You didn't explain the Sound Transit tapping very well at all Ashley. I never heard of tapping after the trip. Who would think to do that? Why? I always tap upon entering the Light Rail, never afterwards. Which routes do you tap afterwards? If you tap before AND after, are you charged twice on something and then it gets sorted out? Why is this so complicated? I don't understand.

Glad to see them letting more people off McNeil. If we as a state want to decide to jack up the sentences for sex crimes that’s at least a discussion we can have. But locking people up after they have done their prison time is just wrong.

I can’t wait it see what happens the first time George Santos gets caught swindling his cell mate.

@1 Do you actually take light rail?

And btw-the Boy from Brazil is not actually getting sentenced until February.

@1 In the current system, you're charged based on the distance between your entering and leaving stations. You tap in to tell ST where you started (say Northgate) and tap out to tell them where you ended (say Westlake). If you don't tap out, I believe that it assumes that you went the maximum possible distance and charges you accordingly. In the case above, they would assume you went to Angle Lake.

In the new system, it'll just be a flat rate no matter how far you go.

@1, If they have distance-based fares you need to tap out so they know to charge the correct rate. If you fail to tap out they will charge the maximum so you’ve probably been overpaying the whole time but now it’s a flat rate so you don’t need to tap out at all. You can always ask an attendant to hold your hand if this is too complicated for you to handle on your own.

@1: It depends what kind of card you have. mine gets loaded with a set amount every month - $50. so i'm motivated to tap off. I can also use it to get my car on a ferry (and pay for other passengers). my wife's card is "unlimited", but she can't use it on the ferry.

The Stranger calling out The Times for biased reporting is funny.
The Stranger calling out anyone for biased reporting is funny.

@2 they are not being held on McNeil after their sentence is over as a form of punishment they are being held because (in the opinion of the mental health professionals) there is a high likelihood they would reoffend if released. It's a form of involuntary commitment and given the nature of some of the crimes committed I would prefer they remain on the island and away from the general populace rather than be free to prey on more people. There was a big issue about this in Enumclaw last year and this is no joke one of the quotes from the meeting (https://www.courierherald.com/news/enumclaw-residents-outraged-over-group-home-for-violent-sex-predators/)

"But the meeting went off the rails about half an hour later, when Martha McGinnis, a victim’s advocate with the King County Sexual Assault Resource Center, wanted to address questions and concerns regarding this LRA being closer than 500 feet to an Enumclaw School District bus stop.

“The onus of keeping your kids safe is on you,” she said, pointing out into the audience."

The hubris of that statement is mind boggling.

6-8: Thank you guys, the bee is now out of my bonnet.

All this time I've been overcharging myself.

@10 What was unmentioned until fairly late in the ST article is that the state was under a court order to make a path toward release for prisoners. It turns out that the courts take a dim view of the state holding people indefinitely without charge after their prison sentences are complete.

@12 as well they should but if said individual has committed horrific crimes in the past and has a high likelihood to reoffend based on the opinion of health professionals do you think the state has an obligation to keep that person away from the community or do you go along with the official who said its up to the community to take care of themselves?

@11: fwiw, many who have free passes via their work never tap off so many people aren't even aware they "need" to tap off (for accurate fare). Long term though that kinda hurt employees because all those workers' rides were counted as the most expensive fare and that eventually is reflected in what the workplace pays for the passes.

@10 - whether they're being held as punishment or to protect society, the deprivation of their liberties is the same. If we as a society decide that the sentence for sex offenses is life, then so be it. But we have not. And this kind of "administrative detention" is a cowardly substitute.

Think long and hard before you decide it's OK. Because a future administration could decide that people convicted of other kinds of crimes are also so dangerous that they need to be preventatively locked up. That is getting really close to Russia, or China, etc. Do we want this country to look like those?

@15 I think there is a long path from committing someone with a history of violent sexual abuse and the thought police. We're talking about all of them and not necessarily a life sentence either. We are talking about those with a high likelihood to reoffend. Are you more comfortable erroring on the side of releasing them knowing that a percentage will reoffend and victimize more innocent people?

It's an interesting conversation as well in the context of the homeless issue as well because there has been discussion of involuntary commitment for those with mental/addiction issues as a solution. I would guess you would be opposed to that. I don't know what the right answer is but if the state knows someone has an uncontrolled disposition toward sexual violence and releases them into a community I can't see how that works out well for anyone.

@16
It’s not a long path for a government entity to create an enemies list and decide to remove citizens from public life. While that isn’t directly related to treatment of sexual abusers , if Trumpy-poo gets elected, you can bet the likes of Stephen Miller (and others) will find reasons to incarcerate protesters.

What if criminals just served the sentence they were given by the courts in accordance with their constitution rights as Americans even if that means some suburban moms might feel like they need to keep a closer eye on their own children.

@13 Sentences are sentences. If the state can prove that people should be involuntarily committed after the end of their prison sentence in accordance with the law, then by all means they are free to do that. I believe* that the judge just said that there has to be some reassessment by the state so there's a possibility of release rather than a single finding and throwing away the key.

Interesting that you failed to mention that the county issued a formal apology about the "your responsibility to keep your kids safe" comment. It seems like that is relevant information to the discussion. Also interesting that you ignored that before a McNeil Island detainee is eligible for release, they go through two reviews by a team of medical experts and psychologists, a review by the head of the facility, and then a judge. So it's not like DOC is airdropping people into the community without any concern for what's an appropriate level of supervision.

And finally, yes I do believe that it's a parent's responsibility to teach children in age appropriate ways about the possibility of predators and how to recognize and avoid them. Not all predators are helpfully marked by the state like those released from McNeil are. School-based sex ed can also help in this education.

It's been a couple of days since I read the article, so it's possible I'm wrong

As Tim in Seattle used to say, @17 is correct.

@19 you should probably read the full thread before you make comments. I noted several times that any person kept on the island after their sentence is complete is at the behest of health professionals. I don't think its relevant at all that the county issued an apology. The comment itself speaks to the point of view of the agency. You may not find it so and clearly @18 does not but I find it sad that concerns of the community are viewed with such contempt. It's a recurring feature of WA governments. I don't disagree with your last comment but we shouldn't deliberately put kids in harms way either.

@17 you're peddling in conspiracy theories. Believe what you want but you sound like the right wingers who are insisting Jan 6th protestors are being persecuted.

@ 21 Yeah, not so much. For example in 13 "...and has a high likelihood to reoffend based on the opinion of health professionals do you think the state has an obligation to keep that person away from the community..." You're explicitly assuming that the health professionals are saying that the person should continue to be confined but they get released anyway. That's not how it works in real life. You're pretending that the health professionals are getting overruled when you pose your whatabout. You do the same thing in @16 in your last paragraph assuming that the inmate may be released even with "an uncontrolled disposition toward sexual violence." You're scaremongering based on assumed scenarios that bear little resemblance to reality.

The apology by the agency is an explicit acknowledgement that the statement is not the agency's point of view. Otherwise they wouldn't have issued an apology. Sometimes human beings say things that don't align with an agency's values even when they are nominally representing the agency. When that happens, the agency clarifies its position (often with an apology or other statement) and may or may not discipline the employee or take them off of the same kind of duty.

Of course, if we applied your logic, every crappy thing that an SPD officer says is automatically the policy of the department because we can see the contempt they have for the community. Is that where you want to go?

@22 that’s not at all what I’m saying. My response was to the OP who said they should be let out when their sentence is complete and I was arguing that if a health professional thinks they are a danger we should listen to the professional and keep them locked up.

“ Of course, if we applied your logic, every crappy thing that an SPD officer says is automatically the policy of the department because we can see the contempt they have for the community. Is that where you want to go?”

Isn’t that what this publication and most of the commenters here like yourself already do? Seems fair to apply it equally.

@23 Ah, OK. I missed that.

"Isn’t that what this publication and most of the commenters here like yourself already do? Seems fair to apply it equally."

Well, that depends on whether SPD issues an apology and works with/disciplines the officer to ensure that it's not repeated. You're pretty far out on a limb lumping me in with TS and other commenters on that particular issue. I generally only criticize SPD as a whole when they're unrepentant. Individual officers are a different matter.

But I do see that you default to defending SPD but not DOC. Kinda odd that, since they're both law enforcement.

@24 fair enough, I'll grant the agency some grace on this but I would hope you concur that is a pretty callous statement to make and I do hope the individual who made it faced some sort of discipline.

I hope TS is working on something big (odd that there have been no subsequent postings since Slog AM)