State to try to revive
Sex Offender RegistryThe attorney general says he
will propose two amendments
to the state Constitution
State Attorney General Mark Bennett said he plans to seek voter approval next year for two amendments to the state Constitution: one to resurrect the state Sex Offender Registry Web site and another to maintain the confidentiality of victims' conversations with counselors.
Bennett said he will submit both proposals to state lawmakers when the Legislature convenes next month. Lawmakers must approve constitutional amendment proposals before they can be placed on the ballot.
State Public Defender Jack Tonaki said Hawaii voters are already being asked too many constitutional questions.
"Every year, we're getting bombarded with these requests to amend the Constitution every time law enforcement gets an unfavorable court ruling," Tonaki said. "Changing it piecemeal threatens the integrity of the document."
The state Criminal Justice Data Center was forced to shut down the Sex Offender Registry Web site in November 2001 after the Hawaii Supreme Court found the state law that established the site was unconstitutional.
The site provided the names of streets where convicted sex offenders live and work, their mug shots, types of crimes they committed and information about their vehicles.
The justices ruled that making personal information about convicted sex offenders public without first affording them a hearing to determine their danger to the community violated their right to due process.
"We currently have a backlog of 1,900 convicted sex offenders who have to get a hearing," Bennett said.
Bennett wants voters to give the Legislature the authority to make the information available to the public without a hearing.
Tonaki called the proposal an overreaction. He said some sex offenders could pose a danger to the public, but "not all these people fall into this."
Bennett's other proposal is in response to a February state Supreme Court ruling in a case of a man convicted of third-degree sexual assault of his 13-year-old hanai daughter.
Court rules protect communications between domestic violence or sexual assault counselors and victims from being disclosed. But the high court ruled that in this case, the man's U.S. constitutional right to cross-examine witnesses against him outweighed the victim's privileged communication.
The justices ruled that the trial judge should have allowed the man's lawyer to question the girl whether she had recanted her accusation against her hanai father in a conversation with her counselor, because the defense had shown there was a need for the information, the information was material to the case and there was no other way of obtaining the information.
"If a victim doesn't believe that what they tell a counselor is going to remain confidential, they simply aren't going to say the same things," Bennett said.
Tonaki said defendants could face real injustices if they are not able to question accusers who, as in this case, made statements calling their credibility into question.
"Many of these cases involve foster children who at times fabricate accusations against their step- or foster parents for a variety of reasons," Tonaki said.