Washington State House Community Safety and Justice hears public comment on HB 2177 on Jan. 16, 2024. (Screengrab via TVW).
Lawmakers in Washington state faced off at a recent public hearing over whether a sex offense advisory board should be expanded to include a member who actually served jail time for committing a sex offense. Though many advocated the benefits of including diverse viewpoints, others said the expansion would destroy the board’s purpose.
Democratic lawmakers in Washington introduced HB 2177, which would add four members — including one who served jail time for being a sex offender — to the state’s Sex Offender Policy Board (“SOPB”). The statute would also rename the board to the “Sex Offense Policy Board” in a move to use first-person language and would increase the size of the body from 13 to 17 members. The new board members would include one member of a sex offender advocacy group, one member of a Native American tribe, one victim of a sex offense, and one “representative with lived experience with incarceration for a sex offense.” The bill would also appropriate funds for board training and team-building.
The board at issue is an independent entity staffed by the Sentencing Guideline Commission that advises the governor and undertakes projects to assist policymakers with legislation on sex offenses.
At a public hearing held by the Washington State House Committee on Safety and Justice on Jan. 16, Rep. Tarra Simmons (D), who is a member of the Sentencing Guidelines Commission and a co-sponsor of the bill, spoke in support of HB 2177.
“We do better when we have a diverse legislature,” Simmons said, then explained that HB 2177 contains recommendations that current board members have raised.
Simmons directly addressed the opposition to including convicted sex offenders on the advisory board. While past offenders may be subject to “a stigma,” Simmons said, “they have invaluable information to share that can really guide this board.”
Simmons said the same is true for those with lived experience of being sexually assaulted or abused — who are not currently on the board, but would be included if HB 2177 were to pass. Simmons also noted that “a lot of the members are not showing up for most of the meetings,” and said that she hopes the team-building efforts in HB 2177 would encourage more active participation to guide the legislature.
Whitney Hunt, another member of the board since 2021, also spoke in support of HB 2177 and said it “incorporates feedback consistently heard by SOPB,” and “aligns with best practices.” Hunt said that there has been a “consistent desire” to add the perspectives of those with lived experiences.
Attorney Brad Meryhew, who has served as SOPB chair since its inception in 2008, testified in emphatic support of HB 2177. Meryhew said that the voices of all stakeholders — including victims and offenders — should be heard. Meryhew noted that Native American tribes have been “impacted hugely in the last several decades,” but that, “their voice at our table has been relatively quiet.”
“Likewise, we see very credible organizations working with those who are affected by these policies,” Meryhew continued, explaining that some registered sex offenders have become “thoughtful, effective advocates for their position” who bring valuable empirically based discussion to policy discussions. Meryhew also told the panel that he attended a popular and useful sex offender management conference that included the kind of diversity HB 2177 would implement.
Washington House Republican Whip and volunteer firefighter Dan Griffey appeared unconvinced. Griffey, who serves on the state legislature’s justice and reentry committee, commented that he “doesn’t understand” a group that would advocate on behalf of sex offenders.
“What could you learn from a sex offender?” Griffey asked.
Meryhew was prepared for the question, explaining that those with lived experience as convicted sex offenders have more to say than “just clamoring for leniency,” or “asking for an easy pass.”
Meryhew went on to assure the committee that the process of expanding the SOPB is not one undertaken lightly by anyone.
Meryhew, an experienced criminal defense lawyer, told Griffey that law enforcement, corrections, and victims’ advocates regularly participate in sex offense policy discussions in several contexts, and despite disparate perspectives, all share a common goal of community protection.
“Those of us who are professionals who work in this field and come to the table as professionals, we think that expanding [the SOPB] to that lived experience would offer real benefit to all of us.”
Alex Mayo, a formerly incarcerated community activist, also spoke on behalf of HB 2177.
“For far too long we have been focused on punishment,” Mayo said. “Yes, we need accountability but our policies also need to address healing and prevention.”
Mayo argued that sexual offenders are often treated “as though they will never be able to control their actions,” or “as though they are moments away from reoffending,” while most people convicted of a sex offense never re-offend.
“Just as with categories of people that commit other crimes, [sex offenders] desist with age,” said Mayo. “This bill will add a perspective of someone who has successfully reentered the community.”
Board member and attorney Sonja Hardenbrook also urged the panel to vote in favor of HB 2177 to give the SOPB “insights the board currently lacks.”
“It is a reality that those of us who are fortunate enough to serve on boards like bring with us a fair amount of privilege and it can blind us to some aspects of policy or its impact,” Hardenbrook warned. “HB 2177 would ensure that we consider those perspectives in our deliberations.”
James McMahan of the Washington Associations of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs testified in opposition to the bill. McMahan did not address the bill’s proponents’ reasoning directly but rather argued that the proposed changes would exceed the original vision for the board. McMahan said that the SOPB was created “to ensure public safety” at a time “when ideas started floating around for sex offenders to wear a purple jumpsuit.”
McMahan said the SOPB has moved away from its original purpose, and instead of working on projects assigned by committees, it has been focused on projects assigned by individual legislators.
“We think that the value and the original vision of the policy board still is good, that’s what we’d like it to do,” McMahan said. “We don’t support expansion, we don’t support training and conferences because it loses the intimate, productive and dispassionate group of experts that the legislature was seeking when they created it in the first place.”
The day before the hearing on HB 2177, McMahan testified against another bill — one that would prohibit police from hogtying suspects. The proposal responded in part to the death of Manuel Ellis, a 33-year-old Black man who died after police cuffed his hands and feet together. The police officers involved faced criminal charges of murder or manslaughter but were acquitted.
McMahan said the legislature should not ban the practice, but that police departments should be given grant funds as incentives to voluntarily prohibit it.
“We would suggest instead of banning this tactic entirely, the legislature facilitate the use of better alternatives,” he said. “We envision a grant program to acquire these alternatives, where grant recipients must agree to prohibit the use of hogties in their policies as a condition of receiving these funds.”
You can watch the full public hearing on HB 2177 here.
