In Snohomish County, John Isley was considered a Level 1 sex offender, which means he is considered a low-risk to the community and faces few out-of-the-ordinary restrictions on his life.

Then the 26-year-old took the ferry across the Whidbey Island and was suddenly branded as a Level 3, high-risk sex offender. Law enforcement distributed fliers with his photo, notified the media and set up a community meeting to discuss his presence.

Within days, Isley lost his new job in Oak Harbor and was back in Snohomish County, where he’s a Level 1 again.

Island County Sheriff Mike Hawley, the man who made the decision to rate Isley as high-risk, says the case is just another example of how well the state’s sex offender registration and community notification laws are working. Hawley feels that Isley — who was arrested on a DUI-related warrant and has an extensive non-sexual criminal history — is one big red flag.

“It’s probably the most effective criminal law ever enacted,” Hawley said. “It actually prevents crimes from happening while all other criminal laws deal with events after the fact.”

But not everyone feels that way. Isley’s mother, Dawn Camp of Oak Harbor, said the sheriff ran her son out of town by unfairly rating him as a high risk. She threatened to sue.

“It feels like we’ve been beat up,” she said. “To me it was like a witch hunt.”

While the legality of the law has been upheld all the way to the U.S Supreme Court, a debate over the fairness and effectiveness of sex offender registration and community notification still smolders. The cases of Isley and Nathan Evans, another sex offender who was planning to move to Oak Harbor, has put Island County and the law into the spotlight, including TV news coverage.

Last night, the Sheriff’s Office held yet another community meeting about a sex offender in Oak Harbor. This time Hawley increased the risk rating on a 17-year-old boy from Level 1 to Level 2. But the boy’s roommate kicked him out after the Sheriff’s Office distributed fliers and set up a community meeting. Now the juvenile sex offender is homeless and Hawley has once again increased his rating to Level 3.

State law starts national trend

The requirement for sex offender registration and community notification comes from the 1990 Community Protection Act, a comprehensive set of laws that also increases prison time for sex offenses, provided funds for sex offender treatment and services for victims. As Hawley says, Washington was the first state to adopt the requirements, which became known as Megan’s Law, becoming a pioneer in taking a hard stand against sexual criminals.

Under the law, a person convicted of certain sex-related and kidnapping crimes has to register with the Sheriff’s Office in the county of residence. Each sex offender is assigned a risk level which is meant to inform the public about the offender’s likelihood of reoffending.

A Level 1 sex offender is considered a low-risk to reoffend. There is no door-to-door notification of the public. Level 2 sex offenders are deemed a “moderate risk” to reoffend and law enforcement may notify schools, neighbors, community groups and the media. Level 3 offenders are considered a high-risk to reoffend. Community notification is more aggressive and press releases with the offender’s photo may be sent to the media.

Tom Perrine, a community corrections specialist, explained that the Department of Corrections has an End of Sentence Review Board that sets risk ratings on offenders leaving prison based largely on a standardized risk assessment. The assessment scores the offender based on such factors as whether the offender completed treatment, the vulnerability of the victim, if drugs and alcohol were involved and the use of force. Perrine said the board, however, can “mitigate” the rating upwards or downwards.

Sheriff rates sex offenders

Yet the sheriff in each county has the ultimate authority over ratings. Hawley said he holds an average of about 15 community meetings a year for Level 2 and 3 offenders. Of those, he said he “ratchets up” the ratings set by the Department of Corrections about three times a year.

Hawley said the state’s rating system “is pretty good, but not perfect.” He points out that the Department of Corrections has to deal with hundreds of sex offenders annually and officials may feel pressure to minimize some ratings, especially in these days of budget crisis. Sex offenders with higher ratings require more supervision, which is more expensive.

Hawley said local law enforcement may have more insights into offenders or more time to delve into their histories. Often, Hawley has changed ratings after offenders commit other crimes, which can be a predictor for sexual recidivism. That was what happened in Isley’s case. Hawley said Isley was wanted on a warrant for a DUI charge.

Yet Hawley said he’s “not going to second guess Snohomish County,” where Isley is a Level 1 sex offender. “It’s a different place and they have more sex offenders than we do,” he said.

Offenders can’t appeal rating

This is where some of the criticism of the law plays in. Tom Pacher, a Coupeville defense attorney, said he doesn’t feel the sheriff has done anything wrong, but he does worry about the lack of checks and balances in the system. All a sheriff has to do to change an offender’s rating is submit a statement of “departure” to the Department of Corrections with an explanation.

“There does not appear to be a provision in the law requiring reversal if the reasons are not justified…” Pacher said. “Local law enforcement can reclassify someone as long as they report it, and it’s pretty damned tough to sue them for doing so. No provision in the law that I can see provides any process to challenge that in court, nor to anyone else.”

The sister of Nathan Evans, a sex offenders who originally planned to move to Oak Harbor, said there needs to be a better way of determining a person’s risk to the community. Heather Evans-Hood said her brother and others like him “who will never reoffend” are “branded with a scarlet letter O for offender.”

“As far as Island County is concerned,” she said, “I do not agree with their standard for labeling a sex offender. … Nathan is not a sexual predator nor do I believe Mr. Isley to be either. They made a poor choice, they do not go scouting for young girls to touch or rape.”

Isley was convicted of indecent liberties in Snohomish County. Camp said her son “improperly touched the chest” of his 13-year-old step-cousin when he was 15 years old. According to the pre-sentence report on Evans, he forced a 12-year-old girl to have sex after luring her to a Bellingham-area park in 2001.

Hawley elevated Evans’ risk level from what the Department of Corrections categorized him. The sheriff held a community meeting at which a daycare provided complained that Evans was moving in next door. As a result, the Department of Corrections is holding Evans in prison until a new residence can be found for him.

Erika Sanders, advocacy program director for Citizens Against Domestic and Sexual Abuse, was at the combined community notification meeting for both Evans and Isley.

She said the system worked the way it’s supposed to. Hawley rated Evans as a high risk, law enforcement handed up fliers and notified the media, and the daycare provider came to the meeting.

“The law does a tremendous job,” she said, “of alerting the community, encouraging community involvement and making the community a safer place.”

You can reach News-Times reporter Jessie Stensland at jstensland@whidbeynewstimes.com or call 675-6611.