Crime
By Melissa Petrini
Representative Lauren Davis (D‑32nd LD) has recently drawn attention for her op‑ed in the Seattle Times and a subsequent interview with The Center Square in which she expressed regret for earlier votes and described her growing concern about “soft on crime” policies. In another interview, she specifically referenced SB 5266:
“That bill would allow a juvenile to murder up to three people and get out in six years.”
Her critique centers on the risk that the early‐release eligibility could undermine accountability for very serious crimes, reduce deterrence, and send the wrong signal to both offenders and the community. She also warns of inadequate supports and oversight if youth are released early without strong supervision.
On the other side, incumbent candidate Edwin Obras (D‑33rd LD), has sponsored a bill, House Bill 1111, described as the House 'companion' or 'sister' to Senate Bill 5266.
SB 5266 titled “An act relating to people convicted of one or more crimes committed before the person’s 18th birthday petitioning the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board after reaching the age of 24 or older.” Under its provisions, individuals convicted as juveniles would, under certain conditions, be eligible to petition for early release—and for some geographies, rental assistance—upon reaching age 24.
In parallel, HB 1111 is the House version addressing the same Indeterminate Sentence Review Board subject matter: titled “Concerning the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board.”
(Status at this writing: introduced 1/13/25, referred to the House Committee on Community Safety, but not yet acted out of committee.)
Rep. Lauren Davis has publicly voiced strong concerns that these bills risk weakening accountability for serious juvenile offenders and may produce unintended harms.
Supporters argue these measures reflect a rehabilitative approach: recognizing brain/neurological development, giving young offenders a path to review, and avoiding the pitfalls of long adult sentences for crimes committed while still minors.
Rep. Edwin Obras, appointed to the House in December of 2024 for the 33rd District, lists his legislative priorities, which include worker protections, affordable housing, and justice reform. His sponsorship of HB 1111 aligns him with the reform effort.
The policy tension here is one of rehabilitation vs. public safety, but either way, issues arising from these reforms must be addressed.
Many advocates—especially in the juvenile justice reform community—argue that youth are developmentally distinct, that brain science supports more generous rehabilitation and release opportunities, and that long sentences for youth reduce their chances of successful reintegration.
Critics like Davis caution that while rehabilitation is critical, policy design must guard against releasing individuals who remain unsafe, or creating incentives for violence (for instance, by treating juvenile homicide the same as lesser offenses). She argues that the devil is in the details: eligibility criteria, supervision, funding, victim rights, and community impact all matter.
In short: supporters see HB 1111/SB 5266 as smart reform; critics see them as risk‐laden without sufficient guardrails.
The intra‐party split here is significant. Works like this show that even within a party supposedly unified on reform, differences arise when policy pivots into territory seen as risky. Obras’s support signals reform momentum. Davis’s caution signals internal dissent and the political vulnerability of being seen as “soft on crime.”
HB 1111 (and by extension SB 5266) stands at the intersection of two competing goals: justice for youth (and second chances) and safety for the community (and accountability for serious crime).
If these bills are to succeed without backlash, their sponsors will need to demonstrate how eligibility criteria, oversight, support systems, and outcome tracking all come together.
Without that structural detail, the concern is real: a well‑intentioned reform could open doors to results critics fear.
Members Discussion