It is impossible to predict what will happen to the sex-crime bills now before the New Hampshire and Vermont senates, but let us applaud House members in both states for resisting the political temptation to respond to this difficult issue with simplistic demands for getting tough on offenders. It's not that perpetrators shouldn't be punished for their horrible crimes, But meting out harsh punishment alone is no victory if it doesn't serve the interests of victims or increase public safety.

In New Hampshire this past week, House members overwhelmingly rejected Gov. John Lynch's proposal to give prosecutors the option of seeking mandatory-minimum sentences for sexual assaults of children under 13. As the Valley News' recent series on sex offenders made clear, mandatory minimums offer a convenient way for elected officials to demonstrate a get-tough attitude toward sex offenders, but they also have unintended consequences. They straitjacket judges into imposing sentences that may contravene the wishes of victims, who often are family members of perpetrators. They also make it impossible to account for varying circumstances and backgrounds of offenders, sometimes precluding the possibility that sentences can be tailored in a way that adequately punishes them, provides them effective treatment and allows for sufficient monitoring after their release. Lynch's mandatory-minimum proposal was not as bad as some because it left the decision to pursue that type of sentence up to prosecutors, but it's difficult to predict how much discretion they actually would have had. The political pressure to be as punitive as possible can be overwhelming — for politicians, prosecutors and judges.

No one should accuse the New Hampshire House members of leniency as a result of this decision. They rejected mandatory minimums, but they did increase the minimum sentences from 10 to 25 years that judges can impose for sexual assaults on children, and left open the possibility of mandatory life sentences for some repeat offenders. That follows a pattern established by the Vermont House, which voted to allow for tougher sentencing of sex crimes, but rejected calls for mandatory minimums.

More recently, Vermont legislators heard testimony on a measure that won't necessarily provide fodder for catchy political rhetoric but should provide an effective tool for dealing with sex offenders. A bill passed by the House and now before the Senate would allow courts to seek evaluations of sex offenders before sentencing. Those assessments could provide judges with information about the offenders' sexual history, psychological state and risk of reoffending. That information holds enormous potential for allowing judges to tailor sentences so they accomplish what they're supposed to: appropriately punish criminals but also determine what sort of treatment is needed to protect the public when offenders are released from prison, as most eventually are.

Make no mistake, expanded use of pre-sentencing evaluations would be costly: The corrections department would need to hire more staff to conduct the evaluations, more probation officers might be needed and the public defender's office might require additional money to gather its own expert opinion. But to the extent that it would remove some of the guesswork that judges now complain hampers sentencing decisions, it would be money well spent.

"Spend more money and retain sentencing flexibility!" is not a slogan that's likely to do as well as "Lock 'em up and throw away the key!" But it is a far more sensible approach that is likely to better serve victims and the larger public. It's encouraging to see legislators in both states not afraid to put good policy ahead of political pandering.