Washington state lawmakers are considering a bill that would allow juvenile offenders, including those convicted of murder, to petition for early release and receive taxpayer-funded rental assistance.

Senate Bill 5266-S2, sponsored by State Sen. Noel Frame (D-Seattle), would modify sentencing and early release eligibility for individuals who committed crimes before turning 18.

Under the bill, offenders would be able to request early release from the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board (ISRB) at the age of 24 if they meet specific criteria.

Elon Musk Called This Financial News 'Terrifying'

Those convicted of three or more homicides would be required to serve at least 20 years before becoming eligible to petition for release.

However, offenders convicted of one or two murders could seek release far earlier.

Frame has defended the bill, stating that it is about “accountability.” She argued that the current system, which requires juvenile offenders to serve at least 20 years before being considered for release, is unfair.

However, she did not provide specifics on how reducing prison sentences equates to accountability.

American Made Patriotic Apparel - Save 15% with Promo Code MERICA

If the bill becomes law, offenders granted early release would receive rental vouchers, funded by taxpayers, to cover housing costs.

The legislation does not set a time limit on these vouchers, raising concerns that the financial assistance could continue indefinitely.

Supporters of the bill argue that it is based on research about brain development, which suggests that individuals do not reach full cognitive maturity until around the age of 24.

This argument has been used to justify the early release of juvenile offenders.

Critics have pointed out that Washington allows minors as young as 13 to make gender transition decisions without parental consent, yet the same lawmakers claim juveniles cannot fully comprehend the consequences of violent crimes.

Opponents of the bill have raised serious concerns about public safety.

During hearings on SB 5266-S2, several incarcerated individuals testified in favor of the bill, including two convicted murderers and a child molester.

Critics argue that releasing violent offenders early, even with supposed safeguards, could endanger communities.

Proponents claim that rigorous risk assessments and rehabilitation programs will prevent released offenders from committing new crimes.

However, critics remain skeptical, citing cases where offenders released under similar policies have reoffended.

One such case involved Alan Lewis Meirhofer, a 71-year-old convicted sex offender, who pleaded guilty last week to possessing explicit images of minors.

Prosecutors say Meirhofer lured teenage boys to his home with gifts and marijuana.

He had previously been released as a Sexually Violent Predator from the Civil Commitment Center on McNeil Island but failed to complete a sex offender treatment program after his release.

Even some Democrats have expressed concerns about the legislation.

State Rep. Lauren Davis, a Democrat, criticized the bill in an interview on The Jason Rantz Show on KTTH, saying:

“Civil society has expectations around the appropriate punishment for taking a life. This legislation would allow a person to leave prison as soon as six years after killing somebody. The bill allows these early releases even for people convicted of two homicides. So, that’s three years per murder. That is just not objectively reasonable.”

A similar bill in the state House failed to gain enough support to advance, with some legislators hesitant to back legislation that could result in the early release of convicted killers.

One of the most controversial aspects of the bill is its impact on victims’ families.

Under current law, families expect offenders to serve their full sentences. However, under SB 5266-S2, families would have to repeatedly argue against early release petitions from those who murdered their loved ones.

When questioned about the burden this places on grieving families, Frame responded that they are not required to testify at parole hearings, implying that their participation is optional.

Critics argue that this minimizes the trauma families endure in the legal process.

If passed, the bill would represent a significant shift in Washington’s approach to juvenile justice.

While supporters argue it promotes rehabilitation, opponents warn that it prioritizes leniency over public safety.

With concerns about repeat offenses and indefinite taxpayer-funded housing assistance, the legislation has sparked a heated debate among lawmakers and the public.