Washington State’s Sentencing Guidelines Commission didn’t just step in it—they dove headfirst into a policy disaster. In a 7–2–3 vote on November 14, 2025, the Commission recommended “sentencing alternatives” for adults caught in online child-sex sting operations. Translation: less jail, more probation, more therapy, and a whole lot more head-scratching from anyone who thinks protecting kids is a government priority.
These are the classic undercover stings—operations where adults believe they’re communicating with a minor, but the “minor” is actually law enforcement. The Commission’s rationale? That these cases involve “no identifiable victim.” As if the only thing holding a predator accountable is whether an actual child had to be placed in harm’s way.
This is a breathtakingly bad argument.
Intent is the crime
The entire point of these stings is to stop someone before a child gets hurt. You don’t wait for a drunk driver to actually crash before you intervene. You don’t wait for an arsonist to “successfully” light the match before you arrest them. The law punishes criminal intent because intent is what prevents tragedy.
But somehow, when the safety of minors is on the line, Washington’s Sentencing Commission suddenly wants to treat intent like an optional technicality.
“Entrapment”? Please.
Some commissioners went even further, hinting that sting operations unfairly target people with no prior records—almost as if law enforcement is manufacturing predators out of thin air.
That’s an insult to both common sense and the officers running these operations. No one is forced to engage in illegal conversations, schedule meet-ups, or show up expecting a child. These are choices—dangerous, intentional choices.
If anything, these stings identify individuals long before they would otherwise be caught. Weakening the consequences doesn’t eliminate the risk; it amplifies it.
A bigger pattern of failing to protect kids
What makes this move even more absurd is that it comes at a time when public concern about online child exploitation is skyrocketing. Texas’ lawsuit against Roblox described rampant grooming on gaming platforms. Discord has faced similar accusations. Parents are already navigating a digital world where platforms struggle—or refuse—to crack down on dangerous behavior.
Now one of the state’s key legal bodies wants to weaken the consequences for those who show up to commit the crime in person?
This isn’t just tone-deaf. It’s negligent.
The Commission says it wants “fairness.” The public says: we want safety.
Supporters argue the recommendation merely addresses sentencing disparities. But opponents—including local editorial boards, community groups, and thousands of people online—are pointing out the obvious: reducing penalties in these cases chips away at deterrence.
If the goal is to keep children out of harm’s way, how does going softer on offenders make that outcome more likely?
A state moving backward
For years, Washington has struggled to balance criminal justice reform with public safety. But this decision doesn’t represent thoughtful reform—it represents retreat. A retreat from accountability, a retreat from deterrence, and a retreat from the basic responsibility of government: protecting those who cannot protect themselves.
Parents shouldn’t have to wonder whether the justice system still sees their children as worth defending.
Washington’s Sentencing Guidelines Commission just made that question a lot harder to answer.
Other Law Posts