REGISTRY REDO

A veto from Gov. John Baldacci gives lawmakers time to more precisely remedy problems with the state’s sex offender registry. Such fixes are needed to ensure that the registry passed constitutional challenges.

Last week, Gov. Baldacci declined to sign LD 446, a move known as a pocket veto. The bill would have limited the circumstances when sexual offenders who were convicted of a crime between 1983 and 1992 would be included in the registry. The change was meant to address concerns that the registration law retroactively increased an offender’s punishment.

According to the state Department of Public Safety, up to 580 offenders would have been taken off the list if LD 446 had become law. Gov. Baldacci considered it unacceptable that with less scrutiny one or more of these offenders might commit another crime.

Last year, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court raised significant questions about the state’s sex offender registry. The court was especially concerned about changes made in recent years to require Internet posting of personal information about offenders, to restrict where offenders can live, and to require fingerprinting every 90 days for offenders convicted since 1982. The case was brought by a man who said the registry violated his rights by imposing punishment that did not exist when he pleaded guilty in the 1980s to a crime against a family member.

The changes, especially the Internet posting of information about all convicted sex offenders, have made the law significantly more punitive and intrusive, changing the nature of the sanctions from civil penalties to a retroactive increase in criminal penalties. The justices suggested this retroactive increase violates the Maine Constitution. The court said it needed more information before ruling on the merits of the case and sent it back to Kennebec County Superior Court, where it remains pending.

Lawmakers rightly are concerned that the state will face more such lawsuits without changes to the registry. LD 446 attempted to do this by setting up criteria for evaluating if offenders convicted between 1982 and 1992 – the group added retroactively to the registry requirements – must continue to register. The bill attempted to make distinctions between those at low and high risk of reoffending.

Creating a tiered system, which the Criminal Justice Committee will now consider and which federal law will soon require, is likely a better way to address this concern. Those most likely to commit another sexual crime would be in a top tier, which would include the current Internet posting of information. Information about the lowest-risk offenders would be provided to law enforcement officials who would decide whether and how to share this information with the public.

Such a system, with only limited Internet postings and an opportunity for offenders to prove they should be removed from the list, could return the registry to its original purpose of tracking and public notification, without the unnecessary negative – and likely unconstitutional – consequences.