violated neither the Double Jeopaidy Clause of the Constitution nor the ex post facto clause. Id. at 361, 117 S.Ct, 2072. It was “unpersuaded . .. that Kansas has established criminal proceedings.” Id. Other decisions, including some from Wisconsin itself, have also rejected the argument that statutes like chapter 980 create criminal offenses. See, e,g., Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 121 S.Ct. 727, 148 L.Ed.2d 734 (2001) (recognizing that Washington State’s Community Protection Act of 1990, which is virtually indistinguishable from Wisconsin’s chapter 980 statute, was civil as opposed to criminal and rejecting contention that a habeas petitioner could mount a challenge that the Act was “criminal as applied”); Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364, 106 S.Ct. 2988, 92 L.Ed.2d 296 (1986) (<HOLDING>); State v. Carpenter, 197 Wis.2d 252, 541
holding that proceedings under the illinois sexually dangerous persons act were not criminal for purposes of fifth amendments prohibition of compulsory selfincrimination holding that the fifth amendments protection against selfincrimination is applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment holding municipalities  are not persons within the meaning of the due process clause of the fifth or fourteenth amendments holding that neither the fifth amendment nor due process requires application of privilege against selfincrimination in sexually dangerous persons proceedings holding that adam walsh act violates the eighth amendments prohibition against excessive bail and the fifth amendments guarantee of procedural due process