In a controversial move, Washington state's Sex Offender Policy Board (SOPB) has suggested that individuals convicted of possessing or viewing child pornography should be offered treatment alternatives instead of incarceration.
The recommendation was made in a report to the House Public Safety Committee last year, as reported by The Center Square.
The state's Sexual Exploitation of Children Act, enacted in 1984, criminalized the possession and distribution of child pornography, as well as its importation into the state. Prior to 2006, possession of child pornography was classified as a non-sex offense. However, it was subsequently reclassified as a sex offense and a level 6 class B felony. The average sentence length for possession convictions in 2019 was nearly four years, according to the SOPB's 2022 report.
The report further argued for a distinction between "depiction-only" offenders and "contact sexual" offenders. It stated, "Depiction-only offenders were more likely than contact offenders to be better educated and employed at the time of their arrest. In addition, depiction-only offenders were less likely to have a history of criminal behavior or substance abuse than contact sexual offenders. During a follow-up period of 4.8 years, 3% of the 428 depiction-only offenders and 5.7% of the 210 contact sexual offenders were arrested for a contact sexual offense.
The SOPB report also suggested that individuals whose activities are confined to viewing, possessing, duplicating, disseminating, or exchanging illegal internet depictions pose a low risk of reoffending. Therefore, it proposed that community-based treatment could be a viable alternative to incarceration for these low-risk offenders. This recommendation was unanimously approved by the SOPB.
However, the SOPB has faced criticism earlier this year when The Post Millennial revealed that board members were attempting to ease restrictions on sex offenders. Despite official denials, documents showed that not only were efforts being made to roll back these restrictions, but there was also dishonesty in the denial of these efforts.
One county even criticized officials for trying to eliminate the requirement for public notice and public comment before allowing less restrictive facilities for violent sex offenders in residential areas.
Login