When a judge releases someone accused of violent crime, and that person later commits—or is accused of committing—another violent crime, the public is left with a question that is difficult to avoid:
Can we trust our judges to keep us safe?
That question has returned to the forefront following the latest arrest of Allen Hollingsworth.
Hollingsworth was just 18 when he opened fire in downtown Seattle in 2016, wounding five people. He was eventually convicted of first-degree assault with a deadly weapon.
In 2019, prosecutors pushed for a substantially longer prison sentence. Judge Averil Rothrock instead imposed nine years, explaining that a lower sentence would give Hollingsworth an opportunity to improve himself.
Hollingsworth was ultimately released from prison in February 2026.
Less than seven months later, Bellevue police arrested him following a confrontation in which officers say they found him in possession of a loaded, stolen handgun.
That does not prove Rothrock's sentence caused Hollingsworth's subsequent conduct. It does, however, raise a fundamental question about judicial discretion: When someone has already demonstrated a willingness to use a gun against innocent people, how much weight should rehabilitation receive compared with the obligation to protect the public?
And Hollingsworth's case is not occurring in a vacuum.