WA Dems propose adding sex offender to policy board: ‘They have invaluable information’

Source: cbs12.com 1/22/24

OLYMPIA, Wash. (TND) — A Democrat-backed bill would alter Washington State’s Sex Offender Policy Board (SOPB) to extend membership to individuals with previous jail time for sex offenses.

The SOPB was formed in 2008 to “promote a coordinated and integrated response to sex offender management.” The group is responsible for creating policies regarding sex offenders and navigating state and federal laws regarding them.

Introduced this month, HB 2177 would increase the group’s members from 13 to 17 to include a member of a sex offender advocacy group, a member of a Native American tribe, a victim of a sex offense and “a representative with lived experience with incarceration for a sex offense.” The bill is sponsored by Democratic State Reps. Tara Simmons and Rodger Goodman.

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Makes sense to me. In addition to bringing the perspective of someone who has to deal with the ramifications of decisions of the board, someone with a sex offense in his/her history is much better suited to give feedback on which policies might actually help vs. those which just feel right to enact.

Many times I’ve communicated with elected officials in Wisconsin to give them such feedback, focusing on whether the proposed law would/would not have done anything to keep me from offending. I always try to include alternative suggestions on things which might have actually helped.

A balancing act when you add someone who has been convicted of a sex offense and has the experience of living with it and someone who has been a victim of someone who has been convicted of a sex offense. These will make for some very interesting dynamics, if passed, when the board meets.

Of course LE is not for this proposal because it gives them less ability to convince for their narrative.

Sounds good on paper. But willing to bet if a registrant or two do actually get tapped for this proposed board, they’ll likely get only token voices and anything they suggest would be ignored.

No different than companies hiring hackers. But I’m also wondering what new perspective is needed?

So you not being able to find a home due to residency restrictions was bad for? Huh, we simply didn’t realize until now. And you’ve also been harassed and lost jobs because of this? I’m sure glad we have your perspective now!

The advocacy member ought to be able to combat “frightening and high” statements and anything of the like which are espoused by the ignorant across the country that the other members of this board may listen to as well as elected officials and law enforcement.

They need to remove allowing victims onto these panels. Their only purpose seems to be to advocate for stronger registry laws to invoke more punishment. There is no public safety purpose in that and their point of view should be considered only for the punitive statutes or prior to sentencing of a particular perpetrator. The registry is supposed to be non punitive. Victims don’t belong in that part of the discussion.

“…response to sex offender management.”

Management suggests this group considers the State has Authority over PFRs. Can’t “Manage” things that you have no authority over. Without authority you may only advise, not manage.

No free person is, “Managed” by the State. The State has no Authority over free people. Being subject to State Managerial Authority is the antithesis of freedom. The State is limited to policing free people, management is restricted to those subject to State custodianship.

No other free person in the US is “Managed” by the State. Juvenile Wards of the State, Prisoners, Parolees, Probationers, Civilly Commited, those under State conservatorship, and PFRs. None of who are free to make their own choices, or exercise the unrestricted liberties all others are Constitutionally entitled to. However, for most, these are temporary situations.

How can PFRs be both “Free” and yet still under “Management” to State Authority? How is this magical state of mutually exclusive ideas achieved?

Makes sense. This should be the case for every registry policy board. Just curious… isn’t Washington state one of the harshest for registrants? Someone said there’s an island most live on.

Moved to WA and was genuinely surprised by this…

after leaving ca and moving to wa (where I lived for 2 digit years before moving to ca for 2 digit years)

I no longer register 8 months after moving. It’s great, did some county time in CA but maybe I’ll be the next board member.


This is not the legitimate “inclusion” we were asking for. More than anything, this is a hallow token gesture because we’re still treated like circus freaks trotted out as objects of curiosity.

Just like Abominable from Rudolph – “look what HE can DO.”

It’s still dehumanizing

Last edited 2 months ago by Facts should matter