[ STATE CONSTITUTION ]

OK could restore
sex offender Web site

» Proposed amendments

Voters in the Nov. 2 general election will be voting on constitutional amendments that law enforcement and victim advocates say put the victim first.

Defense attorneys oppose the amendments, arguing that they further erode a defendant's constitutional rights.

The most controversial so far are the amendments dealing with the release of sex offender information and a third way for prosecutors to bring felony charges.

If question No. 2 passes, the public would once again have access to personal information about convicted sex offenders.

The Legislature had passed a law earlier making this information available to the public on a state-run Web site after President Bill Clinton signed a federal law in 1996 allowing the states to pass such legislation.

But the state Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that Hawaii's sex offender registration law was unconstitutional, and disbanded the site. The court said every offender must be afforded a hearing to show they are not a threat to the community before their personal information can be made public.

There are more than 1,900 sexual offenders in the state. Of the 109 petitions the state has prepared so far, about 21 defendants have had hearings. The courts have ordered the release of personal information for all but one of the 21 defendants, said Deputy Prosecutor Rowena Somerville, who represents the state at these hearings. The remaining case is pending.

If the amendment passes, Somerville said prosecutors hope the hearings process will be more streamlined and place the sex offenders back on the registry as before.

Question No. 4 would give prosecutors an alternate method of bringing felony charges via a written document supported by witness statements and other documentary evidence. Currently, defendants have the right to a preliminary hearing where they can question their accusers or to have a grand jury decide whether there is probable cause to charge them.

Question No. 1 would make it possible for jurors to find someone guilty of "continuous sexual assault" if they can agree the defendant sexually assaulted a child at least three times during a specific period, even if they cannot agree on which three.

Question No. 3 would allow the Legislature to pass laws making communications between a crime victim and the victim's doctor or licensed health professional inadmissible in court.

Chief state public defender Jack Tonaki said all except the information-charging amendment are responses to state Supreme Court rulings overturning convictions based on the state Constitution.

"The government set up the rules and the Constitution in the first place, and then when the Supreme Court rules that the government doesn't like, the thinking is, 'Let's change the rules of the game,'" he said. "It gives me great problems, but there's a reason the Supreme Court comes out with these rulings."

Each amendment will pass only if more than 50 percent of the total votes are "yes" votes. A blank vote is a "no" vote.

---

BACK TO TOP
|

Proposed amendments to
the State Constitution

1. Shall the Constitution of the State of Hawaii be amended to provide that the Legislature may define what behavior constitutes a continuing course of conduct in sexual assault crimes? (HB 2789, HD1, SD1)

2. Shall the Constitution of the State of Hawaii be amended to provide that the public has a right of access to registration information regarding persons convicted of certain offenses against children and persons convicted of certain sexual offenses, and that the Legislature shall determine which offenses are subject to this provision, what information constitutes registration information to which the public has a right of access, the manner of public access to the registration information, and a period of time after which and conditions pursuant to which a convicted person may petition for termination of public access? (SB 2843, SD1, HD2)

3. Shall the Constitution of the State of Hawaii be amended to permit the Legislature to provide by law for the inadmissibility of privileged confidential communications between an alleged crime victim and the alleged crime victim's physician, psychologist, counselor or licensed mental health professional? (SB 2846, SD1, HD2)

4. Shall Hawaii's constitutional provision regarding the initiation of criminal charges be amended to permit criminal charges for felonies to be initiated by a legal prosecuting officer through the filing of a signed, written information setting forth the charge in accordance with procedures and conditions to be provided by the state Legislature? (SB 2851, SD1)