Maine's sex offender registry is a publicly available list of those convicted of a sex crime since 1982. Most of the listings contain home addresses. Sex offenders are required to register for 10 years or for life, depending on the seriousness of their crime. According to state officials, about 3,000 people are on the list at any given time.

Since the murder of two Maine men in April 2006 by a Canadian citizen who chose his victims' names at random from the list, state lawmakers have talked about whether all those whose names appear on the list merit the public shame and loss of privacy.

Should someone who committed a relatively minor crime -- a flasher, perhaps -- be forced to wear the metaphorical scarlet letter of inclusion on the list? Should someone who committed a sex offense 25 years ago -- but who has been law-abiding and a pillar of the community since then -- remain on the list?

The question became more than just theoretical after the state's highest court ruled last year that the law requiring registration for a substantial subset of offenders might be unconstitutional. A number of other cases are pending challenging the registry's constitutionality.

The court case that prompted the legislative review questioned the legitimacy of a recently passed provision that required those who committed sex crimes between 1982 and 1992 to register - - even though the registry didn't exist during that time period. Offenders who committed their crimes during that decade complained that by changing the registry requirement after the fact, they were being denied due process.

In response, the Legislature's Criminal Justice Committee went into high gear this session.

Lawmakers held public hearings and crafted a bill that would narrow down the scope of the list. Almost 600 names would be taken off the registry under the proposed legislation, including many of those whose crimes occurred between 1982 and 1992. The bill was passed, with hardly a murmur, by the Legislature.

"It's an attempt to clean up and fix, and make more efficient and fair, our current registry," said Sen Bill Diamond, D-Cumberland, chairman of the Criminal Justice Committee.

But when the legislation went to Gov. John Baldacci, he declined to sign it into law.

"I have no doubt that there are people on the registry who shouldn't be required to register because they no longer pose a risk to public safety," said Baldacci last week. "But until we have a better system to judge who those people are, we should continue with our current law."

We agree. While we believe that it's important to make the punishment fit the crime, and it's clear that there are people on the list for whom registration should not be required, the line between who's on and who's off the list is not one easily drawn.

With his pocket veto of the bill, Baldacci asked lawmakers to reconsider their approach to refining the registration requirements. Criminal Justice Committee members were already scheduled to reconvene this summer to investigate the issues related to sex offender registration; this review fits squarely within their agenda.

With more deliberation, we believe the committee should be able to strike a better balance among justice, public safety and the requirements of the Constitution.