Opinion ID: 1841416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Sanction's Excessiveness in Relation to Alternative Purpose

Text: Finally, the registration requirement is not excessive in relation to its assigned nonpunitive purposeto protect the public and aid law enforcement. The length of the registration requirement must necessarily correspond to the recidivism risk for that offense classification to carry out the statute's intent. The Ex Post Facto Clause does not preclude a State from making reasonable categorical judgments that conviction of specified crimes should entail particular regulatory consequences, particularly for minor conditions such as registration. Smith, 538 U.S. at 103-04, 123 S.Ct. 1140 (noting that duration of registration requirement is based on empirical research showing that reoffenses can occur as much as 20 years after release). We determine that the Act's offense categories and related registration periods are reasonably related to the danger of recidivism and consistent with the regulatory objective. See 538 U.S. at 102, 123 S.Ct. 1140. We conclude that Worm has failed to show by the clearest proof that the Act's registration provisions are so punitive in either purpose or effect as to negate the State's intention. Because the registration provisions are not punitive, we defer to the Legislature's determination of what remedial action is necessary to achieve the Legislature's goals. See State v. Howell, 254 Neb. 247, 575 N.W.2d 861 (1998).