In State ex rel. Flowers v. DHSS, 81 Wis. 2d 376, 260 N.W.2d 727 (1978), the Court determined that "the ends of parole revocation are ... distinct from the punitive functions of the criminal law." Id. at 385 (holding that initiating parole revocation proceedings after an acquittal in a criminal trial does not implicate double jeopardy concerns). Revocation proceedings, unlike criminal trials, are not concerned with retribution. See id. A revocation determination requires a balancing of the safety of the general public with the rehabilitative needs of the parolee. See id. In describing the differences between revocation proceedings and criminal trials, the court stated: "Thus revocation does not require a judicial hearing; the rules of evidence need not be strictly adhered to; and the privilege against self-incrimination does not prevent consideration of inculpatory statements or a parolee's refusal to answer questions. These distinctions reflect substantial differences between the interests involved in parole revocation and those in a criminal prosecution." Id. at 384 . In Flowers, the court noted that for issue preclusion to apply, "the second proceeding 'must involve ... the same bundle of legal principles that contributed to the rendering of the first judgment.'" Id. at 387 . Finally, the court held that the "bundle of legal principles" was not the same in a revocation proceeding and a criminal trial because the burdens of proof differ.