Dear Ms. Regala, Sen. Debbie (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Today has been my 57th day living in the community. When I say living, I mean living, as emailed you several weeks back, the perpetuation that the DOC is keeping me homeless as punishment is quit disturbing.
Tomorrow, I have made a meeting with the CCS of my CCO. The discussion, "When is the DOC, in particular my CCO going to start mitigating my alleged risk in the community, opposed to managing it?"
It is clear that the legislature in giving the DOC discretion in approving addresses for sex offenders, did not do this as an act of vigilance. But, did that as a necessary administration duty with the necessary oversight accordingly; RCW 35A.42.050 RCW 42.20.040, RCW 42.20.050.
Today, in making a phone call to make an appointment with the supervisor of the Sexual Assault Unit, I had a brief and uncomfortable exchange that this supervisor, and her attempt to shift the burden of their duty to mitigate level III RMA sex offenders in the community. "It is your problem to find housing," she so quickly responded. "It is both are problems," I responded.
Mystified, I feel it is time to raise this issue to the level of capriciousness it deserves:
First I do not believe it was the intent of the legislature to have the DOC to simply manage sex offenders in the community. For that where true, then their would be no need to give CCO's discretion, or for the courts to protect that discretion, against capriciousness.
Second, the legislature has never intended for Homeless shelters, and the private dollars that fund them, to allow for the DOC to use them as drop off and late night baby sitting services. (Last night I witnessed a jail house argument amongst fellow inmates. Shelter-mates I mean. I turned to the guy in the pad next to me, "Don't you love it, just like old times.")
Third the legislature, in excluding non-violent sex offenses from the 880 foot rule, did not do this unintentionally. There is great National debate on residential restrictions and they lack of effectiveness. But one of them, at least in my case, is being very effective, the ability for the DOC to impose non qualifying punishment.
Fourth, and ultimately most critical in my complaint is that the DOC is acting with malicious intent and with deliberate indifference when they made me homeless after being restricted from the Capital Hill and University District areas. Its logic was due to a perceived fear of my risk to the community with homeless teenagers. Of course purely fallacious, and based completely on ad hominem attacks, its blatant attempt at appealing to mitigation of risk is founded only on personal considerations. But, logically, it is inconsistent with the result, which is my fifth point.
Fifth, by forcing me to homelessness, the DOC is enhancing the perceived risk of me being in the community. Acting, with complete indifference of the community at large and with malicious intent, by placing me around homelessness, the very reasons I was asked to leave the Capital Hill and University District areas.
Obviously, they are hoping for new alleged victims, or have intent to use an up and coming polygraph exam to justify their actions, or renew a wish to incarcerate, shut me up, and have ammunition to block my first amendment rights.
It is obvious, there is no trust in an organization that appears to act in the best interest of the public, but in fact are propagating the very issues surrounding risk. It is obvious, to me, that the DOC actions in removing me from an area where I had established living conditions by using an excuse that there where homeless teenagers around, is even inconsistent with the circumstances surrounding the alleged victim, who was not a homeless teenager. Unless of course the DOC has the perception that all homosexual teenagers are homeless? Or have a character issue that leads them to homelessness. Then I guess I can understand their highly defamatory characterization, otherwise its fallaciousness, and speaks directly to breaking a law!
In conclusion, in evaluating the 57 days of this issue I have coming to see a very clear picture: One, they are using homelessness and shelters to punish me. Two, they are continuing with this with malicious intent. Three, they have no wish to mitigate risk, as enhancing it, and potentially getting new victims, would serve their purposes greater. Four, if an RMA is so dangerous to the community, and he is incapable to secure housing, how does it not become the States responsibility, under the directive to mitigate risk, to not safeguard the community through solutions, not maintenance?
In my case, I commend the shelters I have relied upon, they are clear humanitrians and kind incarcerators. The community owes them a percentage of their much maligned DOC funding.
I contend that the system is broken, maligned and is abusing its discretion and I hope that my experience can help clarify and spark oversight in this issue.
I also, hope that you can help shed light on these abuses and fix it.