Posted on: Wednesday, May 12, 2004

EDITORIAL
Wider police powers need careful balancing

Hawai'i voters in November will be asked to approve a number of constitutional amendments to toughen law enforcement.

Be warned that at least two seemingly innocent proposed amendments would — for better or worse — change the existing system of checks and balances within the judicial process, a quality that ranks the American justice system the best in the world.

One ballot question asks voters to approve a change to the Constitution that would give the Hawai'i Legislature the authority to decide who would be put on an electronic list of sex offenders available to the public under "Megan's Law."

The other allows the court to order a defendant to stand trial on certain felony charges based on reports and statements from police and/or prosecutors, also known as "information charging." Currently, defendants stand trial on felony charges only if a judge at a preliminary hearing or a grand jury returns an indictment that finds the defendant probably committed the crime.

Law-enforcement officials argue public safety would be enhanced if they can give the public information on everyone who's ever been convicted of a sex offense. And they say the ability to send felony suspects to trial based on written police reports will speed up the judicial process and protect the interests of victims without damaging the rights of suspects.

We understand their frustrations. Due process is costly and cumbersome. But it's also necessary.

In the case of the sex offender list, we've said it twice and we'll say it again, the Legislature is not the appropriate body to determine who should be placed on the public sex offender list.

The list was struck down in the first place because the Hawai'i Supreme Court called for a hearing process that gives a convicted sex offender "a meaningful opportunity to argue that he or she does not represent a threat to the community ... "

We fail to see how giving lawmakers that oversight meets the high court's constitutional concerns. Each case has its unique circumstances that should be dealt with by a judge, or hearings officer, in real time with all the facts on the table.

Whether it is publicizing the names of sex offenders or charging people with criminal offenses, we believe the process of adversarial scrutiny adds to the credibility of our criminal justice system.

Thus, in the debate that will lead up to the November election, voters must be aware that these two constitutional changes have ramifications far beyond the obvious.