reasoning that quarterly in-person registration, while onerous, is non-punitive, inasmuch as the Supreme Court has consistently upheld far heavier burdens against ex post facto challenges, including deportation, termination of financial support, and loss of livelihood). Concerning this inquiry, the Artway court indicated that [t]he caselaw does not tell us where the line falls that divides permissible from impermissible effects, but we know the matter of degree is somewhere between imprisonment and revocation of citizenship on the one hand, and loss of a profession or benefits on the other. Id. at 1266 (comparing Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987) (increased incarceration constitutes punishment), and Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 78 S.Ct. 590, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958) (citizenship revocation constitutes punishment), with De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144, 80 S.Ct. 1146, 4 L.Ed.2d 1109 (1960) (forbidding work as union official is not punishment), Hawker v. People of New York, 170 U.S. 189, 18 S.Ct. 573, 42 L.Ed. 1002 (1898) (revoking one's medical license is not punishment), and Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 80 S.Ct. 1367, 4 L.Ed.2d 1435 (1960) (terminating social security benefits is not punishment)). The Verniero panel expanded upon these observations by noting that the effects of a measure must be extremely onerous to constitute punishment, as even the deprivation of one's livelihood does not qualify. See Verniero, 119 F.3d at 1101. The court recognized, moreover, that the challenged statute's effects must be evaluated in light of the importance of the governmental interest involved, accord Nestor, 363 U.S. at 616, 80 S.Ct. at 1375 ([E]ach case has turned on its own highly particularized context.); Artway, 81 F.3d at 1260 (reasoning that the analysis under the effects prong is flexible and context-dependent), and that even denaturalization and incarceration are not punitive in all contexts. See Verniero, 119 F.3d at 1101-02 (citing Trop, 356 U.S. at 98, 78 S.Ct. at 596-97 (denaturalization as a remedy for citizenship fraudulently obtained is not punishment, but a necessary part of regulating naturalization of aliens)); see also Salerno, 481 U.S. at 747, 107 S.Ct. at 2101 (pretrial detention based upon future dangerousness is regulatory, not punitive); cf. Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 363, 117 S.Ct. at 2083 (civil confinement of dangerous, mentally ill patients is not punishment). Turning to the challenged provisions of New Jersey's registration and community notification requirements, the panel stated: The direct effects of Megan's Law clearly do not rise to the level of extremely onerous burdens that sting so severely as to compel a conclusion of punishment. All Megan's Law mandates is registration and notification. Under Megan's Law, New Jersey has not deprived appellants of their freedom or their citizenship. The state has imposed no restrictions on a registrant's ability to live and work in a community, to move from place to place, to obtain a professional license or to secure governmental benefits.       Hendricks, and the long line of cases on which it relies, counsels that bona fide remedial legislation may inflict very substantial individual hardship without [constituting punishment]. It necessarily follows that some limit must be placed on the situations in which a measure's sting alone, despite its remedial purpose and effect, will constitute punishment under [the Ex Post Facto and Double Jeopardy] clauses, and that classification as punishment on the basis of sting alone must be reserved for cases involving deprivation of the interests most highly valued in our constitutional republic. Verniero, 119 F.3d at 1102-03. The court went on to conclude, relying upon Hendricks, that the state's interest in protecting the public against sexually violent predators is so great that it justifies the adverse effects that community notification might have upon the registrant. See id. at 1104. We agree with Verniero 's analysis and conclude that the duties imposed upon the sexually violent predator with regard to registration, verification, and counseling, are not in themselves sufficiently onerous to qualify as punishment based upon alleged excessiveness. See generally Smith, ___ U.S. at ___, 123 S.Ct. at 1154 (indicating that the crux of the excessiveness inquiry is not whether the legislature has made the best choice possible, but whether the regulatory means chosen are reasonable in light of the nonpunitive objective sought to be achieved). Still, one of the most troubling aspects of the statute is that the period of registration, notification, and counseling lasts for the sexually violent predator's entire lifetime. A reasonable argument could be made that, to avoid excessiveness, the Legislature was required to provide some means for a sexually violent predator to invoke judicial review in an effort to demonstrate that he no longer poses a substantial risk to the community. This aspect of the statute may be particularly problematic if the definition of sexually violent predator is incapable of reasonably precise implementation, as explained below. Notably, however, the position that a means for subsequent judicial review is a necessary feature of any valid registration/notification scheme assumes that, given sufficient time and/or treatment, sexually violent predators can be fully cured of the mental abnormality or personality disorder [making them] likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9792 (defining sexually violent predator). [19] As the record is devoid of any information concerning the prospect of successful treatment of such individuals, the presumption of constitutionality enjoyed by all validly enacted legislation, see Commonwealth v. Means, 565 Pa. 309, 315, 773 A.2d 143, 147 (2001), remains unrebutted. Cf. Commonwealth v. Fleming, 801 A.2d 1234, 1240-41 (Pa.Super.2002) (concluding that Megan's Law II's extension of the registration term for certain offenders from ten years to life did not constitute punishment). Amicus Defender Association of Philadelphia (Defender Association) additionally maintains that the statute is impermissibly vague, in that it fails to allow for a sufficiently precise understanding of who is or is not a sexually violent predator. As Appellees' void for vagueness challenge was not addressed by the trial court, and the matter will be remanded for consideration of this claim, any imprecision in the Act's provisions must presently be evaluated in terms of whether it renders the statute unconstitutionally punitive through excessiveness. Primarily, if the Act's imprecision is likely to result in individuals being deemed sexually violent predators who in fact do not pose the type of risk to the community that the General Assembly sought to guard against, then the Act's provisions could be demonstrated to be excessive in relation to the remedial purposes served. This could be accomplished in multiple ways. For example, Appellees could show that it is not sufficiently clear which predicate offenses are intended to lead to a sexually violent predator assessment in the first instance. Alternatively, Appellees could establish that the offender assessment process is so unreliable that there will be little correlation between those ultimately deemed sexually violent predators and the class of individuals who pose the greatest risk of predation. The first of these options is foreclosed by the fact that a specific set of predicate offenses is enumerated by the terms of the Act. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.1. The latter option is undertaken by the Defender Association, which contends that the basis for any assessment is not scientifically precise. The Board, as amicus in support of the Commonwealth, counters that there is no legally problematic imprecision involved in its assessments, as the existence of a relevant mental abnormality or personality disorder is determined with reference to established diagnostic criteria for recognized sexual dysfunctions. Indeed, the definition of sexually violent predator is substantially the same as that contained in the Kansas statute at issue in Hendricks, which the Supreme Court determined to be sufficiently precise to be utilized as a prerequisite for civil commitment. See Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 360 & n. 3, 117 S.Ct. at 2081 & n. 3. [20] Particularly in light of the additional criteria that the Board is required to utilize in reaching its assessment, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4(b), [21] any conclusion that an assessment of sexually violent predator status is so arbitrary that the consequences to the individual so adjudicated constitute punishment, would have to be grounded upon credible record evidence that the enumerated criteria were non-predictive, or that assessment pursuant to them was inherently unreliable. [22] See generally Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 278-79, 104 S.Ct. 2403, 2417, 81 L.Ed.2d 207 (1984) (indicating that, from a legal point of view, there is nothing inherently unattainable about a prediction of future criminal conduct[;] [s]uch a judgment forms an important element in many decisions, and we have specifically rejected the contention ... that it is impossible to predict future behavior and that the question is so vague as to be meaningless (internal footnote and quotation marks omitted)). As no such proof appears of record at this stage in the litigation, we cannot conclude that Appellees have sustained their burden to establish excessiveness by the clearest proof. On the present record, then, and in consideration of all of the Martinez-Mendoza factors, we find that the trial court should not have invalidated Megan's Law II's registration, notification, and counseling requirements as unconstitutionally punitive. [23]