Politicians who value sound bites over sound policy are now urging lawmakers in New Hampshire and Vermont to address sexual abuse with get-tough postures instead of thoughtful solutions. If legislators yield to the pressure, they will squander an opportunity to make the Twin States leaders — instead of lockstep followers — in a debate that is sweeping the nation.

Thus far, lawmakers have shown restraint and reason in tackling the emotionally charged issue of sex crimes. The Vermont and New Hampshire Houses each rejected calls for widespread mandatory minimum sentences. They did so after hearing warnings from leading prosecutors and victims' advocates that such sentences can actually cause victims more pain, by thwarting the plea bargains that yield convictions without putting victims through public trials.

As the proposed laws make their way toward debate in state senates, however, some leaders are renewing their drumbeat for a one-size-fits-all solution. In Concord, Gov. John Lynch and Attorney General Kelly Ayotte urged lawmakers to reinstate potential mandatory 25-year sentences for first-time offenders in the most serious cases. "The harm that sexual predators do to their young victims stays with these children the rest of their lives," said Lynch. "The punishment that sexual predators face should be commensurate with their crimes and the lasting damage that they inflict."

In Vermont, Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie pitched senators on "10 action steps to protect Vermont's children," including a Vermont-style "Jessica's Law" featuring mandatory minimum sentences (and named for a 9-year-old girl who was raped and murdered last year in Florida). Said Dubie, "We need laws in our corrections system that separate those that we're mad at and those that we're afraid of."

Such talk comes, perhaps not coincidentally, from ambitious politicians. Their words appeal to fears about strangers lurking in our neighborhoods, ready to prey on children until they are locked away for a long, long time. The rhetoric does not, however, do justice to the facts.

The facts show that nearly all sex offenders in Vermont and New Hampshire are not strangers to their victims, but are instead relatives, neighbors and friends. While rigid minimum sentences hold political appeal, most victims in such cases want judges to have the flexibility to impose a mix of punishment and rehabilitation that gets offenders back home and onto the right path.

The facts show that while harsh sentences may be appropriate for the small group of hard-core criminals, the majority of offenders benefit from treatment programs that aim to reintegrate them into families, neighborhoods and workplaces. A study of Vermont offenders who underwent treatment, for instance, found that 5 percent committed new sex crimes after being released from prison. Even as some politicians strive to lock offenders away for longer periods, however, they say precious little about what to do with them once they return — as most do — to society.

The facts show that an alarming number of sex offenses are committed by juveniles. The good news is that young offenders respond particularly well to treatment. The bad news is that Lynch, Ayotte, Dubie and the like have devoted little energy in this debate to finding ways to help misguided youths before they become hardened adult offenders.

Political leaders in New Hampshire and Vermont stand at a crossroads. They can pander to fear and pad their political resumes with laws that yield sound bites but few real solutions. Or they can continue to pursue a responsible course, crafting laws that do justice to the complex challenge of sexual abuse — and to the people who live with its consequences.