If the state has learned anything from its online sex offender registry debacle, it is that putting a lot of personal information on the Internet without thinking of the consequences is an invitation to litigation, or worse. That’s why it was smart to slow down the process for making information about prisoners and those on probation more readily available.

The Department of Corrections has for some time been considering an online database of prisoners and those on probation. The intent was to help police more readily determine the probation status of suspects and to let crime victims see if perpetrators are incarcerated.

While these are worthy goals, many questions remain to be answered before the department can proceed. How those questions are answered will also help determine how much information is available to the public and how it should be accessed.

Last year, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court raised significant questions about the state’s sex offender registry and suggested it may be unconstitutional. The court was especially concerned about changes made in recent years to require Internet posting of personal information about all sex offenders convicted since 1982.

The Internet posting of information about all convicted sex offenders has 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 court said.

To begin to fix this, the Legislature passed a bill that set 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. Because of concerns that hundreds of offenders may no longer have had to register, Gov. John Baldacci pocket vetoed the legislation.

Creating a tiered system, which the Criminal Justice Committee is now considering 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 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.

A similar system may be appropriate for the state’s probation database. This information should be readily available to law enforcement officials, but it is unclear that the general public (everywhere in the world) needs access to information about every Maine person on probation. Lawmakers must also consider what public benefit is served by making information about the state’s 2,000 prisoners and 8,000 former inmates on probation available online.

They may find there are better ways to get those benefits without compromising personal rights.