Rantz: Democrats change name ‘sex offender’ to protect rapists’ feelings

[Cow Poke]

Rantz: Democrats change name ‘sex offender’ to protect rapists’ feelings

BY JASON RANTZ

The Jason Rantz Show, 3pm-7pm on KTTH

Democrats prioritized a new bill that demands “person-first” language to address how violent sex offenders are labeled. The intent is to stop defining a sex offender by his or her crime, so they can destigmatize them. It may not even be the most offensive piece of the legislation.

Among the prescribed reforms, HB 2177 changes the name of the Sex Offender Policy Board (SOPB). If passed, it will now be called the Sex Offense Policy Board. It gives the dubious impression that the board reviews focuses on sex offenses, and not the criminals who commit them. HB 2177 also adds a convicted sex offender to the SOPB, with proponents arguing the felon’s “lived experiences” is “invaluable.” It does not restrict the membership to level 1 sex offenders, those who are least likely to recommit a sex offense. The bill allows the most dangerous felons, Level 3 sex offenders, to join. The sex offender will serve alongside another new representative to the board: victims of sex crimes.

The SOPB was intended to offer sex offender management to keep the community safe. But it’s strayed far from its intent, instead focused on how to advocate for sex offenders.

[Sam]

The title is both inaccurate and uncharitable, as HB2117 changes the name of a board and does not change the term "sex offender" to something else. It is as anodyne a change as one could imagine and you do not have any knowledge of intent to make the accusation that you make.

The bill would add four new voting members, one of which would be a representative of community-based advocacy groups of convicted sex offenders and one which would be a representative of persons incarcerated for sex offenses — both positions subject to a majority vote of the other members"

• the Secretary of the Department of Corrections or his or her designee;
• the Chair of the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board or his or her designee;
the Assistant Secretary of the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration or his or her
designee;
• the Director of the Special Commitment Center on McNeil Island or his or her designee;
• a representative of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs;
• a representative of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys;
• a representative of the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers;
a representative of the Washington Association for the Treatment and Prevention of Sexual
Abuse;
• a representative of the Washington State Superior Court Judges' Association;
• a representative of the Washington State Association of Counties;
• a representative of the Association of Washington Cities;
• a representative of the Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs;
• a representative of the OCVA;

• a representative from a community-based organization advocating for persons convicted of
sex offenses, appointed by the Chair of the SOPB and approved by a majority vote of the
SOPB's voting membership;

• a representative from a federally recognized Indian tribe in the state, appointed by the Governor's Office of Indian Affairs;

• a representative with lived experience with incarceration for a sex offense, appointed by the Chair of the SOPB and approved by a majority vote of the SOPB's voting membership; and

• a representative with lived experience as the victim of a sex offense, appointed by the Chair of the SOPB and approved by a majority vote of the SOPB's voting membership

What, exactly, is the argument against having these two out of seventeen positions, subject to the other members' majority vote, active participants on a board whose duty is "to advise the Governor and the Legislature as necessary on issues relating to sex offender management"? I personally have not come across a good argument for not having reformed convicts help shape awareness and policy to help prevent recidivism.

-Sam

[Diogenes]

The title is both inaccurate and uncharitable, as HB2117 changes the name of a board and does not change the term "sex offender" to something else. It is as anodyne a change as one could imagine and you do not have any knowledge of intent to make the accusation that you make.

a representative with lived experience with incarceration for a sex offense

In other words, a convicted sex offender.

Per the article:

During public testimony at the committee hearing, advocates like Whitney Hunt, a staff member who for the SOPB, defended the legislation. She effectively argued that the change in how sex offenders are discussed treats them equally to their victims. We’re supposed to want that?

“This bill incorporates recommendations the board has previously indicated its support, for regarding the use of person-first language,” she said. “This change aligns with best practices and research, and encompasses all the individuals involved and impacted by the sex offense management system, including victims.”

The terminology in the bill is part of the shift to "people first language" and the article even cites PyschologyToday. You can stop gaslighting at anytime.

[CivilDiscourse]

Rantz: Democrats change name ‘sex offender’ to protect rapists’ feelings

BY JASON RANTZ

The Jason Rantz Show, 3pm-7pm on KTTH

Democrats prioritized a new bill that demands “person-first” language to address how violent sex offenders are labeled. The intent is to stop defining a sex offender by his or her crime, so they can destigmatize them. It may not even be the most offensive piece of the legislation.

Among the prescribed reforms, HB 2177 changes the name of the Sex Offender Policy Board (SOPB). If passed, it will now be called the Sex Offense Policy Board. It gives the dubious impression that the board reviews focuses on sex offenses, and not the criminals who commit them. HB 2177 also adds a convicted sex offender to the SOPB, with proponents arguing the felon’s “lived experiences” is “invaluable.” It does not restrict the membership to level 1 sex offenders, those who are least likely to recommit a sex offense. The bill allows the most dangerous felons, Level 3 sex offenders, to join. The sex offender will serve alongside another new representative to the board: victims of sex crimes.

The SOPB was intended to offer sex offender management to keep the community safe. But it’s strayed far from its intent, instead focused on how to advocate for sex offenders.

Honestly, I have some mixed feelings about this situation. My brother is in "civil confinement" right now, and will likely end up being committed for "treatment" (likely for life, as the program has been knocked for not really providing treatment and release as it claims to do) as a dangerous sex offender in Missouri. Make no mistake. He's where he needs to be, and I really have no sympathy for him going away. My brother is a multi-convicted attempter at trying to have sex with underage girls. Thankfully, he was arrested before he could cause real harm to anyone (sting operation, chat logs, etc)

However, in the few stints of his life where he was out, life was incredibly difficult for him due to the offender list. He was fired from a factory job where no kids would have been present because of the offense. I've told my brother's lawyers that he's likely to reoffend, and that I do believe that while the process Missouri is using is very shady and underhanded, the end result is likely the one where he is where he needs to be.

https://www.columbiamissourian.com/n...626f8e35e.html

[Diogenes]

Honestly, I have some mixed feelings about this situation.

Barring the gaslighting about language, any attempt at reform would need to give a representation to those convicted instead of just a third party advocacy group.

However, in the few stints of his life where he was out, life was incredibly difficult for him due to the offender list. He was fired from a factory job where no kids would have been present because of the offense.

Part of the problem is the public nature of the list and the reputations damage it can cause. At some point, jail is the only they could live which only incentivizes recidivism.

[CivilDiscourse]

Barring the gaslighting about language, any attempt at reform would need to give a representation to those convicted instead of just a third party advocacy group.



Part of the problem is the public nature of the list and the reputations damage it can cause. At some point, jail is the only they could live which only incentivizes recidivism.

The issues with the Missouri SORTS program are not great. And the way that it's handled my brother are actually one of the very few ways I actually empathize with my brother. He was nearing completion of his latest 8 year term and was working with a local half-way house and church program. He had made a the required donation, and was working to get set up with living accommodations and help finding work. This had been in the works for months leading up to his release and he was excited (the cynic in me says it would not have lasted, but I wasn't going to stand in his way of TRYING to make himself better). Two weeks before release, everything came crashing down as he was served the civil confinement paperwork. He was then carted all the way across the state, and has now been there over a year, his court case continuously being pushed back. His odds of winning the case are slim-to-none. First of all, he's spent almost all of his entire adult life in and out of prison. He no longer has ties to his community he grew up in, our mother has passed, and I would be more hurtful than helpful for my brother on the stand. And, as it's a civil trial, all he needs to lose, is for the state to show a "preponderance of evidence" that he is dangerous. (i.e. 50%+1)

As from the article I showed, the program has not been successful in "treating" offenders, and as such, this really is just a way to throw offenders in a dark room and forget about them (so to speak).

The program itself has even lost lawsuits on how it handles it's patients:

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...05d3d1.pdf.pdf

[rogue06]

The issues with the Missouri SORTS program are not great. And the way that it's handled my brother are actually one of the very few ways I actually empathize with my brother. He was nearing completion of his latest 8 year term and was working with a local half-way house and church program. He had made a the required donation, and was working to get set up with living accommodations and help finding work. This had been in the works for months leading up to his release and he was excited (the cynic in me says it would not have lasted, but I wasn't going to stand in his way of TRYING to make himself better). Two weeks before release, everything came crashing down as he was served the civil confinement paperwork. He was then carted all the way across the state, and has now been there over a year, his court case continuously being pushed back. His odds of winning the case are slim-to-none. First of all, he's spent almost all of his entire adult life in and out of prison. He no longer has ties to his community he grew up in, our mother has passed, and I would be more hurtful than helpful for my brother on the stand. And, as it's a civil trial, all he needs to lose, is for the state to show a "preponderance of evidence" that he is dangerous. (i.e. 50%+1)

As from the article I showed, the program has not been successful in "treating" offenders, and as such, this really is just a way to throw offenders in a dark room and forget about them (so to speak).

The program itself has even lost lawsuits on how it handles it's patients:

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...05d3d1.pdf.pdf

Repeated delays can open the door to a lawsuit regarding violating the right to a speedy hearing.

[CivilDiscourse]

Repeated delays can open the door to a lawsuit regarding violating the right to a speedy hearing.

Except, it's a civil trial, not criminal. 6th Amendment does not apply to civil trials.

[rogue06]

Except, it's a civil trial, not criminal. 6th Amendment does not apply to civil trials.

If they are extending his confinement that shouldn't even be something a civil court has jurisdiction over.

[CivilDiscourse]

If they are extending his confinement that shouldn't even be something a civil court has jurisdiction over.

You would think. The program itself has been ruled constitutional. (At least in state court, using a SCOTUS precedent). The justification is that the program isn't punishment, it's treatment, therefore it's not a criminal case. The whole thing is rather shady, but given the group of people impacted, there's not alot of sympathy for them. I wouldn't have any sympathy for my brother at all if this was a 3-strikes your out life sentence, but this process is "icky"

[rogue06]

You would think. The program itself has been ruled constitutional. (At least in state court, using a SCOTUS precedent). The justification is that the program isn't punishment, it's treatment, therefore it's not a criminal case. The whole thing is rather shady, but given the group of people impacted, there's not alot of sympathy for them. I wouldn't have any sympathy for my brother at all if this was a 3-strikes your out life sentence, but this process is "icky"

It would seem that someone will need to escape confinement and for them to increase his length of "treatment" upon recapture for this to reach a head.

[Sparko]

The title is both inaccurate and uncharitable, as HB2117 changes the name of a board and does not change the term "sex offender" to something else.

further down in the article:

It’s also unclear how comfortable a victim would feel serving on a board that includes a convicted sex offender. And you’re not even supposed to use that term. Instead, a sex offender on the board is labeled a “representative with lived experience with incarceration for a sex offense.”

[Sam]

further down in the article:

It’s also unclear how comfortable a victim would feel serving on a board that includes a convicted sex offender. And you’re not even supposed to use that term. Instead, a sex offender on the board is labeled a “representative with lived experience with incarceration for a sex offense.”

The complaint is that name of the board is changing. The term "sex offender" is still used in the bill summary. The portion you highlight is technical language, which is important because the position is specifically referring to someone who has experienced incarceration and not all sex offenders are incarcerated.

The whole thing is just complaining without even considering whether the changed language and added representatives might help reduce recidivism.

-Sam

[Cow Poke]

further down in the article:

It’s also unclear how comfortable a victim would feel serving on a board that includes a convicted sex offender. And you’re not even supposed to use that term. Instead, a sex offender on the board is labeled a “representative with lived experience with incarceration for a sex offense.”

Yeah, when you watch the video, it's clear that "lived experience" is a buzzword that they use over and over again.

[Sparko]

The complaint is that name of the board is changing. The term "sex offender" is still used in the bill summary. The portion you highlight is technical language, which is important because the position is specifically referring to someone who has experienced incarceration and not all sex offenders are incarcerated.

The whole thing is just complaining without even considering whether the changed language and added representatives might help reduce recidivism.

-Sam

What is it like Sam? To never be wrong (...in your head?)