Harger: Why is WA considering lighter penalties for online child predator sting cases?
Jan 29, 2026, 7:10 AM | Updated: 3:49 pm
Senate Bill 5312. I was surprised to read in The Center Square this week that this thing still has a pulse. I’ve read it three times, and I still can’t believe it’s real.
Democratic State Senator Lisa Wellman proposed a bill last year that would reduce sex offender registration and supervision requirements for people convicted through “net nanny” sting operations. These are the cases where someone thinks they’re chatting online with a 13-year-old, makes plans to meet up for sex, shows up at the location, and discovers the “child” was actually a cop.
Wellman’s argument, and the argument of the bill’s supporters, is that there was no actual victim. The child was fictitious. Nobody was harmed. So the consequences should be lighter.
These are people who believed they were talking to a child. They sent explicit messages to someone they thought was a child. They made plans to sexually abuse someone they thought was a child. They got in their car, drove to a location, and showed up ready to assault someone they thought was a child.
The only reason there’s no victim is because they were too reckless to realize they were talking to a cop.
The intent was real. The actions were real. The only thing that wasn’t real was the child, and thank God for that.
Under current law, these offenders register for 10-15 years, depending on the offense class. This bill would cut that to five years. Current law keeps them under supervision until their maximum sentence expires. This bill cuts that to three years. And it’s retroactive. People already convicted would get their requirements reduced.
This bill didn’t pass last year, but it didn’t die either. It carried over automatically to this year, like hundreds of other bills. The difference is, most of those bills aren’t about going easier on child predators. Wellman could pull it today. She hasn’t. So here we are. It is still technically active legislation.
Supporters will tell you these people are different from offenders who hurt real children. They’ll tell you that harsh registration requirements don’t encourage rehabilitation. What they won’t tell you is why we should care more about a predator’s rehabilitation than about keeping parents informed about who lives in their neighborhood.
I’m sorry, but no.
We’re supposed to believe that someone who drove across town to rape a child they met online is less dangerous because the child turned out to be fictional? That’s the argument?
These sting operations exist because we have a problem — a big one. Adults are trying to meet up with kids for sex. It’s happening constantly, on every platform. So naturally, the solution is to tell these guys: if you get caught by a cop instead of hurting an actual child, we’ll go easier on you. That’s the plan?
RELATED STORIES
What message does that send?
We should be signaling to anyone who would prey on children that the consequences are severe and lifelong. That the risk isn’t worth it. That we as a society take this seriously.
This bill sends the opposite message. It says intent doesn’t matter. It says if you’re lucky enough to target a cop instead of a kid, you get a break.
I don’t care that there was no “actual victim.” They would have done it. They tried to do it. That should be enough.
I don’t care about their rehabilitation. I care about the next kid they might have access to. That’s whose side I’m on.
Charlie Harger is the host of “Seattle’s Morning News” on KIRO Newsradio. You can read more of his stories and commentaries here. Follow Charlie on X and email him here.
