A federal judge was right to declare Michigan’s sex offender registry unconstitutional. From its beginning in 1994 and its launch to the Internet in 1999, the registry has failed to make a distinction between sex crime offenders of who pose a continuing danger and those who no longer threaten society.

U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts ruled Monday the registry violates the 14th Amendment’s right to due process because it doesn’t allow for people to challenge the government’s claim that they are a continuing danger.

Access to the online registry was shut down Tuesday morning and police agencies stopped releasing information from any hard copies of the list. As of May 1, the state police reported 29,300 people were on Michigan’s registry.

The registry may provide piece of mind for parents who want to know if a convicted child molester lives on their street or if a serial rapist walks the same route as their child’s evening jog.

But Michigan’s list does not clearly communicate who is a real threat. Many people are on it for crimes that do not pose a threat to children.

For instance, former state corrections officer Daniel Fullmer, who sued over his placement on the list, pleaded no contest to fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct for sexual contact at a state prison. He decided to take legal action after a neighbor asked his wife if he was a convicted child molester.

It is important to remember that the end result of our penal system should be to correct people’s behavior and make them into viable members of society. It is not fair to continue to punish them after their debt to society is paid and they pose no further threat.

In many cases, the registry listed rehabilitated convicts who have served their time and have been released back into society - often never to commit a crime again. Even without the offender registry, people who commit these crimes will continue to be haunted by their past as they pursue future employment and undergo background checks.

Some in the state Legislature, which created the registry, already had moved to repair some flaws in the registry. A House committee last month passed a measure that would allow judges to exclude some sex offenders younger than 16.

It’s clear the list needs further refining before it truly becomes a viable asset for parents to use to protect children from area sex offenders. The desire to be informed of potential dangers to family is a rational urge, but the information that was available may have proven more confusing than informing.

The registry will be helpful in preventing future sexual assaults when it only includes those who really deserve to be there.

Should the state find a way to improve the list’s reliability and clarity, then it may be worthwhile to reinstate its presence.

Until then, the federal court has removed a scarlet letter from Michigan’s judicial system.