Washington Democrats say teenagers can change genders—but aren’t responsible for violent crimes?
Their argument on brain development depends entirely on what they’re trying to pass.
Washington Democrats have spent years arguing that minors should be able to make life-altering medical decisions—like undergoing gender transition—without parental involvement. They’ve fought hard to repeal parental notification laws and override parents’ rights in the name of “teen autonomy.”
But now, they’re pushing House Bill 1111, a bill that allows violent offenders who committed crimes before age 18 to petition for early release at just 24 years old, claiming that brain development isn’t complete until 25.
So which is it? Are teenagers mature enough to make permanent, life-changing medical decisions, or are they so underdeveloped that they shouldn’t be held accountable for violent crimes?
If HB 1111 becomes law, expect:
Violent offenders released back into communities years ahead of schedule.
More legal contradictions where minors are considered mature for gender transitions but not for crime.
A justice system that prioritizes offender rehabilitation over victims and public safety.
Democrats claim young offenders deserve a second chance. But when it comes to parental notification laws, they’re aggressively fighting a popular initiative that simply requires parents to be involved in medical decisions.
So why do parents need to be kept in the dark for medical procedures—but criminals need extra protections from their own sentencing?
What HB 1111 does
HB 1111 allows individuals who committed crimes before the age of 18 to petition for early release at 24 years old, regardless of the length of their original sentence.
Previously, offenders had to serve at least 20 years before petitioning for release.
Now, they would only have to wait until they reach 24, no matter their crime.
The bill applies even to those convicted of violent crimes, unless specifically excluded under narrow sentencing laws.
Instead of serving the time they were sentenced to, offenders will get a shortcut back into society—based on the argument that their brains weren’t fully developed when they committed their crimes.
The hypocrisy of Washington Democrats
They claim minors can make medical decisions—but can’t be held responsible for violent crimes?
Democrats have been clear on one thing: Teenagers must be allowed to make permanent, life-changing medical decisions without parental consent—including gender transition procedures.
They repealed parental notification laws for minors seeking gender-affirming care, claiming teenagers are mature enough to decide on their own.
They argue that minors should have complete autonomy over medical decisions—because "they know what’s best for their bodies."
They aggressively fight any attempt to require parents to be informed about these medical decisions.
But when it comes to criminal justice, they suddenly claim that 18-year-olds aren’t developed enough to take responsibility for their actions.
If the science says the brain isn’t fully developed until 25, why do Democrats insist that a 15-year-old can decide to undergo gender transition—but a 17-year-old who commits a violent crime shouldn’t be held accountable for it?
It puts criminals ahead of victims
HB 1111 is another example of Washington Democrats prioritizing offenders over victims.
Families of victims were promised justice when offenders were sentenced. Now, those sentences could be reversed just a few years later.
Lawmakers are more focused on easing prison sentences than on ensuring justice is served.
The bill prioritizes offender rehabilitation over the rights of victims and their families.
They’re willing to override parental rights to push radical gender policies—but want to rewrite sentencing laws when it benefits convicted criminals.
It weakens deterrence for serious crimes
If young criminals know they won’t serve full sentences, what’s stopping them from committing serious crimes in the first place?
This bill sends a message that long sentences don’t actually mean long sentences.
It tells victims their suffering is less important than giving offenders another shot.
It prioritizes the offender’s future over the damage they’ve done to society.
Instead of focusing on public safety, Washington lawmakers are reducing consequences for violent crimes.
Who benefits from this bill?
Violent offenders, who get a second chance at freedom long before their original sentence is served.
Criminal justice reform activists, who want more early release programs.
Democrats looking for another way to appear "progressive" on sentencing reform.
Who doesn’t benefit?
Victims and their families, who will see dangerous criminals walk free early.
Law-abiding Washingtonians, who have to deal with the consequences of repeat offenders.
Communities already struggling with rising crime rates.
This bill isn’t about justice—it’s about prioritizing criminals over victims while Democrats contradict themselves on brain development.
What’s next?
HB 1111 is currently under consideration in the House Community Safety Committee. If passed, expect:
More convicted criminals petitioning for early release.
More uncertainty for victims who thought justice had been served.
A continued shift toward leniency in Washington’s criminal justice system.
Instead of focusing on keeping communities safe, Washington lawmakers are making it easier for offenders to get out early—while blocking parents from knowing what their kids are doing.