Real Solutions: Vote Yes on Measure 57 and NO on Measure 61
Address effective sentences and expand drug treatment; reduce future crime without wasting millions of tax dollars
by Bob Goldberg

Sacagawea and her son, or at least the statues of them, were recently returned to their places in Lewis & Clark National Historic Park, after being kidnapped, chopped up and melted for their metal value. The sentence for the crime?

Twenty days in prison.

The perpetrator of the crime, who had a previous conviction, got the comparatively light sentence because of sentencing guidelines establishing ceilings, but not minimums, for sentences for various crimes in Oregon, which were passed by the legislature in 1989. The felony sentencing guidelines attempted to achieve the following four goals:

• Proportional punishment, imposing the most severe sentences on the most serious offenders;
• Truth in sentencing, so the judge’s sentence would more closely reflect actual prison time;
• Sentence uniformity, to reduce disparities among judges;
• Maintenance of correctional capacity consistent with sentencing policy, so the criminal justice system would be able to deliver proposed penalties.

In 1994, Measure 11 was passed by the voters of Oregon by a 2 to 1 margin. This initiative, sponsored by Kevin Mannix’s group, Crime Victims United, established minimum sentencing requirements for violent crimes. The measure requires juveniles over 15 charged with any of these crimes to be tried as adults.

Measure 10, also passed in 1994, permitted the Oregon Legislative Assembly to change Measure 11, but only with a 2/3 vote in each chamber. The legislature has done so in 1997 and 2001.

In 2000, voters rejected Measure 94, which would have overturned Measure 11, by a 3-1 margin.

Violent crime has declined approximately 40% since the passage of Measure 11, but even proponents acknowledge that other factors are involved in the drop. Nevertheless, these numbers have spurred on Mannix and others to apply minimum sentencing requirements for other crimes, including the property and drug crimes covered in Measure 61.

Back in January and February of 2007, Oregon district attorneys got together with the legislature to work on a bill that would provide harsher sentences for property crimes, as the rate for these crimes was increasing rapidly. Unfortunately, according to Josh Marquis, Clatsop County’s DA, the Democratic leadership blocked the bill from getting to a committee vote. Marquis says the bill was less stringent than Measure 57, the bill that was eventually passed on to voters, in reaction to Mannix’s initiative, which became Measure 61.

The crime rate for drug manufacture and dealing has skyrocketed in recent years, and Measure 61 would establish a set of minimum sentences for manufacture and dealing of heroin, ecstacy (MDMA, a derivative of methamphetamine), cocaine and methamphetamine (meth). Additionally, Measure 61 would set minimum sentences for identity theft, forgery, burglary, residential and commercial theft, and add a new felony category in Oregon of motor vehicle theft, with its own minimum sentences.

Measure 57, the legislature's initiative to the people, and competing sentencing measure, would set more stringent sentencing guidelines for drug and property crimes, though not mandating any minimums. To the list of crimes covered in Measure 61, Measure 57 adds dealing or manufacturing a controlled substance other than marijuana and mail theft. Additional provisions of Measure 57 require certain drug-addicted offenders be provided with treatment services, and punish them for failing to complete these programs. The measure also requires that grants be provided to counties to help fund jails, treatment centers and drug courts.

So, what if both measures pass? Which one becomes law?

It turns out that there is a provision in the legislature’s initiative, Measure 57, that says that if it gets a higher percentage yes vote than Measure 61, it becomes law. This sets up the interesting situation of a horse race between the two measures, given that polls have shown that Oregon voters support stricter sentencing for drug and property crimes.

The strategy developed by the Partnership for Safety and Justice (PSJ), whose mission is to "unite people convicted of crime, survivors of crime, and the families of both to redirect policies away from an overreliance on incarceration to effective strategies that reduce violence and increase safety", accounts for polling they did that shows that Measure 61 is headed for passage. The only option left, according to Denise Welsh of PSJ, was to put the organization's support behind Measure 57, and hope that it gets more votes than Measure 61. Though Measure 57 promotes longer prison terms, it also has provisions for drug treatment programs, which PSJ supports. And Measure 57 lacks the mandated minimums that Measure 61 contains. "This would not have been our first choice, but our extensive polling showed that Measure 61 was certain to pass, and we could not risk that happening. So we had to swallow hard and go with the Yes on 57, No on
61 campaign," said Welsh.

Marquis, the Clatsop County DA, agrees with this strategy. "I'm against 61, because it’s the harsher and costlier of the two measures," said Marquis. He's in favor of increased sentences for property crimes, noting that property crime sentencing standards are very lenient in Oregon. So he, like the Oregon DA Association, supports Measure 57.

"Those who commit these property crimes need to know that they will get serious jail time, or treatment programs that they can’t duck out of," Marquis said. "As it stands, they know they can just go right back and do it again, with little penalty likely."

Marquis says he favors the carrot and stick approach of Measure 57, which promotes drug and alcohol treatment programs along with tougher sentencing guidelines. "There is little treatment available in Clatsop County, so we need more money for treatment, and for prison space," Marquis related. Measure 57 requires the state to partially fund county treatment programs.

Both measures would require millions of dollars to implement. Neither of the measures say anything about where the funding would come from. Experience from Measure 11 says that it is likely that more prisons would need to be built to house the additional convicted criminals for the drug and property crimes covered under either Measure 57 or 61, though most seem to agree that the larger cost would come from Measure 61 becoming law. With flexibility to reduce sentences based on available prison space, treatment programs, and other circumstances, Measure 57 would almost certainly cost less.

When asked about the root causes of property crime, Marquis was quick to recite the statistic that "70% of crime in our county (Clatsop) is caused by drug and alcohol abuse". He cited the tolerance of this abuse as the main root cause of the associated crime. He was quick to point out that responsible drinking, and necessary drug administration, is not the problem. But he related a long history of binge drinking by teenagers in our area, and stealing of drugs used for pain relief by youth, who then get high and often addicted. As the PSJ and others would say, Marquis says the answer is "education and modeling good behavior, and a continued interest by parents in their kids’ activities."

For more information on Measure 57 and Measure 61, check out the Partnership for Safety and Justice web site at http://safetyandjustice.org/. The Better Way to Fight Crime is the name of the pro-57 organization, and their web site is at http://www.betterwaytofightcrime.com/. The pro-61 organization is called the Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance, and its web site is at http://www.oaaoregon.com/. This organization also supports Measure 62, which would set aside 15% of state lottery sales for public safety spending. A coalition of groups, Defend Oregon, is telling Oregon voters to vote against Measures 58-64. They can be found on the web at http://defendoregon.org/.