KNOLL, Justice.

This case comes to us as a criminal appeal concerning the retroactive application of an amendment extending supervision for sex offenders when the victim is under the age of thirteen years. Specifically, whether the amendment to La.Rev. Stat. § 15:561.2, which extended the supervision period after release from custody for a sex offender whose victim was under thirteen years of age from five years to life, violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses of both the United States and Louisiana Constitutions.

Defendant Rudy Trosclair pled guilty to sexual battery of a child under thirteen years of age, for which he was sentenced to serve thirty months imprisonment at hard labor "without benefit." Shortly after his incarceration, La.Rev.Stat. § 15:561.2 was amended to provide for lifetime supervision. Upon his release from custody, defendant was placed under lifelong supervision in accordance with the amended provision. Defendant then filed a motion in the district court challenging the retroactive application of the amendment as a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. The district court denied the motion, but the court of appeal granted writs and found the amendment increased the penalty for the offense and could, therefore, not be applied retroactively to the defendant. The State appealed to this Court in accordance with La. Const. art. V, § 5(D). For the following reasons, we find, after first converting this appeal to an application for supervisory writs, the amended supervised release provisions are predominantly nonpunitive in both intent and effect, and therefore, their retroactive application to this defendant does not offend the Ex Post Facto Clause. Accordingly, we grant the State's application and reverse the judgment of the court of appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 16, 2006, the State alleged in a bill of information that defendant, age twenty-seven, committed sexual battery by fondling the genitals of the child victim at some point between October 7, 2002, and May 15, 2006, when the victim was between four and seven years of age. When interviewed by police, defendant confessed to touching and rubbing the child's vagina while she slept at his home. On May 19, 2008, defendant pled guilty to sexual battery in violation of La.Rev.Stat. § 14:43.1. The district court advised defendant of the sex offender registration and notification requirements and sentenced him pursuant to the plea agreement to serve thirty months imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.1 At that time, La.Rev. Stat. § 15:561.2 required any person convicted of a sex offense on or after August 15, 2006, when the victim was under thirteen years of age, be placed under supervision for five years after release from custody. Defendant was released after serving the full term of his sentence on November 24, 2010, by which time La.Rev.Stat. § 15:561.2 had been amended by 2008 La. Acts 672 to require lifelong supervision.

On January 10, 2011, defendant was placed under lifelong supervision in accord with the amended provision after signing a "Sex Offender, Sexually Violent Predator, or Child Predator Contract," acknowledging his understanding of the notification, registration, and supervision requirements applicable to him. Three days later, on January 13, 2011, defendant filed a motion to terminate supervision and seeking permission to have contact with his biological children, which motion the district court denied after a hearing.2 On January 25, 2011, defendant filed a "Motion to Declare La. R.S. 15:561 Unconstitutional," challenging the retroactive application of the amendment as a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.

In his motion, defendant contended that placing him on lifetime supervision violated the Ex Post Facto Clause because it imposed a greater punishment than that authorized at the time he pled guilty. Defendant further contended the amended provision was vague and overbroad. At the February 23, 2011 motion hearing, defendant also argued the condition of supervision prohibiting contact with children had effectively terminated his parental rights without a hearing, which, defendant claimed, violated the Due Process Clause. The district court denied the motion and indicated it would not address the Due Process claim at that time because it was not asserted in the motion.

The Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit granted defendant's application for supervisory writ and vacated the lower court's ruling, holding the retroactivity provision of La.Rev.Stat. § 15:561 et seq. with reference to supervised release was unconstitutional as applied to defendant for a period in excess of five years. State v. Trosclair, 11-0312, p. 9 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/20/11) (unpub'd). In reaching its conclusion, the appellate court paid close attention to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 123 S.Ct. 1140, 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003), which held the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act was nonpunitive, and therefore, its retroactive application did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. In particular, the appellate court focused on the high court's rejection of the Ninth Circuit's determination that Alaska's registration system "is parallel to probation or supervised release in terms of the restraint imposed" and the implication "that had it been considering probation and supervised release, the outcome might have been different." Trosclair, 11-0312 at p. 5.

Contrasting the freedoms of a registrant in Alaska with the constraints imposed on the supervised in Louisiana, the appellate court reasoned:

Trosclair, 11-0312 at pp. 6-7. The court then concluded the modification of the period of supervised release from a de minimis period of five years to lifetime supervision increased the penalty by which defendant's crime was punishable so that the retroactive application of these provisions to this defendant would violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto legislation. Trosclair, 11-0312 at 9.3

The State then sought and was granted a direct appeal to this Court, which appeal was lodged on October 19, 2011.

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the State describes the present case as a facial constitutional challenge and characterizes the ruling of the court below as a declaration of the statute's unconstitutionality. Defendant, however, disagrees and argues the appellate court did not declare any portion of La.Rev.Stat. §§ 15:561 et seq. unconstitutional; instead, it issued a narrow ruling declaring the amendment, which extended the period of supervision from five years to life, could not be retroactively applied to him because such application would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Defendant is correct that a law was not declared unconstitutional, other than as applied retroactively to him. We find the district court erred in granting the State's motion to appeal directly to this Court pursuant to La. Const. art. V, § 5(D)(1). See, e.g., State in the Interest of A.S., 97-0806 (La.9/26/97), 701 So.2d 965 (per curiam). Consequently, review of the court of appeal's ruling can occur only by way of this Court's discretionary supervisory authority pursuant to La. Const. art. V, § 5(A). Therefore, to reach the merits of an issue that directly implicates the functioning and breadth of a complex regulatory scheme, which the Legislature itself has described as "one of the most extensive sex offender registration and notification provisions in the United States," La.Rev. Stat. § 15:561(A), we re-designate the present appeal as an application for supervisory writ and hereby grant certiorari.

Turning now to the merits, we begin our discussion with an overview of the regulatory scheme of supervision and the statutory provisions governing this scheme. La.Rev.Stat. §§ 15:561 through 15:561.7, added by Acts 2006, No. 242, § 1, effective August 15, 2006, provide for supervised release of certain sex offenders who committed their crimes upon children under thirteen years of age. In Section 561, the Legislature sets forth its findings associated with the enactment of the supervised release laws:

Under Section 561.1, the supervised release provisions apply to any person convicted, on or after the effective date of the act, of a sex offense as defined in La. Rev. Stat. § 15:541,4 when the victim is under thirteen years of age. According to Section 561.3, supervised release is administered by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, division of probation and parole, and supervised release officers have the powers and duties of parole officers. Section 561.4 directs the trial court at sentencing as well as the Department of Public Safety and Corrections to inform the offender he will be placed on supervised release and of the conditions of supervision. Section 561.5 sets forth the conditions of supervised release:

Section 561.6 directs the Department of Public Safety and Corrections to adopt rules necessary to implement these provisions, and Section 561.7 provides the penalties for failing to comply with the conditions of supervised release, which include fines up to three thousand dollars and imprisonment with hard labor from two to twenty years "without benefit."

Of particular relevance herein, Section 561.2 governs the commencement and duration of supervision. As originally enacted in 2006, Section 561.2 provided:

By Acts 2008, No. 672, § 2, effective August 15, 2008, the Legislature increased the period of supervision from five years to life. This provision was again amended by Acts 2009, No. 205, § 1, effective August 15, 2009, to allow a person placed on supervised release to petition the sentencing court for termination of supervision. In its present form, La.Rev.Stat. § 15:561.2 now provides:

The present defendant committed the charged offense at some point between October 7, 2002, and May 15, 2006. He pled guilty on May 19, 2008, and was sentenced on May 29, 2008. The question this Court must resolve then is whether the amendment, which increased the five-year period to life and became effective about three months after defendant pled guilty, can be applied to him retroactively. The answer lies within the relevant constitutional provisions as interpreted and applied by the courts. Thus, our constitutional analysis begins, as always, with the constitutional provisions themselves.

Article I, § 9 of the United States Constitution forbids Congress from passing any ex post facto law, providing: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3. Article I, § 10 similarly forbids the states from doing so: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1. Likewise, La. Const. art. I, § 23, patterned on the federal provisions, also prohibits the enactment of any ex post facto law, stating: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be enacted."

Although "ex post facto" was left undefined, the seminal case of Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798), interpreted it as a legal term of art with an established meaning at the time of the framing of the Constitution and outlined four categories of ex post facto laws:

Calder, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) at 390-91. This formulation was later summarized by the Court as follows:

Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 169-170, 46 S.Ct. 68, 68-69, 70 L.Ed. 216 (1925).

Then, in Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 45-50, 110 S.Ct. 2715, 2720-24, 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990), the Supreme Court disavowed prior jurisprudence that had distinguished between procedural and substantive changes to criminal laws, which the court perceived as causing confusion in the lower courts and enlarging the meaning of "ex post facto law" beyond what was consistent with the understanding of the term when the Constitution was adopted. This Court mirrored the federal contraction in interpreting "ex post facto" and the return to the Calder categories in State ex rel. Olivieri v. State, 00-0172, p. 15-16 (La.2/21/01), 779 So.2d 735, 744 (noting Louisiana's constitutional prohibition against the enactment of ex post facto laws is not only patterned after the United States Constitution, but mandated by it), cert. denied, Olivieri v. Louisiana, 533 U.S. 936, 121 S.Ct. 2566, 150 L.Ed.2d 730 (2001) and Hutchinson v. Louisiana, 534 U.S. 892, 122 S.Ct. 208, 151 L.Ed.2d 148 (2001).

In Smith v. Doe, which was examined by the court below, the Supreme Court considered whether the registration requirement imposed by Alaska's Sex Offender Registration Act constituted a retroactive punishment prohibited by Calder's third category when applied to persons convicted before the passage of the act. At the outset, the Doe court recognized the analytical framework was a well-established and potentially two-part inquiry:

Doe, 538 U.S. at 92, 123 S.Ct. at 1146-47 (citations omitted). The Court further noted the first step in the inquiry is a question of statutory construction to ascertain the legislative objective:

Id., 538 U.S. at 92-93, 123 S.Ct. at 1147 (citations omitted). Finding nothing on the statute's face or the procedures by which it was implemented suggested the legislature sought to impose punishment, the Court concluded the "intent of the Alaska Legislature was to create a civil, nonpunitive regime." Id., 538 U.S. at 96, 123 S.Ct. at 1149. Therefore, the Court proceeded to the second step of the inquiry and considered the effects of the enactment;

Id., 538 U.S. at 97, 123 S.Ct. at 1149 (citations omitted). Finding sex offender registration, as enacted in Alaska, did not resemble any historically recognized form of punishment, imposed no punitive restraints, only indirectly resulted in disability, and was reasonably related to the danger of recidivism rather than being retributive, the Court concluded such registration was nonpunitive in effect, and so, its retroactive application did not violate the constitutional ex post facto prohibition. Id., 538 U.S. at 97-103, 123 S.Ct. at 1149-53.

Employing the well-established analytical framework utilized in Doe, our first step is to determine whether the intention of the Louisiana legislature was to impose punishment when it enacted the supervised release provisions. As noted above, the question is one of statutory interpretation. "What a legislature says in the text of a statute is considered the best evidence of the legislative intent or will." State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 13 (La.11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790, 800. The pertinent legislative findings associated with the enactment of the supervised release laws at issue are set forth in La.Rev. Stat. § 15:561 reproduced above.

Although the Legislature's comments in Section 561(A) indicate the Legislature has "enacted statutory provisions to provide some of the strictest criminal penalties for the commission of sex offenses," this statement is merely part of the Legislature's description of this state's overall policy regarding sex offenders, which admittedly includes harsh penalties, but also registration and notification provisions; the "penalties," however, are not descriptive of the supervision provisions. In the remaining sections, the Legislature notes in Section 561(B) the high risk of recidivism for sex offenders with minor victims, describes in Sections 561(B) and (C) its interest in protecting the public from this type of recidivism as paramount and compelling, deems in Section 561(C) its interest in ensuring compliance by these offenders with the registration and notification requirements compelling, and concludes for those reasons in Section 561(D) that sex offenders will be placed on supervised release following incarceration to facilitate and ensure compliance with registration and notification requirements. Thus, the Legislature explicitly states its intention that the supervision provisions are to protect the public from offenders with a particularly high risk of re-offending and to operate in conjunction with the sex offender registration and notification requirements. The explicit purpose of the provisions at issue, therefore, is civil, rather than punitive, for the protection of the public.

In Olivieri, this Court examined the legislative findings associated with Louisiana's sex offender registration act, which provide:

La.Rev.Stat. § 15:540. After examining these findings, this Court determined the intention of the Louisiana legislature was not to impose punishment when it enacted the sex offender registration provisions:

Olivieri, 00-0172 at pp. 19-20, 779 So.2d at 747.

Considering the supervision provisions at issue were enacted with similar concern for the high risk for recidivism and supervision is declared to operate in conjunction with registration and notification, we find the intent enunciated by the Legislature in La.Rev.Stat. § 15:561 clearly passes scrutiny under the first step of the analysis.

Proceeding to the second step of the analysis, we must now determine whether the provision intended as civil is sufficiently punitive in its effects as to constitute punishment. In making this determination, courts have used the seven-factor test recited in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 83 S.Ct. 554, 9 L.Ed.2d 644 (1963):

Id., 372 U.S. at 168-169, 83 S.Ct. 567-568 (footnotes omitted). These factors, however, are neither exhaustive nor dispositive; they only provide a framework for the analysis. Doe, 538 U.S. at 97, 123 S.Ct. at 1149. Moreover, while the Supreme Court has not explained the relative weight to be afforded each factor, it has recognized that no one factor is determinative as they "often point in differing directions" and has even cautioned that only the clearest proof will suffice to override legislative intent and transform what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty. Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 100-01, 118 S.Ct. 488, 493-94, 139 L.Ed.2d 450 (1997) (quoting Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 169, 83 S.Ct. 554, 568, 9 L.Ed.2d 644 (1963)); see also, Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 361, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 2082, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997). Ever conscious of these instructions, we examine each factor to ascertain its relevance herein.

Under the first factor, when determining whether a law subjects those within its purview to an "affirmative disability or restraint," Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. at 168, 83 S.Ct. at 567, courts inquire "how the effects of the Act are felt by those subject to it. If the disability or restraint is minor and indirect, its effects are unlikely to be punitive." Doe, 538 U.S. at 99-100, 123 S.Ct. at 1151. Here, the State and defendant dispute to what extent the supervision affirmatively restrains or disables defendant.

On one hand, the State characterizes the supervision imposed by these provisions as minimal and not substantially interfering with an offender's liberties. The State further compares the supervised release provisions to the sex offender registration and notification provisions, La.Rev.Stat. §§ 15:540-542.1.4, see Olivieri, 00-0172 at pp. 24-25, 779 So.2d at 749 (finding provisions enacted with a nonpunitive intent), and the Sex Offender Assessment Panel framework (SOAP), La.Rev.Stat. §§ 15:560-560.4, see State v. Golston, 10-2804, p. 23 (La.7/1/11), 67 So.3d 452, 467 (finding scheme regulatory, rather than criminal, for those sex offenders classified as sexually violent predators or child sexual predators). On the other hand, defendant disputes the State's characterization of the supervision as minimal and emphasizes that, under the conditions imposed on him, he must submit to unannounced searches, his ability to travel is restricted, his choice of residence must be approved, he is prohibited from any contact with his own children, he must obey a curfew, and he may not consume any alcohol. These conditions, he contends, are more restrictive than sex offender registry and notification requirements and that, in contrast with the SOAP framework, he is not afforded an opportunity to assess his degree of rehabilitation or the risk of recidivism.

In the second factor, which in this case is factually intertwined with the first, a court will determine "whether [the sanction] has historically been regarded as punishment." Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. at 168, 83 S.Ct. at 567. As the defendant asserts and the appellate court found, the conditions of release impose a type of supervision that is traditionally viewed as punitive and mirror the conditions imposed on probationers, parolees, and persons in home incarceration. See, e.g., Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 874, 107 S.Ct. 3164, 3168, 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987) ("Probation, like incarceration, is `a form of criminal sanction imposed by a court upon an offender after verdict, finding, or plea of guilty.'"). The State, in rebuttal, emphasizes the key differences between probation and supervised release, namely: (1) supervised release is a collateral rather than a direct consequence of a conviction, and (2) a violation of such release is punishable as a criminal offense on its own, not as an offshoot of the original conviction. However, under similar circumstances, one court found "the fact that the [Indiana Sex Offender Registration Act's] reporting provisions are comparable to supervised probation or parole standing alone supports a conclusion that the second Mendoza-Martinez factor favors treating the effects of the Act as punitive when applied [retroactively]." Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371, 380-381 (Ind.2009). Thus, the first two Mendoza-Martinez factors would suggest the effect of the supervision provisions is punitive.

Under the third factor, courts consider "whether [the statute] comes into play only on a finding of scienter." Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. at 168, 83 S.Ct. at 567. If a sanction is not linked to a showing of mens rea, it is less likely to be intended as punishment. Here, the supervision provisions apply to any person convicted, on or after the effective date of the act, of a sex offense as defined in La.Rev.Stat. § 15:541.6 However, because the supervision requirements are premised upon the previous commission of a serious felony offense necessarily incorporating the element of scienter, the scienter test is generally downplayed by courts when evaluating sex offender regulations. See, e.g., Doe v. Bredesen, 507 F.3d 998, 1007 (6th Cir.2007) ("whether the Acts came into play only upon a finding of scienter — [is] not particularly germane [and does] not alter the conclusion that the effects of the Registration Act and Monitoring Act are not so punitive as to negate the State's clearly expressed intent to create a civil regulatory scheme"), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 921, 129 S.Ct. 287, 172 L.Ed.2d 210 (2008). Therefore, this factor is of little value in the present case.

The fourth factor questions "whether [the statute's] operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment — retribution and deterrence." Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. at 168, 83 S.Ct. at 567. Courts have found that some deterrent effect does not negate the overall remedial and regulatory nature of an act and deterrence can serve both criminal and civil goals. See, e.g., Hatton v. Bonner, 356 F.3d 955, 965 (9th Cir.2004); see also, United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 292, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 2149, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996) ("Congress may impose both a criminal and a civil sanction in respect to the same act or omission"). As the Supreme Court has often cautioned, "[t]o hold that the mere presence of a deterrent purpose renders such sanctions `criminal' ... would severely undermine the Government's ability to engage in effective regulation." Hudson, 522 U.S. at 105, 118 S.Ct. at 496; see also Doe, 538 U.S. at 102, 123 S.Ct. at 1152. Moreover, arguably retributive aspects, such as the length of supervision, though directly related to the degree and nature of the offense, have nevertheless been found to be consistent with the regulatory objectives if reasonably related to the danger of recidivism. Id. By imposing conditions of supervision on sex offenders with child victims, the provision herein is specifically designed to reduce the likelihood of future crimes and is, therefore, reasonably related to the danger of recidivism.

Under the fifth factor, courts consider "whether the behavior to which [the statute] applies is already a crime." Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. at 168, 83 S.Ct. at 567. Supervision is imposed by La. Rev. Stat. §§ 15:561 et seq. only on persons convicted of enumerated sex offenses with minor victims. So, this factor, like the third, is of little weight in this case because, as the Doe court noted: "The regulatory scheme applies only to past conduct, which was, and is, a crime. This is a necessary beginning point, for recidivism is the statutory concern. The obligations the statute imposes are ... not predicated upon some present or repeated violation." Doe, 538 U.S. at 105, 123 S.Ct. at 1154.

In the sixth factor, courts ask whether "an alternative purpose to which [the statute] may rationally be connected is assignable for it." Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. at 168-169, 83 S.Ct. at 567. This statement is generally interpreted as an inquiry into whether the statute advances a legitimate regulatory purpose. "The [statute's] rational connection to a nonpunitive purpose is a `[m]ost significant' factor in our determination that the statute's effects are not punitive." Doe, 538 U.S. at 102, 123 S.Ct. at 1152 (quoting United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 290, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 2148, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996)). Such a connection, however, need only be rational for "[a] statute is not deemed punitive simply because it lacks a close or perfect fit with the nonpunitive aims it seeks to advance." Doe, 538 U.S. at 103, 123 S.Ct. at 1152. The supervision provisions at issue here clearly advance the legitimate nonpunitive purpose of enhancing public safety by providing, as the State contends, a regulatory framework to protect the public from a narrow class of offenders who are at a heightened risk for recidivism if left unsupervised.

Finally, under the seventh factor, courts ask "whether [the statute] appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned." Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. at 169, 83 S.Ct. at 567. This factor often also receives great weight, but the Supreme Court has cautioned this excessiveness inquiry "is not an exercise in determining whether the legislature has made the best choice possible to address the problem it seeks to remedy. The question is whether the regulatory means chosen are reasonable in light of the nonpunitive objective." Doe, 538 U.S. at 105, 123 S.Ct. at 1154. Doe provides strong support to conclude the supervision provisions, like the registration and notification requirements they operate in conjunction with, are reasonably related to the nonpunitive purpose of protecting the public, particularly our most innocent and defenseless citizens, from an elevated rate of recidivism. Moreover, the duration of supervision herein is neither excessive nor unreasonable, especially given that "[e]mpirical research on child molesters, for instance, has shown that, `[c]ontrary to conventional wisdom, most reoffenses do not occur within the first several years after release,' but may occur `as late as 20 years following release.'" Id. (quoting National Institute of Justice, R. Prentky, R. Knight, & A. Lee, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Child Sexual Molestation: Research Issues 14 (1997)).

Thus, with the exception of Mendoza-Martinez's first and second factors, the considerations in the present case appear largely identical to those in Doe. We must, therefore, determine whether the outcome should be different than that in Doe and Olivieri because the Legislature has utilized a form of supervision that is generally considered to be a lenient form of punishment, i.e., whether the punitive aspects constitute the "clearest proof" sufficient to override the statute's nonpunitive purpose. This necessarily entails a weighing of the relevant Mendoza-Martinez factors, and in assigning weights, we find it helpful to compare the provision at issue to electronic monitoring and residency restrictions, which have received some judicial scrutiny from our sister courts.

Although the courts appear somewhat divided on the issue of electronic monitoring, the majority of those who have considered the question have found the application of state statutes requiring electronic location monitoring of sex offenders whose crimes were committed before the statutes' effective dates does not violate ex post facto prohibitions.7 In such cases, of which Doe v. Bredesen is typical, the courts find significant that:

Id., 507 F.3d at 1006.8

Using the framework provided in Smith v. Doe, courts have also generally declined to find the retroactive application of residency restrictions to sex offenders violates prohibitions against ex post facto laws.9 As in the electronic monitoring cases, those courts that have upheld the retroactive application of residency restrictions generally consider the most significant Mendoza-Martinez factor to be a rational connection between the restriction and its nonpunitive purpose:

Doe v. Miller, 405 F.3d 700, 721 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1034, 126 S.Ct. 757, 163 L.Ed.2d 574 (2005).

In accord with this jurisprudence, it is clear the most significant question under the second stage of the intent/effects analysis is whether the law "while perhaps having certain punitive aspects, serve[s] important nonpunitive goals." Russell v. Gregoire, 124 F.3d 1079, 1091 (9th Cir.1997)(quoting United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 290, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 2148, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996)), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1007, 118 S.Ct. 1191, 140 L.Ed.2d 321 (1998). A law serving nonpunitive goals "is not punishment even though it may bear harshly upon one affected," Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 614, 80 S.Ct. 1367, 1374, 4 L.Ed.2d 1435 (1960), and here, there is no doubt La.Rev.Stat. § 15:561.2 has a purpose other than punishing sex offenders. As its findings show, our Legislature rationally concluded that sex offenders present an unusually high risk of recidivism and that registration, notification, and supervision requirements can reduce that risk and thereby protect the public without further "punishing" the offenders. Where there is such a rational connection to a nonpunitive purpose and when the regulatory means are reasonable given the nonpunitive objective, it is not for us to second-guess the Legislature's policy decision as to what measures best effectuate its purpose. Therefore, after weighing all the relevant factors, we find the supervision provisions are not "so punitive in form and effect as to render them criminal despite [the legislature's] intent to the contrary." Ursery, 518 U.S. at 290, 116 S.Ct. at 2148.

Further bolstering this determination, we find the conditions of supervision challenged herein are less harsh than the postincarceration, indefinite involuntary confinement of sex offenders upheld by the Supreme Court in Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 360-69, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 2081-85, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997). In that case, the Court considered, inter alia, whether the retroactive application of the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 59-29a01 et seq. (1994), which established procedures for the civil commitment of persons who, due to a "mental abnormality" or a "personality disorder," are likely to engage in "predatory acts of sexual violence," was prohibited by the Ex Post Facto Clause. Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 360-69, 117 S.Ct. at 2081-85. Applying the intent/effects test, the Hendricks court found the potentially indefinite detention was nonpunitive as it was linked, not to any punitive objective, but "to the stated purposes of the commitment, namely, to hold the person until his mental abnormality no longer caused him to be a threat to others." Id. at 363, 117 S.Ct. at 2083. The Court also emphasized such commitment was "only potentially indefinite" because it was subject to judicial review. Id. at 364, 117 S.Ct. at 2083. Significantly, we note the supervision at issue herein is likewise subject to judicial review and potential termination by the sentencing court upon petition of the offender. See La.Rev. Stat. § 15:561.2(B)("any person ... placed on supervised release ... may petition the sentencing court for termination of the supervision").

Accordingly, given Doe, Hendricks, and the majority of courts that have reviewed sex offender electronic monitoring and residency restrictions, we find the court of appeal erred by placing too much weight on the aspect that the Legislature has resorted to supervision, which is traditionally a lenient form of punishment, and too little weight on the strength of the connection between the supervision provisions and the Legislature's stated goals. The appellate court's focus was strictly on the punitive aspects of supervision, and not on the important nonpunitive goals served thereby, namely the protection of the public, particularly "our most innocent and defenseless citizens," from the risk of recidivism. However, the statistically-proven high rate of recidivism in sex offenders with minor victims and the legitimate regulatory purpose advanced by supervision — to protect the public from this danger by working in conjunction with registration and notification requirements — far outweigh the punitive aspects of the challenged provisions. In light of the rational connection to these legitimate, nonpunitive objectives, we find the punitive aspects, which the appellate court narrowly focused upon, are not sufficient to constitute "the clearest proof [necessary] to override legislative intent and transform what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty." Doe, 538 U.S. at 92, 123 S.Ct. at 1147. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeal's judgment and reinstate the judgment of the district court.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we find the appellate court placed disproportionate value under the Mendoza-Martinez framework on the punitive aspects of supervision, which is traditionally considered to be a lenient form of punishment, and insufficient value on the rational link between the enactment at issue and the Legislature's stated goal of protecting the public from the high risk of recidivism. After scrutinizing the challenged supervisory provisions as directed by the Supreme Court in Doe, we find the nonpunitive regulatory goals of public protection far outweigh the punitive aspects of supervision enacted to address the dangers of recidivism. Therefore, we find the provisions at issue here are predominantly nonpunitive in both intent and effect, and their retroactive application to this defendant does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of either the United States or Louisiana Constitutions. Accordingly, after converting this appeal to an application for supervisory writ, we grant the State's writ, reverse the judgment of the court of appeal, and reinstate the district court's judgment.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we hereby grant the State's application for supervisory writ, reverse the judgment of the court of appeal, and reinstate the district court's judgment.

WRIT GRANTED; JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL REVERSED; JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT REINSTATED.