Sex Offender Sentencing in Washington State

Abstract

prison; the remainder received either a jail sentence or probation. For those who were imprisoned, the average length of stay was just over five years.1 For sex offenders determined by the court to be psychopaths, civil commitment was available. Approximately 200 sex offenders received inpatient treatment at a state mental hospital, which lasted about two years. The hospital staff made continual decisions regarding the offender's progress in treatment. Only about 20 percent of those offenders sent to the hospital were successfully discharged; the remainder were returned to court and sentenced to prison terms.2 In 1981, the Legislature embarked on sentencing reform and appointed a Sentencing Guidelines Commission to recommend the first sentencing guidelines.3 The Commission completed its initial work in 1983. However, at that time the group requested another year to determine if and how to incorporate treatment options for sex offenders. The Commission's report noted that both advocates of sexual assault victims and specialists in the treatment of sex offenders were concerned about the ramifica tions of presumptive sentencing on treatment opportunities for sex offenders.4 Under the indeter minate sentencing scheme, the offender was offered treatment as part of a probation sentence. If the offender did not succeed or failed to cooperate, the court could impose a jail or prison term later. Since determinate sentencing is an up-front system, however, accommodating treatment meant carving out special rules for sex offenses. During 1982, Commission members met with prosecutors, defense attorneys, victim and sex offender treatment professionals and received letters from many citizen groups and individuals. In addition, they reviewed scientific research and contacted national experts in the field of sex offender treatment. In the Commission's deliberations, the victim's response to sex crimes was an important consideration. The Commission learned that many victims and their families want the offender to receive treatment rather than be incarcerated, particularly in cases involving child sexual abuse by relatives. Without the cooperation of victims and their families, the criminal justice system could not effectively respond to sexual abuse. With incarcera tion as the sole options, victims and other family members aware of sexual abuse might not be willing to report the offender. The Commission also considered the offender's incentives to cooperate with treatment. Offenders are usually aware that undergoing treatment, especially if the professional is well-qualified and effective, will not be easy: the inquiry will be very intrusive. By contrast, doing time in jail or prison may be boring, frightening, or oppressive, but the level of intrusive ness will not be nearly so high. Therefore, the Commission saw the need to structure a system with incentives for the offender, since public safety is enhanced when treatment reduces re-offending. Ultimately, the Commission chose to craft a special treatment option for certain sex offenders that allowed them to receive treatment in lieu of incar