WTF Washington?

[CNCAppsJames]

https://www.oann.com/newsroom/washington-democrats-propose-bill-replacing-sex-offender-term-citing-first-person-language/

Succeeding in out crazy Kommieforniastan?

[YoDoug]

IMO, this is not a bad idea in theory. A one size fits all policy is not good. I know someone who was convicted at 18 for having sex with a 15 year old when he was 17. MN law makes it a felony crime for under 18 if older by more than 24 months. He was 25 months older. He was given a lenient sentence but was a drug addict so he effed up his probation terms and got revoked. flash forward almost a decade later he is a model citizen, involved in a long term age appropriate relationship but he is forever required to register as a sex offender and carries that stigma for life.

[neurosis]

IMO, this is not a bad idea in theory. A one size fits all policy is not good. I know someone who was convicted at 18 for having sex with a 15 year old when he was 17. MN law makes it a felony crime for under 18 if older by more than 24 months. He was 25 months older. He was given a lenient sentence but was a drug addict so he effed up his probation terms and got revoked. flash forward almost a decade later he is a model citizen, involved in a long term age appropriate relationship but he is forever required to register as a sex offender and carries that stigma for life.

The idea of changing the name of the board just comes across as a giant virtue signal. Nobody is going to care what the name of the board is, they know what it's there for.

Placing a convicted sex offender on the board along with a sexual abuse victim sounds absurd. I'd have to read more in to this. I doubt that this is going to get much public support.  I guess we'll have to see.

Figures that this proposal would come from a convicted felon representing a district in Kitsap County. Lots of junkies out there. 

I agree with what you're saying. A one size fits all "sex offender" label is pretty rough depending on the crime.

[CNCAppsJames]

Age restrictions on certain activities are there for a reason.

@YoDoug, this is not that. This in yet another end around designed  to destigmatize sex crimes. That said, minors do not have the legal right to consent to certain activities.  Period.  There is a reason we have those protections in place. It is to protect those that cannot begin to fully understand the implications of the activities or contracts they are atrempting to or are entering into.