Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, in letter to an undisclosed recipient released by the Rossi campaign:
Most distressing is the connection between the State Department of Corrections and homelessness in Seattle. For the fiscal year ending June 30 of this year, 605 offenders who completed their term of incarceration (prison or work release) were released to Seattle. This figure includes all offenders with or without a community supervision requirement. 100 of those offenders (17%) were released into "homelessness" as defined by Corrections. More worrisome still is that 351 sex offenders in Seattle are registered homeless. Of those, 119 are the most serious level III sex offenders who have been released by the state directly to the streets of Seattle. [emphasis added]
Given that Mayor Nickels will not soon be accused of being unsympathetic to the plight of the homeless, this is not exactly a trivial issue.
But, no worries. The Gregoire campaign says it's not an issue. Move along. Nothing to see here.
UPDATE: While Gregoire trots out Democratic law enforcement officials to defend her on this issue, the Rossi campaign trots out Seattle cops to back him up, including this:
It's been a fairly quiet, but not entirely unknown point that DOC has been playing broom by placing sex offenders in various communities around the state for some time. You can imagine some of the wealthier communities don't want these folks back and exert some influence to turf them in some other city....probably via the police department.
I know of one Eastern Washington city that was getting inordinate amount of these refugees in local no-star motels (paid by the DOC by the way). One doesn't think of a hotel as a home, but after you've spent six months in the same room it's more like an apartment. It wasn' until the local police chief figured things out, DOC stone-walled (claiming it was their contractors), and the city made a local ordinance that notifications of sex offenders would have to be posted in lobbies of hotels. After one or two hotels had billboards covered it was fairly easy to figure out these people were actually Western Washington offenders sent to Eastern Washington as a virtual half-way house.
Posted by: Matty on October 13, 2008 02:54 PMI don't see how Governor Christine Gregoire is responsible for this. Darcy Burner should start running attack ads against Dave Reichert for the many hundreds of sex offenders that he allowed to register as homeless while King County Sheriff, or lost track of after they had registered.
Posted by: Richard Pope on October 13, 2008 03:30 PMThese ads, and all of the other attention being given them, will probably backfire.
People who haven't decided yet hate this sort of sleaze and they'll punish the candidates associated with it.
This sort of stuff usually pops up as last gasp tactics of losing campaigns.
Posted by: jan on October 13, 2008 05:08 PMHmm, the release of these sex offenders is somehow the fault of the PA and KCS?
Once this trash is released, the PA and the KCS have to do battle with the court system to get them back into the clinker. Yea, good luck...
I just guess I am jealous, Pope. What is it like to be clinically insane and still have a keyboard?
Being in Disneyland 24/7 is a load of fun, but at some point you leave the park, you fool...
Posted by: Hank on October 13, 2008 05:23 PMWhy do you keep insisting that Rahr is a Republican? Sheriff's office is a NP position, and she doesn't seem to cater to either party, as far as I can tell.
Posted by: Magnoliman on October 13, 2008 05:42 PMI have a great idea. Sex offenders don't deserve constitutional protections, at least where they can be overridden by public safety concerns, and SCOTUS has already ruled that that's allowable.
Let's build us some camps, and outfit them with some nice showers and ovens! The way is wide open, boys!
I have a great idea. Sex offenders don't deserve constitutional protections, at least where they can be overridden by public safety concerns, and SCOTUS has already ruled that that's allowable.
Let's build us some camps, and outfit them with some nice showers and ovens! The way is wide open, boys!
You mean, like those... ahem... wonderful embryonic stem cell ads Gregoire was airing a couple of weeks ago?
Because that is "clearly a top of mind concern" with voters this time around...[/sarcasm]
Posted by: Mike H on October 13, 2008 07:39 PMHairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on October 13, 2008 07:57 PMIf he didn't, I don't think he'd be saying so in his ad.
How is is the prosecutor's or sheriff's fault that DOC is allowing sex offenders to register as homeless when they are released from DOC custody?
Second, why do you think these sex offenders are serving prison terms? You think maybe it is because the sheriff's office investigated them and the prosecutor's office convicted them?
Third, check Rahr's contribution list with the PDC, the majority of which is a who's who of Democracts.
Nice post, not one fact correct.
Posted by: Get Your Facts Straight on October 13, 2008 08:40 PMThat sex offenders are allowed to register as "no fixed address" (i.e., "homeless') is state law. It has been state law since at least 1999. The law was passed by both house of the state legislature and signed by either Booth Gardner or Gary Locke (can't remember which) -- not Christine Gregoire.
Sex offenders who have served their time must be released from custody under both state and federal law, even if they have no fixed address; the state can hold them in custody only if they have been determined to be a Sexually Violent Predator by stipulation, by jury verdict or a probable cause finding by a judge in an SVP proceeding. Even Level III sex offenders.
This governor -- and any governor -- is powerless in this situation unless the laws are changed. And while Gregoire has not proposed a change to the laws that apply to "no fixed address" sex offenders, Rossi hasn't either.
I find it very curious that none of the Seattle Police Department officers in this (apparent) Web ad are identified, yet the law enforcement officials portrayed in the pro-Gregoire ads allow themselves to be identified by name. They are also elected officials, and are accountable to voters.
The fact is that the responsibility of monitoring sex offenders falls to the specific county's sheriff's office, not to municipal police agencies. There isn't a single municipality in Washington State -- including Seattle -- whose police has the authority to monitor post-release sex offenders and their compliance with registration requirements.
Why are there no deputy sheriffs in these ads? They are the ones that actually pound the pavement to make sure that homeless sex offenders are in compliance with their registration requirements.
This is a losing issue for Rossi.
He needs to focus on the economy, on the concept of change in a state where one party has controlled the executive branch for 24 years (and where no one is happy with state government) and leave this stupid garbage alone.
Posted by: Oddest Ever on October 13, 2008 11:26 PMthsn watch the "reform"
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 14, 2008 06:05 AMSex offenders realize there is no such pity or tolerance for them in rural environs. Preying on women and children in wooded or farmland areas will likely to get such scum blasted back through the same door or window they entered through.
Posted by: Saltherring on October 14, 2008 06:56 AM/slavery kid rant
Posted by: Crusader on October 14, 2008 09:10 AMLooking at these posts has made me truly realize that if the world were turned over to the likes of the madmen (and women) on this site, the world would become quite the savage hellhole.
Are sex offenders a problem? No one can deny that. It's a position shared by everyone. But gassing people that have served their time in prison without the benefit of a trial, talking about ACORN registrations, castrating them, and so forth? No matter how awful the criminal, we aren't a society of barbarians.
You want to kill them? Fine. Pass a law, get it enacted. I'm not for the death penalty, but I'd be tempted to make an exception in that case. You want to take away their civil liberties in the name of the public good? Again, pass a law. Hell, if they walk on your property and get close to your kids, blow their brains out in "self-defense". But this is a society of laws, and not an angry mob.
And in terms of homelessness, it's hard enough getting a job or an apartment if you're a felon. If you're turning these people out after they've served the period of their sentence without support, what exactly do you expect? The folks that aren't homeless probably only have a home because of meager support from their families or nonprofits.
Now I'm not quite advocating that these people be coddled, but if you're setting them up to be in that position, I have a hard time figuring out why you would expect a different result.
Posted by: demo kid on October 14, 2008 09:46 AMThe only homes most sex offenders deserve are 5' X 8' with steel bars. Shame on our governor, legislature, courts and prison system for turning such trash loose to prey on our women and children.
Posted by: Saltherring on October 14, 2008 09:49 AMAgain... proof that you don't think, or read for that matter. Did I say that I had "sympathy"? No. But it's irresponsible to think that if they're just dumped out on the street, they WON'T be homeless. Dealing with these people isn't just a matter of releasing them into the world and letting them do what they like, and it's not a matter of lynching them outside of the law.
But, of course, you're a Republican. Who needs that pesky "logic" stuff anyway?
Posted by: demo kid on October 14, 2008 11:28 AMWho said anything about releasing them to any place beyond your basement hideout? As I stated previously, I'd rather sex offenders rot in prison.
But, of course, you're a Dimocrat. Who needs reading and comprehension skills, anyway?
Why do you bother commenting, Dimbulb? You need to go back to junior high and finish your educa....forget it, public schools would only worsen an already futile situation.
Posted by: Saltherring on October 14, 2008 12:53 PMApparently, you. I'd be amazed if anyone were to take your mad ranting seriously.
Do you even know what you're talking about? If these folks have been sentenced already, they cannot be tried again for the same crime. If that is the case, you need to deal with these people when they get out. Just pushing them out the door isn't good enough.
Talking about letting them rot in jail is great... but us adults are actually talking about dealing with real problems in a civil society.
@25: I think that you're right to a point, but society can take the rights of people away if necessary. Preventing child molesters from being within a certain distance of a school, for example, is seen as a necessary compromise to protect children. Not to mention that allowing a level III sex offender to get a gun should be out of the question.
But it gets back to the question of whether taking away someone's rights is unfair. What do these folks do once they're out? Where are they expected to live and work? If they are just thrown out onto the street, does that mean that they are more of a risk to the people around them?
Simply shouting that they should be killed doesn't address the real problem.
Posted by: demo kid on October 14, 2008 01:59 PMI realize, as a child, your span of years, as well as life experience, is negligible. As such, I can understand your foolish and utopian viewpoints to some extent. The truth is that most high-level sex offenders are considered likely to re-offend. That is why many are civilly committed (McNeil Island) upon release from prison. They are a danger to society, and in my opinion should never be released from some form of custody.
And TimP, I (and most sane people) could give a rat's ass about the "rights" of some subhuman who has molested an innocent and trusting child or raped a woman at knifepoint.
I can't believe how stupid liberals are.
Posted by: Saltherring on October 14, 2008 03:19 PMAre you stupid?
No, seriously, are you?
Did you read this post that we're commenting on?
More worrisome still is that 351 sex offenders in Seattle are registered homeless. Of those, 119 are the most serious level III sex offenders who have been released by the state directly to the streets of Seattle.
Those don't seem like "civilly committed" folks. That's the topic of this discussion. Get a clue.
And in terms of "giving a rat's ass about the rights of some subhuman"... I don't disagree with you about the subhuman part. However, whether or not we take our rights seriously is measured by whether we protect the rights of those that are least deserving of them. You should carefully consider the rights you're willing to strip away from people, lest you start becoming nothing more than a thug and a dictator.
Posted by: demo kid on October 14, 2008 03:38 PMI'm wasting my time with an idiot like you. If you're too stupid to realize Level 3 sex offenders should be locked up permanently, I hope you never have children to worry about. End of story.
Posted by: Saltherring on October 14, 2008 06:07 PMThe more I consider my discourse with you, the more I realize how much you make just make me sick. You are truly a disgusting, repulsive individual. You bleed for the "rights" of the lowest level of criminal on the face of the earth yet display no consideration or sympathy whatsoever for the women and children these subhuman perverts have victimized. God help us if you and your ilk are America's future.
Posted by: Saltherring on October 14, 2008 06:36 PM@29: Slavery kid - the fact that you consider the scum of the earth deserving of "human rights" says volumes about your lack of moral compass.
I think that you deserve human rights too... even if I think that you're probably not smart enough to qualify as "human".
The fact that you're all too willing to toss aside rights for the people that you don't like says volumes about your respect for rights in a democratic society. Even the worst of the worst deserves rights. If not, what is stopping me from taking away your rights against double jeopardy, for example?
@30-31: The more I consider my discourse with you, the more I realize how much you make just make me sick. You are truly a disgusting, repulsive individual.
The feeling is mutual. You're a dimwitted thug, with no concept of what it really means to live in a democracy.
I've had a piece taken out of me in a savage way by a depraved criminal. He even managed to get away with his crime! Luckily, it was not a sex offender; I couldn't imagine the hell that those victims would go through. But I can speak from personal experience as someone affected by violent crime.
Now, if you think that for a second that respecting the victims of any crime should involve compromising our freedoms and liberties in this society, even if they are shared with people that don't deserve them...
...well, you don't deserve them either.
You're a poor excuse for an American, and our country is weaker with you in it.
Posted by: demo kid on October 14, 2008 07:20 PMIf someone was released, you can't rearrest them or try them twice for the same crime. Again, the issue is what to do with the people that are out, as is suggested above. I don't want these folks around any more than you do, but devolving into vigilantism or applying the law arbitrarily isn't the way to do it.
Posted by: demo kid on October 14, 2008 09:18 PMAgain, no one said anything about "rearrest" or "try them twice for the same crime". As I stated in a previous post, the worst of them should have been civilly committed to McNeil Island upon completion of their prison terms. And no one stated anything about "vigilantism" or "applying the law arbitrarily". A person has the right to protect his and/or her family from dangerous criminals. If such entered my home intending to harm my family they would more than likely be carried out.
The problem is the more dangerous of these creeps need to be locked up permanently. Many cannot, no matter how hard they may try, keep their hands off women and children. Why should the vulnerable in our society be forced to cower in fear knowing hard-core sex offenders walk the streets among us? The rights of a previous victim, or potential victim, mean much more to me than the rights of a violent, convicted rapist or pedophile.
Posted by: Saltherring on October 15, 2008 07:34 AMNo arguments there. That's a case where I would be hoping that you'd be aiming to kill and not maim.
The problem is the more dangerous of these creeps need to be locked up permanently.
But this is what I've been trying to discuss. We can talk about life (or death) sentences for these folks, and that's great. But if they don't get that, what happens to them when they're released? What happens to folks that plea out, get 5-10 years, and are released as level I or II sex offenders? And what happens to those offenders that get effective treatment for whatever disorder drove them to commit those crimes?
As was noted in post itself, these people are out there, and you can't just simply hold them if there is nothing legally to hold them on. They can't really get much in the way of work or housing for that matter, and I wouldn't cry about that except for the fact that it puts them in a situation where they can be harder to track and might even be more likely to get into trouble. (Although recidivism is lower for sex offenders, oddly enough.)
Anyway, I'm just trying to talk about solutions to this mess. Don't get me wrong, I'd take a baseball bat to anyone that would touch my kids, but our civil society can't (and shouldn't) work that way.
Posted by: demo kid on October 15, 2008 04:05 PM