it is shown to be essentially arbitrary. Stated differently, one who attacks an enactment must show that it is arbitrary and wholly unrelated in a rationa 615 (2004) (upholding the defendant’s required registration for kidnapping a minor during the commission of a larceny). However, this conclusion is not universal. See ACLU of New Mexico v City of Albuquerque, 139 NM 761, 772; 137 P3d 1215 (NM App, 2006) (stating that the defendant city’s sex offender registration ordinance was constitutionally defective to the extent that it included kidnapping and false imprisonment offenses as sex offenses when the city’s stated purpose in passing the ordinance was the “protection of victims and potential victims of sex offenses”); State v Small, 162 Ohio App 3d 375, 386-390; 833 NE2d 774 (2005) (<HOLDING>). Giving due deference to the standards
holding that the inclusion of aggravated kidnapping of a minor by a nonparent in the illinois sex offender registration act was not violative of due process regardless of whether the offenders conduct was sexually motivated holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse  and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse holding that the designation of a defendant as sexually oriented offender for kidnapping his child where there was no evidence of sexual motivation bore no rational relationship to purpose of the statute holding some evidence standard applicable to cdoc decision classifying inmate who had not been convicted of a sexual offense as a sex offender holding that classifying the defendant as a sexually oriented offender after he was convicted of kidnapping minors without a sexual purpose violated the defendants right to substantive due process where the statutory definition of sexual offender included one who had committed certain criminal offenses against a minor regardless of sexual intent