of legislative intent. 26 . Unlike the New York statute in Doe, the CT-SORA does not create a new criminal offense for misuse of registry information and does not require any identifying information from a member of the public prior to giving him or her access to the registry. 27 . It bears noting that the individualized assessments in Doe and Roe were part of a system that involved significant, potentially mandatorj' proactive notification of victims, family, neighbors, employers, and at-risk groups. Also, while a defendant who seeks to plead guilty must be informed of the potential punishment he could receive, it does not follow that every potential consequence brought to the defendant's attention is an element of punishment. See Cucciniello v. Keller, 137 F.3d 721, 725 (2d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). 28 . The Mendoza-Marlinez considerations are
recognizing that some substantial consequences of a guilty plea are not part of punishment and thus need not be noticed before the plea is taken but suggesting that judicial officers might nevertheless find it advisable to give such notice holding that the defendants guilty plea was valid where the district court carefully questioned the defendant about whether he understood the consequences of his guilty plea recognizing that a voluntary and understanding guilty plea entered without the benefit of a plea bargain waives all nonjurisdictional defects that occurred before the entry of the plea holding that a defendants guilty plea was unconditional where the guilty plea was not in writing and the government did not consent to it being conditional holding that a defendant must have knowledge of the likely consequences of entering the guilty plea in order for a plea to be voluntary and knowing