Incredible. I questioned Professor Kroger's policy judgement by saying he was a "strong supporter of Measure 11." Now I question his political judgement by bringing the divisive, death-penalty loving friend of Lars Larson, Josh Marquis here to shill for him. This is just too much. I'm definitely voting for Macpherson.

Donate here.

Steve, you hit the nail on the head with, "I'll agree that some of the minimums in Measure 11 are probably a touch too high. But not by much."

THAT is intelligent discussion.

Too often we have heard Measure 11 advocates claiming that even discussing changes to Measure 11 based on what we have learned from implementation was somehow soft on crime because every word of the measure was perfect.

Measure 49 just proved it is possible to have a debate about a previously passed ballot measure. Does that premise only apply to land use and not to any other measure?

Now, about the Marquis conclusion:

"Finally I'm tired of this idea that DAs get bonus points for how many people who go to prison. This is a small state and anyone involved in advocating for resources knows they are finite. That said it is not a choice bewteen [sic] prison and schools. We need both. And I beleive the Democratic Party needs John Kroger."

Did the Clatsop County DA support the Mannix "tough on crime no new taxes" campaign for Governor given what he said about finite resources?

Has Josh been down at the capitol advocating for more school funding? Has he been as tough on the "we must have spending discipline but don't ask me for details" Republicans as he has on those who didn't agree with him on crime issues?

There has been too much hype about all of this. There have been comments here claiming that before Measure 11 was the "milk and cookies" era and nowhere in the 36 counties of Oregon was there a strict judge until Measure 11 passed. Can that be backed up by evidence? Does anyone who posts here even know the names of the county judges prior to Measure 11, or was that just hype/propaganda?

How many young people not in law school understand the complexities of Measure 11? People who understand the details can serve an educational function, or they can be as polarizing as the original debate on Measure 11--their choice. Kroger wasn't here during that election debate. Does he understand that over 400,000 people voted against it and some may have had concerns about the lower age limit on Measure 11 being 15?

It may have been the greatest thing ever to happen to law enforcement in Oregon, but no one wins an election by saying of a ballot measure "it is the law and you shouldn't ask questions".

Josh--As your old editor on the Oregon Daily Emerald some 40 years ago, I observe that you still can't spell worth a damn.

I was on the fence about Kroger but Marquis' endorsement just settled it. I'm voting for Macpherson.

okay, you've given scenarios for the unsuspecting drivers who might not be guilty. What about other people who are just passengers, who cannot even get out of the car if they want to, (in a 2-door, in the back seat), or naive teenagers who just thought they were riding along with (usually boy-)friends, or to hang out. They might not even know what's planned when the other one goes into the store to hold it up and then comes back, everything seems fairly normal, except a bit of fast driving. How do these passengers fare with the current law, are they charged the same? this is where "guilty by association " should definitely NOT be happening, seems to me. but don't juries get lectures about what the law says, how they have to follow it.....and just how common is jury nullification anyway? Probably plenty of jury members are of the herded sheep variety, and can be told what to do by attorneys including d.a.'s. That's where the jury system might fail. Thinking they have to conform to some law that should really not apply to a given case, just because some powermouth in a suit in an official capacity tells them that. Very intimidating for some. It seems that you would have to have written- law controls on both sides of the issue: not too much leniency allowed for direct offenders, but not too much, (in other words unjust), punitive ~mistreatment~ of people with varying degrees of actual guilt, or none in reality. who is this mr maurer, purporting to speak for the voting public at large? please don't do that. you're not qualified ok? you're not in my head or anyoine else's i can think of. As for the attorney general's office, whoever is in favor of fairness rather than one-size-fits-all, I would be more likely to vote for. There's not a whole lot more tragic than the all-too-COMMON cases of girlfriends and wives being prosecuted for living in the same house as a criminal, etc.

Marquis: "I've been active in Oregon democratic politics for more than 30 years and for all too long the Republican[s] got to hijack the "law and order" label because too many Democrats thought that criminals were a more important constituency than victims."

I'm pretty surprised Kroger would have a surrogate using this language. Criminals a more important constituency? Really? I've never met a Democrat who believes criminals to be more important than victims, as he writes. I have met, however, too many politicians who'd rather support bad public policy than lose the "law and order" label to an opponent.

1) Kroger is not using me as a surrogate. he had no idea I would be writing this and may not even like it.

2) Gil is right, I am a terrible speller but I'm not THAT old - it was 30 years ago, not 40!

3) I am not suggesting that opposing M-11 means supporting rapists. I do mean that the knee-kerk opposition to prison sentences by some Democrats has resulted in some not good election results.

4) Why fall for the "guns or butter" Hobson's Choice of "prison or treatment?" How about BOTH treatment and prison or even more efficiently treatment IN prison. It's expensive but worthwhile. And yes I and others in the crime victims movement HAVE advocated for more prison program funding. Just not at the expense of reducing already anemic sentences.

The biggest problem with Oregon felony sentencing is the mandatory maximum it places on judges. If I had a dollar for every time a judge said "I wish I could give you more time but the law says I can't...."

4) Being a DA is a lousy stepping stone to any other poliical office. No elected Oregon AG was ever an elected DA. Only one Supreme Court Justice (now retired) in Oregon in the last 50 years was ever a DA. The last DA ever to be on the US Supreme Court was Earl Warren and you can count the former elected DAs among the 535 members of the US House and Senate on two hands.

I'm sorry that because I speak to Lars Larson (usually to defend something someone in the Democratic Part did) that anonymous would change his vote. I would hope that Democratic Party really is more diverse than that and in this particular discussion you listen to what Judge Maurer has to say about making sure meaningful sentencing reform comes out of the special session.

3) I am not suggesting that opposing M-11 means supporting rapists.

Oh, I thought Marquis suggested that too many Dems were interested in supporting rapists and criminals as a constitutency. Hmm...I wonder how I could have gotten that from his quote:

I've been active in Oregon democratic politics for more than 30 years and for all too long the Republican[s] got to hijack the "law and order" label because too many Democrats thought that criminals were a more important constituency than victims."

So, you're saying that too many Dems are interested in supporting criminals -- except rapists -- as a constituency??

Warning: Long post ahead....

Prior to sentencing guidelines, Oregon had what are called indeterminate sentencing. So a Judge could sentence felony offenders to probation with some local jail time, or a term of years in prison (usually 5 years for C-Fels, 10 for B-Fels and 20 ffor A Fels). If a prison sentence were imposed, the parol board would set a release date based on the offenders prior record, type of crime and other mitigating and aggravating factors. The release date was also governed by the number of beds available at Oregon prisons.

Under indeterminate sentencing, the average time actually served was 24% of the imposed sentence. There were various reasons for this, not the least being that the legislature wasn't funding additional prison beds, so parole boards were shortening sentences for everyone.

Sentencing guidelines were imposed, I think in 1989, for three main reasons.

Truth in sentencing: The guidelines were actually developed based on the criteria the parole board was already using, and whether Judges were actually imposing prison or probation in particular situations. The guidelines were meant to actually represent what a person with a particular conviction and criminal history would actually serve when sentenced under indeterminate sentencing rules.

Proportionality: So judges would sentence similarly situated offenders similarly

Consistency: So different judges would sentence similarly

The guidelines are just that. Guidelines. Judges can "depart" from the guideline, if they made specific findings of mitigating or aggravating factors. they can then impose more or less punishment, though there are limits on how much or how little they could impose.

Studies show that Judges still imposed the guideline sentences in 85-90% of the cases. So they rarely depart. And some of those departures were upwards, meaning they give more time than the guidelines suggested.

Also, law provides for 20% off for good time, and Department of Corrections has some programs where the offenders could get early release if they completed these programs.

Then....Oregonians discovered, because of the truth in sentencing, that violent offenders in Oregon were being let out after serving a portion of their sentence. Thus M11 was born.

So contrary to popular legend, M11 was not a reaction to soft judges. It was the publics reaction to the realization that the Oregon legislature hadn't funded corrections sufficiently, and that the Parole board had been releasing violent offenders after serving a fraction of their court imposed sentence. It was a cheap, politically attractive reaction by these same legislatures to deflect the blame onto Judges, Department of Corrections and defense attorneys.

Unfortunately, rather than simply amend the guidelines to provide greater time for these offenses, we got M11, which did more than simply provide for greater sentences to violent offenders. For one thing, it shifted the balance of power in negotiations as well and removed Judges from the sentencing equation in too many cases. M11 also caused the legislature to build more jails to house these folks. Something that, ironically enough if it had been done ten years earlier, would have avoided the need for M11 because the parole board would not have been releasing violent offenders so quickly in the first place.

There is a logical fix here. Amend the guidelines so that all M11 catagory crimes have a presumptive sentence of 120% of the current M11 sentence. So for a 90 month M11 sentence, the guideline could be 110 months. So if the offender got 20% off for good behavior, they'd still serve 90 months or so. This would be a potentially longer sentence than a M11 sentence, but the Judge not the DA would decide when someone was entitled to a lesser sentence, by a departure, or eligible for programs that may reduce a sentence. It would shift the balance of power in sentencing back to the judge away from the DA.

Here's how it would work in a typical "troubling" case as compared to M11.

Lets take the example above. Someone gives a ride to someone who just committed a robbery. Under M11 the DA says, you can plea to an attempted robbery I (non M11 crime) and take 30 months in prison with programs and maybe be out in 18 months, or go to trial and if convicted get a mandatory 90 months in prison, no early release, no parole, no programs. The defendant may take that deal to avoid the M11 sentence, even if they were innocent of the crime. Under my proposal the defendant may decide to try the case and present the defense of "didn't know there was a robbery going on" and feel some assurance that even if convicted, the judge wouldn't put her in prison for 90 months once all the mitigating facts were out there.

The fact is, in the opinion of M11 opponents, the problems with M11 aren't in regards to baby rapists. Thats ignorant, insulting and stops any intelligent conversation in its tracks. The problems arise in the marginal guilt cases, where the defendant foregos a right to a trial, or cases where there is guilt but significant mitigating factors. Its those cases where the DA ends up imposing the sentence, not the Judge. And thats simply wrong.

Perhaps someone can propose legislation or an initiative that would provide for 120% of M11 sentences but place the sentencing back into the guidelines. It would be interesting to see who would oppose such a law that could actually increase the sentencing to most offenders while shifting the sentencing power back more towards the Judges.

You can't modify or make legislation based on anecdotal evidence or "my sister's friends gay whale said...". Obviously, there are no guilty folks in jail.

Do your homework, provide some data, like from judges, and contrast that with jurors and/or victims for specific cases.

We DO KNOW that Measure 11 has had the effect people thought it would. Are you willing to throw it out based on what looks like tough sentencing on 1 out of 100 cases, or 1 out of 1000? And Josh, yes, mentioning or God forbid, ever speaking to Lars Larson is taboo for true bluecoats. Those are the ones that can't/won't justify their views to anyone but other lemmings.

Josh, meet the late Mike Deaver, who said that perception is what matters.

"1) Kroger is not using me as a surrogate. he had no idea I would be writing this and may not even like it."

Kroger makes a very impressive public presentation. The 2 top concerns I can see are:

a) Is he so gung ho that people think he may have an agenda once in office that we won't know about unless he is elected? As a political outsider, does he understand Oregon legislative politics --necessary to get his budget passed, legislation passed, etc.

b) Does he really understand the background of some issues (like how polarizing the Measure 11 debate was)?

Josh, you said

"3) I am not suggesting that opposing M-11 means supporting rapists. I do mean that the knee-kerk opposition to prison sentences by some Democrats has resulted in some not good election results."

That's pretty vague. What in your mind constitutes "knee-jerk" (by ordinary voters? by elected officials?) opposition, and to what prison sentences? Specifics, or just generalities?

Which election results do you think that affected? And to anyone who feels they were demonized for not supporting Measure 11 (I'm not talking candidates here, I'm talking ordinary voters--there's that perception problem again), are you saying you want their votes in 2008? I'm a prosecutor's granddaughter and I have often had the feeling that people like you have the attitude "agree with us on everything because even debating the issue is soft on crime". That may not have been your goal, but that was certainly my perception.

Exactly which elections are you talking about--would one example be when Juley Gianella won after Chuck Adams made that mailer with a gun pointing directly at the reader?

Josh, you said, "How about BOTH treatment and prison or even more efficiently treatment IN prison. It's expensive but worthwhile. And yes I and others in the crime victims movement HAVE advocated for more prison program funding. Just not at the expense of reducing already anemic sentences."

Forgive those of us who have seen/heard you often over the years for being surprised at that. If you have lobbied legislators that way but never spoken up publicly, how do we know about your efforts for "prison program funding"?

The one roadblock Kroger faces that a Measure 11 discussion does not help is "Gee, I've known Greg Macpherson for so many years, who is this newcomer?".

There is an old Saturday Night Live routine with the line, "hear me now and believe me later".

Josh, keep that line in mind when I tell you that just as surely as Mike Huckabee is vying for a win in Iowa even though he has been hideously outspent and Romney is attacking him, there are going to be people looking for POSITIVE reasons why they should support Kroger over their old friend Greg. People may not agree with Huckabee but they LIKE him.

If you really want Kroger to win, you will advise him to speak publicly about the following as often as possible: 1) The importance of treatment programs 2) Does he think the implementation of Measure 11 has been perfect or could it stand a re-evaluation and perhaps some changes? 3) Can he understand why so many people voted against Measure 11 and why?

And frankly, if I was in that situation, I don't care what the "deal" was, I would never declare myself guilty of a crime to which I knew I was innocent.

You wouldn't? Not after they told you that, under the law as passed by previous Republican legislators, they get to find you guilty anyway? (eg, guilty of "identity theft with intent to defraud" for having someone's credit card in your possession, even if you're not the one who stole it, no proof you even thought about misusing it, it can have the picture of someone who doesn't look like you, different race or gender even). (eg, guilty of "cockfighting" if you have a pair of spurs in your possession, even if you found them some place and don't know what they are, never been to a cockfight ever). (eg, guilty of "unauthorized use of a vehicle" if someone gives you a ride, and the first inkling you get that he's driving a stolen car is when the cops pull you both over. If that happens twice in your life, presumed 13 month prison sentence).

How about after you get turned down for court appointed counsel 'cause the government thinks you're rich on your minimum wage income. Private lawyer wants $10,000 to take the case to trial and cannot promise that you won't be convicted anyhow...and the prosecutor offers you a downward departure and $2,000 fine to fold?

How about when you read the police report and are surprised to discover that the police (who would never lie, certainly) swear that you consented to have your vehicle searched and that you "admitted" to all sorts of things that weren't true?

You still wouldn't plead? Well then, I guess you're smarter than a lot of people who have been born into different families than yours, hang out in different neighborhoods, and who date different people. But I guess we knew that.

You wouldn't? Not after they told you that, under the law as passed by previous Republican legislators, they get to find you guilty anyway? (eg, guilty of "identity theft with intent to defraud" for having someone's credit card in your possession, even if you're not the one who stole it, no proof you even thought about misusing it, it can have the picture of someone who doesn't look like you, different race or gender even).

WHY would you have someone else's card that was reported stolen? I mean c'mon....if you werent doing bad things with it, why is it in your possession? Was it planted by some stranger on the street?

(eg, guilty of "cockfighting" if you have a pair of spurs in your possession, even if you found them some place and don't know what they are, never been to a cockfight ever).

This one intrigues me....was this an actual case? Sounds like something you would see on "Cops" when they are in the south somewhere.

(eg, guilty of "unauthorized use of a vehicle" if someone gives you a ride, and the first inkling you get that he's driving a stolen car is when the cops pull you both over. If that happens twice in your life, presumed 13 month prison sentence).

Well, I think I would know my friends enough as whether or not they steal cars, and if they do...we're no longer friends. And if it happens twice, you probably should be locked up for a while to think about how dumb you are.

I wouldnt take a plea either. See, I wouldnt have to. I dont put myself in those kinds of situations, and I dont have those kinds of friends. If you are being prosecuted for something, the DA obviously has evidence against you. THATs the trick...dont do stupid crap.

I believe the whole issue is not as simple as some here would have us believe.

A few decades ago, our DA announced he wasn't running for re-election just before his eventual arrest and conviction on a number of counts including official misconduct.

Therefore it was one of those rare "open seat" elections. I recall a DA candidate being asked about tough sentences vs. plea bargaining. The candidate reminded everyone of the financial crisis being faced by the county (due to money mismanagement and perhaps someone absconding with public money--it was a long time ago). The candidate responded that in some cases plea bargaining was done to save the cost of a trial, a prime concern in those days.

I mention this to partly agree with Paulie. Each candidate has their own strengths. No candidate should be elected based on hypotheticals. And there are individuals serving as DAs in this state, not a hypothetical DA or other prosecutors who would operate as people imagine. Just because one prosecutor in one place does something, that doesn't prove that in all 36 DA offices all the personnel would act in exactly the same way.

Now that it is the actual election year, we deserve to hear from the candidates themselves, not surrogates about the job of the AG, what they consider their top priorities, how they intend to pay for their priorities, the value of treatment vs. just locking people up, if they believe Measure 11 should be a topic for discussion or whether it is perfect just the way it is, the proper role for juries, judges, prosecutors in our justice system, the differences between counties.

By that I mean the question of whether rural counties have gang problems, the problems of urban counties which differ from rural counties, etc.

If there is another financial crunch in this state like we saw during the 5 special sessions, would they advocate for new taxes to pay for state police, prosecutors, etc.?Or would they just fight the advocates for schools and human services using existing funds?

In the category of "you must be kidding me," does anyone really believe that voters will choose someone as the State's lead attorney, when that person has only been an Oregon lawyer for a matter of months? While I don't think it should be a prerequisite that an Attorney General candidate have extensive experience practicing law in the State, surely it should be one of the first things voters look to. "Two excellent candidates" ... ??? No, a good law professor does not make a good lawyer, and does not make him good for the State's top legal job.

Paulie, etc., leave the analogies to the lawyers. Doctors, firefighters, plumbers, etc., generally deal with the same things. A human body, disease, copper pipes, and fire, doesn't change when you cross state lines. Law, however, does. Not just substantive law, but policy issues related to law. I don't doubt that Mr. Kroger is brilliant, and is a fine teacher of both criminal law and jurisprudence. But prosecuting crime in New York, and teaching law students, does not equate (in my view) to anything having to do with the administration of Oregon's Department of Justice.

As for what voters expect, I do think that it will carry significant weight. Would he have a snowball's chance in hell if running for a circuit court position? No, because whoever he was running against would point this out. The Attorney General is supposed to oversee the criminal and civil administration of Oregon law, and (more importantly) run what amounts to a massive law firm at the Department of Justice.

Finally, I think it should be a rare thing that someone with no apparent political chops runs for statewide office. Something usually reserved for times when no other qualified candidate is running. If Mannix was the only opponent, I'd be all behind anyone-but-Mannix, despite the fact that he's been a lawyer. Or if Mr. Kroger had a remarkable resume of administration of a large law firm, company, bureaucracy, etc. But as I understand it, none of those kinds of conditions exist here.

A lot of Kroger’s reforms center on what the DOJ/AG’s Office should focus on. The current AG, and Macpherson, tends to highlight AG as a state’s corporate counsel. Kroger want the Attorney General to take a more active role in enforcing state law. Specifically, Kroger wants to utilize the state’s (little used) environmental enforcement laws (this is why the environmental groups like the Sierra Club are endorsing him), he wants to take a statewide approach to the meth problem (which emphasizes treatment as a way to cut down on crime before it happens), re-emphasize consumer protection, and streamline the collection of child support.

P.S. Kroger was a federal prosecutor, not a DA in New York.

OK, for those of you who have decided on an AG candidate, is either of them talking about election law? What about the legal status of "pass throughs"? (For instance, Steve runs for office and gets tons of contributions, Sam is struggling, so Steve passes along some of his contributions to Sam.)

At least one member of the Public Comm. on the Legislature stated strongly that the contribution checks don't belong to the candidate (Steve in the example) but are rather the property of the campaign ("Friends of Steve", for example).

All things being equal, I could easily decide my vote for AG depending on whether either candidate speaks out on that issue in a way I think makes sense.

And with regard to this: "Specifically, Kroger wants to utilize the state’s (little used) environmental enforcement laws (this is why the environmental groups like the Sierra Club are endorsing him), he wants to take a statewide approach to the meth problem (which emphasizes treatment as a way to cut down on crime before it happens), re-emphasize consumer protection, and streamline the collection of child support. ",

I would like to know exactly how Kroger would, re-emphasize consumer protection. Where would the money come from to have paid staff answering consumer phone complaints? Aside from funding, how would Kroger change what is being done now by the AG in taking complaints, for instance, about problems individual consumers are having (door to door sales, for example, not just lead in imported toys).

"The only thing in the middle-of-the-road are dead armadillos and yellow lines" - Jim Hightower over 20 years ago.

We get real tired of Josh's lies, locally. His blame game and unwillingness to be accountable for what his own office let's criminals get away with cannot go by without comment. In the 2007 budget review of his department he testified that in 100% of all cases his office offers a plea bargain and that 94% of the time the plea is taken (scroll down the support document page to Marquis' budget review document). How is the victim of that crime vindicated when pleas are being offered and accepted at that rate? According to his office's generated statistics 5848 court cases were generated in 2007. Ninety-four percent of those cases were plead out so the court appearance for those cases were handled in 15 minutes, whatever sentence the judge gave was on the recommendation of the DA's office's plea bargain. Again, according to the testimony Marquis gave at his budget review his staff handles over 90% of the cases. Going back to the documentation provided by his office each of his DDA's go to court 108 times each year. While the rest of Oregon has one DDA per 10,000 - 12,000/pop., in Clatsop County Marquis has one DDA per 5,700/pop. His DDA's go to court 108 times a year, on the average. Marquis is in court every single day? Why? We don't know. To poke fun at the accused? To explain to victims why his office took a plea? To make judges the scapegoats for his office's acceptance of an unreasonable sentence negotiation? Or to pose for the cameras and be able to say he is making his National District Attorney's Association Media Committee's phone calls from "a" courthouse? In most instances DA's make the decisions regarding sentences long before a judge is in the picture. Read Carol Tavris, co-author of the book,

Read Carol Tavris, co-author of the book,

Read Carol Tavris, co-author of the book, Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me), shows what kind of guy Josh Marquis really is. Wonder if he'll deny it?

Someone has way too much time on their hands to be googling Marquis. Must be true love. How many other elected officials have the stones to have a blog and answedr questions? Still waiting.........

Way too much time? It looks like one site had all the links, and it didn't look like true love there! How many elected officials of small counties w/35,000 pop. have so many personnel on staff they have the time to run a blog, answer questions posted on it, write op-eds AND book reviews for the New York Times, be a VP for the National District Attorney's Association, Co-Chair of the NDAA's media committee, tour China, speak at DA organizations throughout Oregon and the Nation, appear almost weekly on Larson's radio broadcasts, post daily online somewhere, answer media phone calls 24/7? Yet, this same elected official will moan that his county commissioners hate him and treat his office with total disdain AND then complain he has no time to do performance based budgeting.

<h2>Not a team player or one who has any true working knowledge of what a team is or how to function as part of one (unless he is the straw boss of it), nor should he be trusted to assess the abilities of another to be a part of or leading one. Alarmingly, he told Lars Larson that Clatsop County Commissioners were "overly concerned" with revenue when he was campaigning for a local ballot measure to have his salary compensated by a mandated law, and that it was ridiculous for them to require performance based budgeting from his county department. His endorsement, or lack thereof, for AG is truly meaningless.</h2>