At the beginning of this year's legislative season, New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch and Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas called on lawmakers to pass laws that reacted to the complex problem of sex crimes with simplistic — and shamelessly political — solutions.

To their credit, lawmakers took a higher road. In New Hampshire and — to a greater degree — Vermont, legislators crafted laws that combine toughness with thoughtfulness. While we don't agree with every element, we applaud bills that should move both states forward on a difficult issue.

Although statistics show that most sex crime rates are falling instead of rising, some heinous and high-profile cases have prompted states to pass tougher laws aimed at those who prey on children. That push arrived in the Twin States in a familiar form, with a call for mandatory minimum sentences.

Lynch argued strongly for the mandatory terms, while Douglas took a lower profile but said he would support them. However, Windsor County State's Attorney Robert Sand and other experienced prosecutors countered that mandatory terms could eliminate the flexibility needed to win convictions through plea bargains and to set sentences that fit the circumstances of individual crimes.

We would have preferred that both states reject mandatory sentences altogether, giving judges and prosecutors the ability to make intelligent choices based on the evidence and victim input. But lawmakers took the next-best step, setting "presumptive" minimums for serious sex crimes. Under this provision, judges can depart from the minimum terms as long as they publicly detail their reasoning.

Both states also responded to fears about sex offenders committing new assaults after leaving prison by considering ways to keep offenders locked away even after their sentences were served. Vermont lawmakers wisely rejected Douglas' push for "civil commitment," which could have deprived prisoners of their freedom on potentially shaky grounds. They did, however, empower judges to in the future hand down "indeterminate sentences" that would authorize the state to supervise a high-risk offender — in prison and beyond — for the rest of his life.

The public debate over civil commitment wasn't nearly as extensive in New Hampshire; in fact, it was largely non-existent. Instead, lawmakers quietly authorized a commitment system for people deemed to be "sexual predators." But lawmakers gave offenders the right to a court trial before receiving an extended prison term, a measure that should guard against ill-considered commitments.

One disturbing fact that emerged in the debate over punishing sex crimes is that sentencing disparities — in both states — have created what Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Sears called "14 different systems of justice" in his state's 14 counties. At the urging of State's Attorney Sand, Vermont will take a comprehensive approach to the problem, striving for consistent sentencing not only for sex offenders but also for other types of criminals.

New Hampshire took a related, although more modest, step in authorizing a study of sex offender classification. The goal, according to Rep. Lee Hammond of Lebanon, is to distinguish between less dangerous criminals, such as those convicted of indecent exposure, and true sexual predators.

One fact often missing in the public debate is that most sex offenders — 97 percent or more in New Hampshire and Vermont — are known to their victims as relatives, friends or acquaintances. And all but a handful of those will return to their families or communities once their prison terms are done.

Recognizing that, Vermont will now require corrections officials to craft a community re-entry plan that sets such details as where an offender will live, work, and get treatment once he leaves prison. Offenders will have a voice in the plan, as will corrections officials and, if they wish it, victims.

At a time when some states are passing draconian measures designed mostly to advance political careers, lawmakers in Vermont and New Hampshire deserve credit for producing not sound bites but sound law.