honoluluadvertiser.com

Sponsored by:

Comment, blog & share photos

Log in | Become a member
The Honolulu Advertiser

Posted on: Monday, May 13, 2002

EDITORIAL
Sex offender law is better but untested

State lawmakers made valuable and forward-looking improvements this year to a sex offender law that — in its older version — had been struck down by the Hawai'i Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

While the new law does a much better job of balancing competing interests, it is still an open question whether it tilts too far against the civil rights of persons who have been convicted for sex offenses.

Whether the correct balance has been struck will be tested in the actual application of the law. The background:

In 1995, the Legislature created a law that required the registration of all known sex offenders as well as the public posting of that list. Eventually, citizens were able to go to the Internet and learn whether any of their neighbors, co-workers or acquaintances were sex offenders.

Civil liberties advocates said the law went too far, since everyone convicted of any sex offense, even the most minor, would forever have their name, address, photo and other personal information posted publicly.

The Hawai'i Supreme Court did not throw out the entire concept, but said it violated a sex offender's right to due process since the information was posted without any kind of hearing. Under the new version, an offender will have a right to go before a court and argue that his information should not be posted since he is not a danger to the public.

There is a great deal of sociological argument about whether a sex offender remains forever dangerous, even after prison or treatment. And certainly, no one would be comfortable with the thought that a former sex offender was living unidentified next door.

But clearly, not every person arrested on a sex offense offends again. Should he be subject to a lifetime of additional "punishment" through this public posting process?

And as a matter of equal protection, is it fair to publicly brand one kind of offender for life while not doing the same for others, up to and including murderers?

Now there will be a process of a court to balance these equities under a straightforward due process setting.

Lawmakers must monitor the effects of this law as it moves forward. If it turns into a rubber-stamp exercise in which everyone gets posted on the Internet, then the purpose of this year's changes will have been defeated. What we are looking for is a balance of public safety and civil liberties.