the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probative value, if any, of additional or substituted procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 (1976). 28 State v. Rachel, 2002 WI 81, ¶ 61, 254 Wis. 2d 215, 647 N.W.2d 762. 29 Lessard v. Schmidt, 349 F. Supp. 1078, 1085 (E.D. Wis. 1972), vacated on procedural grounds, 414 U.S. 473 (1974) (three-judge district court) (discussing the nature and history of civil commitment); see Rachel, 254 Wis. 2d 215, ¶ 45 (acknowledging that ch. 980 involves "an affirmative disability or re 5, 647 N.W.2d 762 (<HOLDING>); State v. Carpenter, 197 Wis. 2d 252, 541
holding that term of supervised release was not automatically terminated when defendant was deported from united states and thus defendants subsequent commission of another offense illegal reentry after deportation prior to expiration of term of supervised release violated condition of supervised release that defendant commit no new offenses holding that limits on ch 980 committees right to seek supervised release do not render ch 980 unconstitutional holding that invitederror doctrine precludes defendant from challenging sentence of supervised release where defendant requested sentence of supervised release holding that a statute requiring a threeyear term of supervised release did not eviscerate the district courts discretion to adjust the term of supervised release pursuant to  3583e holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release