EDITORIAL
Sex offender list could use refining

Top law-enforcement officials are furious that the House version of a bill that was supposed to reinstate public access to a list of Hawai'i's registered sex offenders asks for the same due-process protections that the Hawai'i Supreme Court required when it struck down the state's "Megan's law."

The high court ruled that sex offenders must be given a hearing to determine if they belong on the public registry.

And naturally, the decision worried those who want to know ASAP when a sex offender moves into their neighborhood.

But you have to admit, there's a difference between someone who fondles a stranger, and a rapist or pedophile. This example is not flippant or arbitrary. In its decision, the high court was responding to an appeal from a man who had pleaded no contest to pinching a young woman on the street in Waikiki and didn't want his name, photo and address on the register.

Presumably, a hearing would separate the petty gropers and promiscuous teenagers from the serious sex offenders. Putting them all on the same list would certainly be hanging a scarlet letter on some who may not deserve it.

The Senate version of the bill proposes a constitutional amendment giving the public access to information about sex offenders, but allowing the Legislature to decide who would be on that list.

The House version says making the decision of who's dangerous should be on a case-by-case basis and left to the courts. We agree. Justice is not one-size-fits-all, and the court is better suited to make that call.

That said, we wouldn't want the hearing process to become a means to obstruct the reinstatement of a sex offender registry. It gives people comfort to know they can check if their neighbors are sexual predators. Of course, there are other ways to gain that information, such as a court records search.

We'd rather have a credible registry that passes constitutional muster than criminal justice system flypaper.