defect, or illness.” Wis. St. § 980.01(7) (amended 2006). On the back end, the Wisconsin Supreme Court found support for a “criminal” classification in the fact that chapter 980 is intended to protect the public by preventing future acts of sexually violent behavior. This is inconsistent, however, with decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States that have characterized these and similar schemes as civil precisely because they are aimed at protecting the public from future danger. See, e.g., Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 361, 117 S.Ct. 2072 (“Nothing on the face of the statute suggests that the legislature sought to create anything other than a civil commitment scheme designed to protect the public from harm.”); Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 108, 123 S.Ct. 1140, 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003) (<HOLDING>); Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354, 361-
holding evidence was legally insufficient to support conviction for violation of sex offender registration requirement holding that an individual who is required to register as a sex offender is not in custody holding that sex offender registration statute is civil and nonpunitive and recognizing that ejnsuring public safety is  a fundamental regulatory goal holding that sex offender registration and notification do not constitute punishment holding that traffic safety is a substantial government goal