EDITORIAL
Sex offenders registry must be used wisely

It's easy to understand the emotionally charged rationale behind the decision to publish names of convicted sex offenders on a list available to all on the Internet. No one would argue with the need to protect children and other vulnerable members of society from sexual predation.

There's no question that there is value in having a list on the Web of convicted sex offenders so that people can take precautions. The first-day flood of about 125,000 hits on the site signals the feverish interest in the issue.

What's most important now is that the community use the information responsibly and wisely. Armed with similar information, communities elsewhere in the country have hounded offenders so relentlessly that they are unable to settle in any neighborhood or even to hold down a job.

That's even more worrisome because Hawai'i's new law essentially eliminated safeguards that provided a hearing before convicted felons who served their time are placed on the list. Such precautions are important because once on this list, which includes names, photos, home addresses and work streets, offenders often find it difficult to make a fresh start.

The registry was created in 1997 and was published on a state Web site three years later. The state shut it down in November 2001 after the state Supreme Court ruled that offenders must first be given the opportunity to have a hearing. A constitutional amendment, ratified by voters in November, unfortunately allowed lawmakers to delete the hearing requirement, resulting in the new law.

The name of anyone convicted of at least an aggravated class C felony is posted online for a minimum 10 years before he or she can petition for removal. For example, someone found guilty of sexual contact — inappropriate touching — with a child under 14 would remain on the list for a decade after release from prison. That's twice as long as the jail term itself.

Surely a registry for the more egregious offenders makes sense. Few would object that those guilty of heinous sexual crimes would be tracked for a long time, even up to the maximum of 40 years. The need to safeguard children from offenders known to have lured victims in their own neighborhoods is a paramount public interest. And state attorneys assert that the new law has made allowances for offenders to reclaim a place in society.

It seems clear, however, that a more effective safeguard would have been to review their cases before names go on a list. Once you're on the registry, the information is out there and not easily rescinded. With a hearing, individual circumstances could have been taken into consideration. A hearing could have balanced fairness with prudence, without sacrificing public safety.

Indeed, the public's right to know is something we cherish as a society. The responsibility to use that information in a reasoned fashion now lies with us.