It’s a natural reaction to not want a sex offender living in your neighborhood, but since they cannot all be banished to a deserted island or locked up forever, a coherent state policy that directs offenders to where they will get the most supervision, support and treatment makes the most sense. Doing this on a statewide basis will alleviate many of the problems created by towns developing their own piecemeal rules.

State lawmakers will soon begin considering more than three dozen bills dealing with sex offenders. A frequent theme is keeping sex offenders away from children, usually by restricting where they can live.

Offenders subject to probation, which can be imposed for the rest of their lives, can have restrictions on their living arrangements or 24-hour electronic monitoring imposed by judges in Maine. Some communities don’t feel this is adequate.

Last month, Lincoln town councilors passed an ordinance forbidding sex offenders from living within 1,500 feet of schools, state-licensed day care or preschool centers or within 1,000 feet of libraries, public parks, movie theaters or public playgrounds. The ordinance also creates an additional 1,000-foot boundary around these places in which offenders cannot loiter or stay except as part of “legitimate activity.” Lyman and Waterboro, in southern Maine, have passed similar ordinances and Millinocket considered one.

As Sen. Bill Diamond, chair of the Criminal Justice Committee, notes if the Legislature doesn’t act, more towns will pass ordinances, resulting in a confusing patchwork of rules. State lawmakers, however, should remain skeptical that such restrictions will help, and should focus more on ensuring that offenders have access to the counseling and other services they need.

Two bills would bar sex offenders from living in small towns without their own police departments. Studies have found that offenders with a system of supervision and support and jobs were less likely to commit future crimes. That supervision and support often comes from family and close friends, who are usually in an offender’s hometown, whether it is large or small.

Restrictions also make it difficult for state and local officials to find housing for sex offenders. Maine briefly paid $1,000 a month to rent a recreational vehicle for a sex offender and his wife after several York County towns fought to keep him out of their communities. Housing restrictions, which 18 states have, lead to a false sense of security while often driving offenders underground where they cannot be monitored.

Lawmakers are also likely to consider creation of a board of experts to review the cases of sex offenders who are thought to pose the most risk if they are released from jail. These so-called high-risk offenders, which the Corrections Department estimates number 20 to 25 inmates who are currently incarcerated, could be held in jail or psychiatric facilities after completing their court-ordered jail terms.

According to the Department of Justice, 93 percent of child sexual abuse victims knew their abuser with most crimes happening in the home of the child, a relative, a neighbor or a friend.

Banning offenders from some areas or keeping them in custody may sound tough, but lawmakers would do better to examine whether existing restrictions, such as lifetime probation is effective and if counseling and other services are readily available statewide.