A former Auburn music teacher, charged with sexually touching a student, was confined to house arrest this week. Jim Raymond can only emerge from his home nocturnally, unless for legal matters.

We have no sympathy for him; as someone with strict conditions on his behavior, he should have followed them.

Yet his punishment is puzzling. Home confinement is neither bail nor jail, but in between. And without constant monitoring, adhering to the terms of his confinement is on his honor.

Is this lenient treatment because his violation was minor, or is this a stiff punishment for a serious offense?

There is little doubt Raymond acted suspiciously. Aside from his clear violation – interacting with a child under age 16 – his behavior could be interpreted in many ways. He did make shoppers feel uncomfortable in Wal-Mart and double-backed on his steps, around parents and kids. On the store’s surveillance tape, he appeared to feign shopping, giving products short attention.

Is he guilty of wrongdoing, or is he being harshly treated because of his alleged crimes? Was he “cruising” for children, as accused, or blithely wandering in an immense store? Was he stalking or shopping?

Given these queries, confinement makes sense.

We urge him to stay home.

Maine has many questions about sex crimes ahead. Gov. John Baldacci has vetoed legislation relaxing registration requirements for the offender registry, despite a recent judicial ruling stating the state’s repeated tightening of the registry is infringing offenders’ rights.

The legislation, LD 446, was crafted for more than a year. It would have limited the retroactivity of registrants, and shed 580 names from the current roll. Baldacci said the state must instead “err on side of caution.”

The governor has called for another study, starting this summer, about reclassifying the registry to assess convicted offenders on their risk of re-offense. This is the right approach, but also the most challenging one.

By what yardstick will offenders by measured?

Violence is an obvious measurement. So are ages of the victims, or circumstances of incidents. Repeat offenders are clear inclusions, because identifying such criminals is the prime reason the registry was established.

There is plenty for the study committee to consider, like which offenders merit placement on the registry, and what behaviors are benchmarks for evaluating the risk of re-offending. Deciding between offenders about their potential for recidivism is a complicated matter, and tests the boundaries of law, public safety and civil rights.

Finding a single solution will be difficult. As Raymond shows, each case can raise many questions.