implicate the liberty interest of the individual who the State is supervising. As we noted in a prior case [Decisions in the realm of mental commitment rest not only on medical judgments but on societal judgments about a community’s tolerance for the sometimes deviant behavior of mentally ill persons. It is not only the customary procedure, but the constitutionally and statutorily mandated requirement, to treat even seriously mentally impaired persons in the least restrictive environment medically possible. Leonard v. State, 491 N.W.2d 508, 512 (Iowa 1992) (citation omitted). The Sexually Violent Predator Act appears to recog nize these principles when a person suffers from a mental abnormality but the State cannot prove the person is likely to reoffend. See Iowa Code § 229A.9A(1)(b) (<HOLDING>). Finally, we agree with the New Jersey Supreme
recognizing the publics interest in receiving the best value in public services holding that despite release language discharging defendant from claims upon or by reason of any matter cause or thing whatsoever from the beginning of the world to the day of these presents release did not bar any claims accruing after the date of execution holding that the legislature imposed a requirement implicitly rather than by means of statutory language expressly stating the requirement recognizing implicitly that it may be in the best interest of the community to release a sexually violent predator from ccuso with or without supervision rather than discharging that individual holding that when information which potentially undermines the best interest of the child as well as the interest sought to be protected by the legitimation statutes and the policy of this state it must first be tested in light of the best interest of the child standard