Fiction vs. Fact: What the supporters of Measure 11
want Oregonians to believe...
FICTION: Repealing Measure 11 will automatically release 1,000's of
criminals onto Oregon streets.
FACT: Measure 11 offenders will be resentenced under the successful
Sentencing Guidelines adopted by the legislature in 1989. (Read "SUMMARY"
of measure under "BALLOT TITLE".)
FICTION: Measure 11 only targets violent and repeat criminals.
FACT: Measure 11 is a one-strike law, meaning a minimum sentence
of nearly 6 years, including children 15+ (tried in adult court) with no
early release for good behavior. Over 56% are first-time offenders, many
are nonviolent crimes. A judge cannot consider any circumstances during
sentencing.
FICTION: The crime rate was increasing before Measure 11 became law.
FACT: Oregon's crime rate remained constant between 1980 and 1995 according
to the F.B.I. The Sentencing Guidelines put more repeat and serious
offenders behind bars for longer terms, not Measure 11. Drug crimes are
not under Measure 11.
FICTION: It's cheaper to house offenders than to rehabilitate.
FACT: We are spending $90 million a year to imprison 3,400 Measure
11 inmates. A $1 Billion prison-building project is currently underway.
Money that used to fund successful rehabilitation programs has been cut.
For the first time in Oregon's history, more is spent on prisons than schools.
FICTION: Inmates live a life of luxury in prison.
FACT: Rules are very strict. A cell for 2 at Oregon State Penitentiary
measures less than 2 sheets of plywood. At another prison 200 inmates watch
one 19> TV. Inmates can be punished up to 6 months in isolation. Health
care is almost nonexistent. Four teenage girls under Measure 11 committed
suicide in 1998.
(See The Oregonian "Study: Violent Criminals Getting Longer Terms" (10/1/94); "Dumb on Crime" (8/20/97); "School Funding Suffers as State Locks Up Money for New Prisons" (8/18/96); "Dying at Hillcrest" (2/22/98).
Vote YES on 94 and bring JUSTICE back to Oregon!
(This information furnished by Vern Beardslee, Southern Oregon Citizens to Repeal Measure 11.)
The TRUTH about Measure 11
Who wrote Measure 11? And why?
STOP Oregon's slave labor market
Measure 94 will reduce taxes
Be Smart on Crime - Vote YES on 94!!!
(This information furnished by Frank Hayes.)
When Oregon approved mandatory sentences, publicity focused on getting hard-core criminals off the street. Few realized the law applied to anyone 15 and over.
Once passed, the 1995 and 1997 Legislature changed the law drastically. Mandatory sentences now apply to those who are simply in the presence of someone who commits a violent act. Even worse, judges are not able to set sentences that are appropriate for a youth's actions or needs.
As public health professionals, we believe prevention and early intervention must be an integral part of our efforts to keep our communities safe.
We are spending $28,000 a year per child to keep them in prison. That money could be spent more wisely on programs that reduce crime and build better adults.
Give judges the discretion to place young people in programs that help them become responsible and accountable adults.
A recent Oregonian article (Feb. 24,2000) reported that most youths serving time under Mandatory sentences do so in isolation, to keep them separated from the hardened adult criminal populations.
We can do better for our children, even those who run afoul of the law. We must allow judges to set appropriate sentences for youthful offenders. For as any parent knows, while you must sometimes punish, you must also provide an opportunity to become responsible.
Oregonians would never abandon their children.
Yet that's exactly what we do with mandatory sentences.
Please join us in returning justice and balance to our court system.
Please Vote Yes on Measure 94.
(This information furnished by Cathi Lawler, Parents Against Cruel & Unusual Punishment.)
It happened in 1996.
Aaron was 17.
Aaron was at a party with friends. Responsible adults were present. A young man asked to borrow a car.
Even though he knew he shouldn't, Aaron let him use the car. In the end, that was his crime.
The young man supposedly took Aaron's car to the store. He returned two-and-a-half hours later.
Over a year and a half later the police arrested Aaron for the robbery of two young women. Despite the fact that two eyewitnesses said Aaron was not even there, Aaron was convicted along with the young man who did commit the robbery.
The judge in the case said he was shocked the case was even brought by the government prosecutor. He said there was clearly reasonable doubt that Aaron was involved.
But because Aaron was tried alongside the man who did commit the crime, he was found guilty.
Now Aaron is 22. He has spent nearly 3 years in an adult prison. My son was an outstanding student and had nearly completed his coursework at a Portland Chef School. Now he is forced to live alongside hardened, career criminals in an adult facility.
If the judge in Aaron's case had the discretion to set a more appropriate sentence, Aaron would be free today. But under Oregon law, the judge had no leeway and was forced to sentence Aaron to a mandatory sentence.
No other child should have to face what Aaron has been through.
No other family should suffer as we have.
Please Vote YES on Measure 94.
Cindy Weight, Hillsboro
Aaron's mom
(This information furnished by Cynthia E. Weight.)
I am a recently retired judge with 40 years of experience, still serving as a Senior Judge. Since the enactment of Measure 11, I have heard cases where I was forced to hand down a mandatory sentence, even when the facts supported a far different punishment.
By electing judges, the voters put great trust in our ability to fashion a sentence which will punish, rehabilitate when possible, and, most of all protect the public.
When forced to deliver sentences of over 7 years for first-time offenders, or children who made a drastic mistake and can be rehabilitated, or mothers who commit a crime to feed their children and are then ripped away from those same children, then these goals are not being met.
The mandatory sentencing law known as Measure 11, and expanded by the Legislature in the past two sessions, ties the hands of judges, making them nothing but puppets for sentencing. Under mandatory sentences, the length of prison stay is engraved in stone, no matter the age of the defendant or whether the defendant stands a good chance of being rehabilitated.
Before mandatory sentences, judges used sentencing guidelines that ensured criminals would be locked up. These guidelines still gave judges the right to set the length of incarceration depending on the circumstances of the crime and the defendant's age. That's what judges are elected to do. Measure 94 returns that right to judges.
Our court system should be fair and balanced. Prosecutors and defense attorneys should be able to present their cases fairly. Once guilt has been determined, the judge should hold the power to weigh the facts and fashion the punishment to fit the crime. Mandatory sentences shift the weight of power into the hands of prosecutors.
It's time to bring back balance.
It's time to return control of the courtroom to the judge.
Vote Yes on Measure 94.
Judge L. L. Sawyer
Ashland
(This information furnished by Loren Sawyer.)
Over the past decade, politicians and government prosecutors have unleashed unprecedented attacks on our Bill of Rights to expand their own powers at the expense of the rights of citizens.
The result of this power grab:
No one believes criminals should get off lightly. But when 67% of the people convicted under the current harsh sentencing laws are first-time offenders, then we have taken fairness and balance out of our courts.
We elect judges to make wise decisions in the courtroom. By passing Measure 94, we return the balance between judges, government prosecutors and the rights of the accused.
Measure 94 doesn't let criminals off easily. Measure 94 merely allows the judge to decide the sentence based on the circumstances of the crime.
In the criminal justice system, every case should be decided on its own merits.
Please vote yes on Measure 94. Bring Justice Back to our Courtrooms.
(This information furnished by Gary Swanson-Davies, Barbara Palen, Richard Nelson, Terry Stein, Sylvia Simms, Barb Jones.)
Vote Yes on Measure 94.
If you believe first-time offenders should not be treated as harshly as career criminals,
Vote Yes on Measure 94.
If you object to children ages 15 to 18 being treated as career criminals, even if they have never been in trouble before,
Vote Yes on Measure 94.
If you voted for mandatory sentences before because you believed it would only apply to hardened criminals,
Vote Yes on Measure 94.
If you believe government prosecutors and politicians are grabbing power and working to take away your constitutional rights,
Vote Yes on Measure 94
If you want judges not politicians and prosecutors -- to decide sentences based on the age of the defendant, the circumstances of the crime and the defendant's previous criminal record,
Vote Yes on Measure 94
If you want to bring balance and justice back to our courts,
Vote Yes on Measure 94.
(This information furnished by C. Dennis Williams, Cathi Lawler, Bill Lawler, Linda Swanson-Davies, Donna Frey.)
Mandatory sentencing laws prevent the careful consideration of factors that allow a judge to fit the punishment to the crime and the offender. For that reason, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a national organization dedicated to restoring judges' traditional role in the courtroom, endorses Measure 94's sentencing reforms.
Vote Yes on Measure 94
(This information furnished by Julie Stewart, Families Against Mandatory Minimums.)
They have watched politicians and government prosecutors use fear and intimidation to control the courtroom.
They have seen judges lose the ability to decide cases based on the age, previous record, the circumstances and the intent of the accused.
They have seen unprecedented building of new prisons, wasting valuable tax dollars that could be used to turn the lives of first-time offenders around before they become hardened criminals.
Measure 94 Puts Judges Back In Control of the Courtroom.
Measure 94 Brings Fairness Back to the Criminal Justice System.
Measure 94 Will Save the State over $250 million in reduced prison construction costs.
(This information furnished by Jo Ann Bowman, State Representative.)
My 16-year-old son will spend the next 6 years in jail having consensual sex with his girlfriend. That's why we are urging Oregon voters to pass Measure 94.
When my son Justin met his girlfriend, she told him she was 15. He was 16 at the time.
One day after school, they had sex at a friend's house.
Soon after, the girlfriend's read her diary and discovered what had happened. Despite the fact several prosecutors turned the case down, my son was arrested and charged with second-degree rape. It turns out the girl was only 13.
Justin was 3 years and 10 days older than his girlfriend, 10 days over the age requirement that would have made his actions legal in the eyes of the law.
Justin was received a mandatory sentence of 75 months. The judge thought that sentence was unfair. He sentenced my son to three years. The prosecutor appealed. Now the Oregon Supreme Court says under current law Justin must serve the full 75-month sentence.
Measure 94 would allow judges to determine the length of sentence. Current law gives them no leeway.
When children are incarcerated like adults, even when they have never been in trouble with the law, our criminal justice system is out of balance.
No one believes criminals should get off lightly.
But no one believes that young, first-time offenders should serve the
same sentences as career criminals.
Help us bring justice back to our courts.
Let's put judges back in charge of the courtroom.
Please vote yes on Measure 94.
Jim Thorp
Justin's father
(This information furnished by James E. Thorp.)
We, the voters of Oregon, were misled into allowing this power shift when we voted for mandatory sentences for all people age 15 and up in 1994.
Since 1994 the Legislature has drastically changed what we passed. We have stood by helplessly as prosecutors and politicians have run amok with more power than we ever imagined.
The current system has proven over the past five years to be far too expensive:
These guidelines made it necessary for all branches of our judicial system to share in the power of sentencing, with the final decision resting with the people we elect to make those decisions judges.
These guidelines allowed for the checks and balances necessary to keep one branch of our judicial system from having too much power.
We must bring justice back to Oregon before it is too late; before too much damage has been done.
We can bring justice back to Oregon's courts by voting YES on Measure 94.
Betty Moore
Grants Pass
(This information furnished by Betty J. Moore.)
We Oregon Voters were made many promises of great things if we approved the Mandatory Sentencing Law in 1994. Every one of those promises has failed to come true.
We must bring justice back by voting Yes on Measure 94.
Karen Cain, Wolf Creek
(This information furnished by Karen Cain.)
John DiIulio is a respected criminologist and a devout early proponent of incarceration. On March 12, 1999, however, he wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled "2 Million Prisoners Are Enough." DiIulio's research also suggests that the nation has 'maxed out' on the public-safety value of incarceration." He calls for keeping the prison population around two million and even aiming to reduce it over the next decade. Measure 94 will help accomplish that goal.
Measure 94 is tough, but fair.
I am certain DiIulio would take issue with Oregon's current sentencing, where young first-time offenders are sentenced for minor offenses to five years and 10 months to the brutality of prison rape and violence that, despite the best efforts of dedicated corrections personnel, still occur in our adult prisons.
One thing criminologists know for certain is that people tend to grow out of their antisocial behavior, so incapacitating the violent offenders through incarceration for long periods is sound public policy. Under Measure 94, this incarcerating the violent will not change. The problem with the current sentencing structure is that it catches far too many young, first-time offenders who pose no threat. It brutalizes them and makes them worse. It must be reformed.
We as taxpayers end up paying the price as the Oregon state corrections budget surpasses the state's higher education budget. We also pay the price when they return to our communities 5 years and 10 months later.
Measure 94 is a measured effort to curb the excesses of current sentencing structure and make the Oregon criminal codes tough, but fair. I urge you to vote yes on Measure 94.
Chip Shields
Executive Director
Better People
Portland, Oregon
(This information furnished by Chip Shields, Executive Director, Better People.)
Oregon's sentencing laws currently do not allow judges to fit the punishment to the crime. We have a "one strike and you're out" method of sentencing that does not work for Oregon.
Measure 94 returns control of courtrooms to judges. In many cases under current law, judges are forced to sentence first time offenders to very lengthy prison terms for relatively minor crimes. This has stripped judges of their right to deliver fair sentences that fit the crime.
Measure 94 will allow judges to consider the whole picture. We need to be tough on crime but at the same time we need to make sure that juveniles who have never been in trouble with the law don't get treated like career criminals.
When we impose mandatory sentences on first-time juvenile offenders and lock them up with adults, we end up producing hardened criminals when they come out of prison. This is not only wrong, it's expensive and it puts all of us at greater risk.
The facts should fit the crime. Currently, prosecutors coerce guilty pleas to lesser crimes because the accused can't afford to risk the chance they might be convicted of the more serious charge and spend many years in prison. When a first time offender "cuts a deal" rather than have a jury decide their guilt or innocence, the justice system stops working. Judges and juries should decide what happens to the accused, not prosecutors. Measure 94 restores balance to our criminal system.
Measure 94 puts judges back in charge, restores balance, and brings justice back to the courtroom. It's about giving judges the right to set sentences based on the individual's criminal history, the crime committed and the circumstance surrounding that crime.
LET'S MAKE THE SYSTEM WORK
VOTE "YES" ON MEASURE 94
For more information write ACLU of Oregon
PO Box 40585, Portland, OR 97240
or www.aclu-or.org
(This information furnished by David Fidanque, American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon.)
Remember if you think the "ONE STRIKE YOUR OUT LAW" with a minimum 5 years, 10 months Mandatory Sentencing, and the Judge's hands tied, could not happen to your teenage Son, Daughter, or Grandson, YOU'RE WRONG - It will change your life forever.
(This information furnished by Candice Jenkins.)