"Nothing, nothing is more important than keeping our children safe," New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch said during his State of the State speech this year. "It's time to send a clear message: If you prey on our children in New Hampshire, we're going to send you to prison — and we're going to keep you there for a long time."

That sort of pronouncement can be counted on to produce enthusiastic applause — lawmakers gave Lynch a standing ovation — but legislators who are committed to writing good law would be better off sitting on their hands and asking a question: What sort of sexual offender are we demanding be locked up for a long time? An older child who has been a victim of abuse himself? An adult whom therapists believe could be successfully treated during incarceration and monitored after release? An adult who preyed on a family member and whose victim has good reason for opposing a long sentence?

The recent series of articles in the Valley News about sex crimes made clear that those sorts of offenders are more likely to find themselves before a judge for sentencing than the type that dominates the public imagination — the lurking stranger with uncontrollable impulses. Unfortunately, some sexual predators do fit the stereotype, and harsh sentences that punish them for their horrid crimes and protect the public are certainly in order. But nonetheless, as yesterday's editorial pointed out, even valid generalizations that can be drawn about sex crimes do not necessarily tell us anything about a particular sex offense, its perpetrator or its victim.

Lawmakers can count on scoring easy points by demanding harsher sentencing — a position most easily and dangerously advanced by insisting on mandatory minimum sentences. But those who seek justice — for victims, perpetrators and society — will instead insist on maximum flexibility. Sentencing ranges should give judges the option of imposing long prison terms on offenders who pose a grave public threat and are evaluated to be at high risk of reoffending. But judges also should have the latitude to hand down sentences that hold open the possibility of early release and monitoring after an offender has received treatment and an appropriate punishment.

Legislators in both New Hampshire and Vermont are now deciding how to respond to their governors' calls for changing how the states deal with sex crimes. Fortunately, neither governor has included a mandatory minimum component in his package of proposals. But that approach is not completely off the table. Lynch has proposed giving prosecutors the discretion to seek a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years. That at least addresses the practical concern of allowing prosecutors to seek a plea bargain when trials might traumatize victims or hold little chance of securing a conviction, but it also might put political pressure on prosecutors to ignore those factors and seek the harsher sentences. In Vermont, the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday debated adopting something along the lines of Florida's "Jessica's Law," which mandates at least 25 years for child molesters. Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas has indicated he would sign legislation that included mandatory minimums.

The Judiciary Committee debate demonstrated the political dynamic that pushes elected officials to embrace bad policy. While law enforcement officials and victims' advocates warned that mandatory minimums are likely to produce fewer convictions and more traumatized victims, supporters of that sentencing approach presented a petition signed by 2,000 state residents that demonstrated "what people really want," in the words of Sen. George Coppenrath, R-West Barnet. Which is easier to sell to anxious voters — a simple demand for punishment that responds to people's justifiable outrage, or a more nuanced policy that accounts for the fact that harsh punishment doesn't always serve victims and society at large?

Completely eliminating sex crime is not a realistic goal. Minimizing its occurrence through appropriate sentencing — treatment for those who can benefit from it; long incarceration for those who can't or who refuse it — is. But it's possible only if elected officials take the trouble to educate themselves and the voters about this issue, and take the risk of distinguishing what's right from what's merely popular.