EDITORIAL
Sex offender posting should be up to court
It will take a hefty dose of political courage for state lawmakers to strike the right balance on a sex offender registration plan now moving through the political process.
The bill is in response to an amendment to the state Constitution approved by the voters last fall. This amendment, a response to a Hawai'i Supreme Court decision, leaves up to the Legislature the decision on which sex offenders should be listed on a state-managed Internet site and how much information should be provided.
The Supreme Court threw out a previous law that automatically put the names and other personal information about offenders on the Internet site. The justices said the offenders should be given a court hearing before they are listed, a requirement law enforcement officials say is onerous.
But it doesn't have to be.
Some sort of hearing before listing someone makes sense. Every case involves its own set of circumstances.
One of the most frequent arguments in favor of disclosure of sex offender information (the most far-reaching proposal would include photographs, home and work addresses, car license information and more) is that sex offenders are more likely than most criminals to re-offend.
But as Capitol Bureau reporter Derrick DePledge reported yesterday, that does not appear to be the case, at least on a statistical basis. Felony sex offenders have a lower "recidivism" rate, in terms of conviction, than other types of criminals.
This may be in part due to stepped-up treatment. It also may be that this is a difficult crime to prosecute.
Still, by the numbers, there is less reason to assume a sex offender will repeat than others who have done time for, say, property crimes or assault.
It's now up to the Legislature. A sensible plan would mandate automatic public posting only for the more serious offenders, as determined by the courts, not by legislative fiat.
In other cases, if law enforcement believes posting is warranted, this should happen only after a court hearing.
