The following commentary appeared Friday in the Yakima Herald Republic. It does not necessarily reflect the views of The Spokesman-Review’s editorial board.

Sometimes it’s a good thing that most initiatives filed with the secretary of state don’t get enough signatures to make the ballot.

A case in point is Initiative 861, a “one strike” law requiring life in prison for the most serious violent sex offenses. Make no mistake, we think sex offenses should carry harsh penalties. But we take exception to one-strike laws.

Dealing with sex offenders is serious business, but this is a good example of an issue that must be handled in the give and take of the legislative process – not with a simple take-it-or-leave-it vote posed by an initiative.

By the same token, lawmakers should not read the failure of the initiative to make the ballot as some kind of public rebuke of tougher sentencing and guidelines.

Tighter standards governing sex offenders are being considered on various fronts. In June, the state Sentencing Guidelines Commission met at Yakima Valley Community College to accept public comments as part of a statewide round of hearings on the penalties that can be imposed on sex offenders.

The hearings were required under a harsher law that will go into effect next year. It includes doubling, to one year, the amount of time that sex offenders who qualify for a special treatment program will have to spend behind bars.

Locking someone up for life for the first offense strips away any judicial discretion in dealing with individual cases. As such, one-strike laws are bad public policy. Washington currently has a two-strike sex law, and that’s tight enough.

Sex offenders deserve all the special attention they receive from lawmakers, law enforcement and the public. But there is a proper forum for doing so.

That is a legislative responsibility, to be handled after careful review of all the ramifications of get-tough measures.