Property Crime: Progressives Voting Yes on 57 and No on 61
If you’re paying attention to the news on ballot measures lately, you may be wondering, what’s up with all the progressives supporting the tough-on-crime ballot Measure 57?
Measure 57 is tough AND smart; its focus on repeat offenders and drug treatment clearly makes it a better way to fight property crime than the Kevin Mannix-Loren Parks Measure 61. Measure 61 is wrong-headed because it doesn’t address drug treatment.
The City Club of Portland is endorsing a Yes on 57, No on 61 vote because they realize that in the end, a No vote on both measures is like a "yes" vote on Mannix's Measure 61. That's because in the 2008 supplemental session, we referred voters a choice and whichever property crime measure gets more votes will be enacted.
Yesterday, Portland’s Willamette Week gave a clear and measured argument here on why you’re not doing anyone any favors by voting “No” on Measures 57 and 61 and why Measure 57 really deserves your “Yes” vote.
“What’s the fuss? People are pissed that not enough thieves and drug dealers wind up in prison.What’s the fix? Measure 61 would sentence first-time offenders to mandatory minimums. Measure 57 is a cheaper alternative that targets repeat offenders and mandates treatment for addicted felons…
…Since Measure 61 is seen as a sure-fire winner, a no on 57 would essentially be a yes on 61. We’re forced to put pragmatism before principle and urge a yes vote on 57.”
And today, the Portland Mercury wrote
The point is, you should vote for Measure 57 even if prison spending makes you queasy because at least it promotes rehab—and your grin-and-bear-it support is crucial to ensuring that Mannix's measure (more on that one later) dies. But don't take our word for it: John Kroger convinced us that this isn't simply a "lesser of two evils" measure, explaining that the drug treatment program it contains is exactly the kind he would have asked for once he takes up the attorney general post. He's a smart guy, and we trust his judgment: Vote for M57.
Progressives like me are supporting Measure 57 because its passage will result in an historic investment in drug treatment; it retains judicial discretion; and it avoids the catostrophic one-size-fits-all approach proposed by Kevin Mannix and Loren Parks.
I strongly urge you to vote Yes on 57 and No on 61.
|
October 16, 2008 |
Chip Shields | Comments (72 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Joel H | Oct 16, 2008 2:00:38 PM
I'm pretty sure that, in fact, most crimes are not committed out of boredom, but otherwise, yeah, a No vote on both is nothing more than a No vote on both. I'm not responsible to second guess anyone else's votes.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 16, 2008 2:21:03 PM
Eric,
I pointed out in another thread that your rules for voting on ballot measures are likely to ignore important information. Your argument here exemplifies that.
You cannot "logically" predict how people will vote. The best indicators are polls and polls indicate that both measures are likely to pass. In that case, M57 is certainly the preferable choice.
I don't like that. I resent needing to vote for something I do not support, but I will vote for M61 to prevent another Mannix train wreck on corrections. If we had no polling info, or if polls indicated that M61 did not have strong support, I would certainly vote against M57.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 16, 2008 2:21:44 PM
end italics
Posted by: Eric Parker | Oct 16, 2008 2:35:20 PM
There have been years before where there were competing measures on the same issue (one in Oregon in the 80's I believe - but the issue escapes me at the moment) where they were saying the same things on voting Y or N on them like they are here with these two, yet both failed. The reason they failed was noted as such in my above post by many political observers after the elections.
Sometimes you can, logically, predict how people will vote because many normal, average people are creatures of habit. "One or the other, or none at all - you can't have both."
Posted by: Tamerlane | Oct 16, 2008 2:36:17 PM
This is just pathetic. I am not going to vote for mandatory minimums (that is, neither 57 or 61) just because the "leadership" didn't have the good sense to take Mannix on head first. Look, if I am not mistaken, Mannix has lost every campaign he has been involved in for quite a few years now -- and an honest debate about a) the current economic crisis and its effect on the state budget and b) the general wrongheadedness of mandatory minimums (hated by DAs, take money away from schools, increase recidivism in minor offenders, etc.); and c) a campaign that effectively vilifies Mannix and everything he stands for -- would stand a very good shot at turning the tide in this well-meaning and progressive state with regards to mandatory minimums, once and for all. Instead, the "leadership" chickened-out of that fight in a way that is convoluted, and frankly both deceptive and a little weird. I say NO to the whole thing -- and, by the reasoning of the above posters, I think there stands a decent chance that that scenario might just win.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 16, 2008 2:48:36 PM
Eric,
If the polls present choices anything like ballots do, then polling data would reflect this "habit" of voters that you claim exists.
Tamerlane,
You may feel differently when some government service you like is cut so we can support our swollen prison population.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Oct 16, 2008 3:06:03 PM
Polls can be skewed and rigged to show off some point and glorify it with the numbers generated. I know this - I have a degree in mathematics and statistics and know that you can prove anything thorugh "Lies, more lies, and statistics".
Based on the above, I don't go for polls that much. And besides, Tom, you sound as if one will pass anyway. Isn't that being presumptuous using logically questionable data?
NO on both.
Posted by: rw | Oct 16, 2008 3:08:18 PM
Eric: I'd like a little more explication as to the mechanics of skewing besides verbiage-choice.
I like this stuff.
Explain a little more.
Posted by: Joel H | Oct 16, 2008 3:15:22 PM
Does anyone have a citation of a poll showing direct support for Measure 61 or Measure 57? A few minutes of searching turned up nothing more than "polls show Oregonians really hate crime."
Posted by: Joel H | Oct 16, 2008 3:19:38 PM
Well, there's this but somehow I doubt that's a random sample of Oregon voters.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Oct 16, 2008 3:22:32 PM
I have known, rw, some pollsters who will 'gleem off'(take away) some data that would be contrary to the result they are seeking, but keep just enough of the bad data in the total data to make it look legit.
Others will use only, say, use a small amount of people, who they know will make their data legit and prove the result they are seeking, and tell us they used a large amount of data by doubling or tripling it.
And then there are the polls (sometime announced 'not scientific') where one person will vote 500 times for one thing and the pollsters will count that as 500 people.
Yes, some can prove what you are looking for though "lies, more lies, and statistics". Not that the polls Tom uses are bad, but I tend to suspect any data that is statictically oriented - especially in heated political times such as this.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 16, 2008 3:24:50 PM
Eric,
Polls can be wrong, but usually, they are not far off. I'm not sure what is the point of the rest of your comment.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 16, 2008 3:27:35 PM
Eric,
I would seriously suspect any data that is NOT statistically oriented in such heated political times as these.
Posted by: rw | Oct 16, 2008 3:27:52 PM
Earwig [my favorite bug, and a moniker of affection in our house, if you happen to be an Eric person]: thanks. That is out and out fakery and intellectual dishonesty. It's cheating.
I confess to be rather prim and old-fashioned about this. And naive in my expectations. I came from data, from research, from a passion for discovering What Is if that can be done. It's not even elegant, what you are describing.
Most heinous of all: not even elegant.
r [ps, did you mean to say "glean" off, or is it a lexicographical term - "gleem"?]
Posted by: Eric Parker | Oct 16, 2008 3:34:59 PM
Yes...it is gleen. I guess i get Gleem from the amount of old time redio I listen to (Gleem shampoo for instance, or was it Gleem toothpaste...)
The 2nd of the 3 examples happened when I was at college for an election of a class president. Thier passion for using alcohol as an unexpected truth serum got them caught.
Posted by: mp97303 | Oct 16, 2008 4:56:26 PM
You may feel differently when some government service you like is cut so we can support our swollen prison population.
Has anyone ever done a PSA asking the criminals to leave Oregon so that we can spend our money are more deserving people? Might be worth a try.
Posted by: rw | Oct 16, 2008 5:12:30 PM
Oops.. I mean the other way. Ack. GleAn. OOps. Sorry. S'why I'm the writer and you is the mathmagician.
Never the twain and all.
bekkie
Posted by: Robert Harris | Oct 16, 2008 5:31:44 PM
I admit it. I've cast protest votes before.
But we can ill afford a no vote on M-57. This has to be a strategic vote.
M-61 will pass. Make no mistake about that. If there's one thing angry voters will support, its putting more criminals in jail.
And,even though I may get into trouble from some of my fellow criminal defense attorneys, M-57 isn't all bad. It does in some situations give judges more discretion to sentence than the current law does. And as someone who has continually argued against mandatory minimums and for more sentencing discretion for judges, it would seem to be hypocritical of me to argue that M-57 is a bad thing just because it would allow judges the discretion to send some criminals to prison that would under the current law get probation. (News flash....some second third and fourth time offenders deserve prison)
And while its not perfect, there are other things to like. Treatment must be funded. I think you'll see more drug courts and more mental health courts.
Posted by: Damon | Oct 16, 2008 6:00:12 PM
Sadly, Oregon already uses the highest percentage of its state budget to lock up criminals and supervise parole of any state. If either Measure 57 or Measure 61 passes - and both will probably pass - this cost will be increased even further. This is at a time when we literally can't afford it: the current financial crisis will most probably cascade into a commercial crisis severely impacting the Oregon economy, resulting in, among other effects, reduced revenue for the state. So this is the worst time to increase the already bloated criminal justice budget.
This is one more misguided and expensive battle in the failed War on Drugs. As long as we blindly follow the current prohibitionist strategy, we are guaranteed to have a steady stream of fresh candidates for our voracious criminal justice system. There will always be some percent of the population that uses drugs, whether they are legal or not. By making drugs illegal we have severely distorted the cost, thus making it more likely that some portion of this drug-using population will turn to property crime or identity theft to pay for their drugs. If we really wanted to minimize property crime and identity theft, we would eliminate the current prohibition on drugs.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Oct 16, 2008 6:26:39 PM
Can anyone point me to an actual poll on both measures?
Posted by: Joel H | Oct 16, 2008 6:53:26 PM
So there aren't any public surveys showing support for M. 61, just a lot of assertions that's it's going to pass, because it's "tough on crime" and Oregonians eat that shit up? Well, that's sorta true -- 12 out of 16 "tough on crime" measures over the last 20 years have passed (depending on how you count, and I pretty much just guessed based on ballot titles on Wikipedia) but then again, the last one was in 1999 and there are principled conservative arguments against M. 61.
M. 57 is almost as bad! It doesn't "retain judicial discretion", it merely infringes on it less than M. 61 does. It doesn't "avoid the one size fits all approach", it puts more people in prison, imposes a number of edicts and in no way increases the choices available to judges. It will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. This is what progressives are supporting, just because it contains funding for drug treatment that Kroger will be pushing for anyway in a few months? Count me out. Neither of these is anything but a giveaway to the prison industrial complex and an expansion of the immoral war on drugs.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 16, 2008 7:27:35 PM
The Statesman Journal article cited above is the best info I could find on the net.
Posted by: vote m57 | Oct 16, 2008 7:50:01 PM
Here's the poll everyone, it's been up on Mannix's site for weeks...not quite sure how you missed it.
this is the poll you have been looking for.
Their both going to pass--that's pretty obvious.
Posted by: Law-n_Order D | Oct 16, 2008 8:15:14 PM
Legislators should not be surprised by the Mannix measure when there has been no leadership in reforming Oregon's weak sentencing guidelines in regards to property and drug crimes. Did you know that a person with two misdemeanor assault four convictions (such as a bar fight or domestic violence situation) has a higher criminal history score under the guidelines than a person with 1000+ drug and property crime felonies?
Which is Worse? This is the current state of guidelines
Scenario A
The presumptive guidlines sentence for Perjury with those two misdemeanor bar fights is 13-14 months in prison.(6-D)
Scenario B
Person has a criminal history that includs one conviction for Rape, one for Manslaughter and one for Unlawful Use of a Weapon. That person then burglarizes a business. The presumptive sentence would be 10-30 days in jail and 18 months probation? (2-A)
The judge's "discretion" under the guidlines in the second scenario would be to impose a whole 6 months as a departure sentence, but only if the DA could plead and prove why that particular burglary was substantially worse than normal.
Measure 57 is the legislature's reaction to Measure 61. What we need in Salem are proactive legislators. Chip, good work on your support for 57, but Democrats should lead not follow.
Posted by: Joel H | Oct 16, 2008 8:33:47 PM
Thanks, vote m57. I don't have a habit of reading Mannix's propaganda sites, but I didn't find it in a search. It's hardly what I would call public!
Posted by: YoungOregonMoonbat | Oct 16, 2008 9:14:02 PM
How many of you have been victims of crime?
I have, three times in the past year.
Sorry, I don't buy "substance abuse" as the sole reason why individuals are committing crimes on others.
Would it hurt you to realize that most of these offenders are bad apples who would offend 50+ times until they are age 45+ to realize that they have done anything wrong?
Personal responsibility. Probation and treatment that any substance abuser with an online connection to purchase "Quick Fix" to pass any piss test will only buy them more time to justify their fucked up behavior.
I am sorry. I am voting for Obama but will be voting for 61 regardless of who was behind it.
Posted by: Tamerlane | Oct 17, 2008 12:22:06 AM
I can't find any such poll either. vote m57 -- the link you provide doesn't seem to contain any data, but is rather some sort of blank form that didn't scan very well. The frustrating thing, even if there is widespread support for 61, is the paucity of a sustained media blitz to defeat the measure (perhaps along the lines I suggested above). Joel H. makes an excellent observation that the last time one of these "tough on crime" yahoo bills passed was back in 1999! Back then a lot of crazy right-wing measures either passed or were only narrowly defeated -- the same as Gore only carried the state over Bush by a few thousand votes in 2000. But things have changed: economic times are tougher (people understand that we can't waste hundreds of millions of dollars on wingnut experiments), conservatism is broadly discredited, crime rates overall are lower (at least since the pre-1990's), and the state has moved substantially out of the "swing state" column and into the "safe blue" column. Hell, back before 1999, even Kevin Mannix had a shot of winning some sort of election in this state! I just don't buy that we should concede the mandatory minimum debate. These are terrible, destructive laws, and "progressives" should have the courage, pragmatism, and straight-forwardness to stand against them.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Oct 17, 2008 12:41:38 AM
actually, the link goes to a scanned copy of a poll conducted at the beginning of the year (and faxed to OAA from Davis Wright Tremaine). it's a well-written survey, even-handed and not aimed at any viewpoint other than getting data. and it shows that both measures would pass but, encouragingly, M57 seems to have the upper-hard. perhaps because Oregonians believe in the "meth epidemic" so are willing to vote for the measure that addresses it.
as a progressive, it sucks that so much of our limited resources in Oregon go to imprisoning people in the cruel ways brought about by Mannix's horrible M11. M61 will only make that worse. if anyone thinks 51% of Oregonians are actually going to vote No on 2 "anti-crime" measures, please contact me about a mortgage plan i have to make you rich by Christmas. Oregonians passed M5, M11 and M37: there are more than enough poorly informed, self-interested and downright stupid people out there to overwhelm those who make an effort to learn the facts and consider humane and effective alternatives.
M61 is going to pass. the only way to defeat it would be to make its defeat the #1 issue of an election -- and that's not going to happen. the upside of this is that, in combination with John Kroger's election as AG, our state will finally begin to deal seriously with one of the three great roots of crime: addiction (the other two being lack of education and poverty) (i'd add "republicanism" but that would just be snarky). i'd love to vote no on M57, but i cannot take the risk that M61 will win the day. M61 is going to pass, and you don't need a poll to tell you that. you just need to pay attention to human nature and the track record of Oregon voters.
wishful thinking never won nothing but a lot of pain.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Oct 17, 2008 7:28:23 AM
"there are more than enough poorly informed, self-interested and downright stupid people out there to overwhelm those who make an effort to learn the facts"
Which is why the Dorothy English measure passed and caused us fact people to panic. These people vote on 'buzz words' more than anything else.
Posted by: Josh Marquis | Oct 17, 2008 7:54:13 AM
Chip and I actually agree on this one.
Let's put some myths to rest.
Unlike Measure 61, Measure 57 has ZERO mandatory minimums. All it does is give judges the authority to imprison (for a whole 2 years) REPEAT property felons and it mandates treatment.
The only way you can go to prison for drugs under Measure 57 is if you haver POUNDS of hard drugs, yes POUNDS.
No-one, let me say that again, NO-ONE is in Oregon state prison for posessing marijuana. There are a FEW for SELLING large amounts but 80 percent of all convicted felons do not go to prison and more than 60% of everyone in prison is there for a violent felony.
Who do you think bears the brunt of prperty crime?
Poor people who can least afford it. Working moms who can't spring for comprehensive insurance so they get zip when someone steals their car.
I'll leave you with this real life example from Clatsop County:
One recent vivid example was the theft and destruction of the statue of Sacagewea at Lewis and Clark National Park. The criminal who vandalized and cut the head off the bronze statute (donated and valued at over $25,000) had a criminal record that included misdemeanor and felony convictions. He was convicted of aggravated theft in the first degree, which on paper carries a possible 10 years in prison. What was the actual sentence?. Twenty days in jail. The judge said he wished he could give him more time, but sentencing guidelines forbade it.
Under Measure 57 the judge could have given this repeat criminal up to two years in prison.
Under Measure 61 this particular crime isn't even covered, so the judge would still be stuck with a maximum of 20 days.
The last time one of these "crazy crime measures passed" was actually 2000 when an attempt to repeal Measure 11 was rejected by Oregon voters 75-25. Do you really think that 75% are all "right wingers?"
Posted by: Eric Parker | Oct 17, 2008 8:00:12 AM
"most of these offenders are bad apples who would offend 50+ times until they are age 45+"
Translation: So bored they need something to do - even if it is a crime. This is why treatment won't work. Treatment just makes them even more bored because they just don't care. We need to get them to do something more constructive than just sit on their bottoms and listen to cop-out reasone they are 'that way'.
A better solution is to automatically send them to the armed services as part of punishment. A sideways draft if you will. The services have always complained they don't have enough recruits and the bored criminals need something constructive to do with their lives. And if the criminals screw up like they do as a civilian, the armed services will not mess around - they WILL incarcerate and they WILL NOT coddle them with treatment crap.
But I digress.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Oct 17, 2008 8:05:42 AM
"The criminal who vandalized and cut the head off the bronze statute (donated and valued at over $25,000) had a criminal record that included misdemeanor and felony convictions."
Sounds like he was just bored and wanted something to do. Treatment wouldn't help this guy for sure. No amount of discretion would help either.
Either measure wouldn't stop this one.
NO on both. Easy wasn't it?
Posted by: DB | Oct 17, 2008 8:22:21 AM
Eric, your statement that criminals are "bored" shows how unsophisticated your understanding of crime is. Criminals have a sense of entitlement and think differently than the rest of us do. Most property crime is done by addicts to support their addiction. Treatment addresses these root causes of crime. Whether or not treatment works is not a matter for debate, there are literally hundreds (or possibly thousands) of studies showing that treatment reduces criminal behavior. M57 funds intensive treatment with supervision, and drug courts. Both of these interventions have been shown to be remarkably effective at reducing criminal activity.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Oct 17, 2008 8:44:39 AM
"Most property crime is done by addicts to support their addiction"
But, thier addiction started because they were bored and said "why not? I will try this drug. I have nothing else better to do".
Boredom starts the addiction, and the addiction takes over. The root is boredom.
Posted by: carla axtman | Oct 17, 2008 8:54:28 AM
But, thier addiction started because they were bored and said "why not? I will try this drug. I have nothing else better to do".
Boredom starts the addiction, and the addiction takes over. The root is boredom.
Having grown up in a family of alcoholics and drug addicts..and having a few dear loved ones outside my family also afflicted by addiction--you're full of shit, Eric, and you're talking out of your ass.
The root of addiction is not boredom. I don't know a single person who succumbed to their drug of choice because they were sitting around with nothing better to do. Your cavalier and ignorant attitude about addiction demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to really learn and understand this issue.
You may disagree with one or both of these measures. But your argument here in an attempt to buffet yourself is completely bogus.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 17, 2008 9:14:40 AM
The roots of addiction are varied. Some people become addicted to prescription drugs. Some people have high physical sensitivity to certain substances and get hooked easily. Some people have neuro-transmitter imbalances. This can sometimes be interpreted as boredom. Most people, I believe, become addicted because of pain that may be physical, mental or emotional.
Posted by: DB | Oct 17, 2008 9:45:05 AM
Eric, what is with your odd obsession with boredom as the root of all evil? Maybe we should get kids xbox's and we'll get rid of all addiction? What a weird theory.
Addiction is caused by a mixture of genetics, childhood experience, and drug use. Some people with a history of childhood abuse from addicted parents just have to use once or twice and become addicted. Others with a good childhood and genetics can use drugs and drink heavily through college or early adulthood without becoming addicted.
People experiment initially with alcohol and drugs because their friends do it, they want to fit in, and they see little harm in it.
Posted by: RW | Oct 17, 2008 9:50:42 AM
I submit that what we are doing on BO here IS addict behaviour! Just take a brief, honest look at yourself, each of us? We spend LOTS of time up here, and I know some of us spend time we should not!
Of course, it is campaign time, yah - but face it, anytime is political time, innit?
You too, Earwig! :).... I should post one of the standard "Is Your Behaviour Under Control?" tools used by psychologists to help clients connect with reality.
How d'ya like THEM apples? [as my alcoholic father the Jester used to say]
Posted by: joel dan walls | Oct 17, 2008 10:01:27 AM
Hey, my kids told me that their schools don't really need computers, or repairs to the antiquated heating systems, and that they'd prefer bigger class sizes. So thanks, but send the money off to the Department of Corrections.
These measures are one more demonstration for me that the entire initiative system is broken and corrupt. Bad enough that people like Sleazemore have turned the system into a cash cow, but we get horrible laws enacted to boot, and a legislature that refuses to do the job we elect them to do. I will continue to vote NO on all initiatives, and the only initiative petition I want to sign is one that abolishes the system completely.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 17, 2008 10:18:27 AM
...a legislature that refuses to do the job we elect them to do.
Perhaps you would like to abolish the legislature as well.
Posted by: Rep Chip Shields | Oct 17, 2008 10:21:54 AM
Maybe if we turn around Eric's point a bit, it might make more sense.
Rather than saying boredom causes addiction, we could instead acknowledge that many people who are drawn to drugs have a tendency towards thrill seeking.
Good treatment tries to help addicts adopt a recovery lifestyle that appreciates that much of a normal, clean and sober, ordinary life is, frankly, quite boring from their perspective (e.g.- paying bills, waking up at 7:00 a.m. to go to work, remembering birthdays, paying child support, writing thank you notes, going to meetings, church etc., doing nice things for others where you receive absolutely nothing in return..all boring), and good treatment helps them develop the thinking, attitudes, skills and associations necessary to develop a meaningful life within this new (heretofore boring) lifestyle they will be adopting.
For more information on how substance abusers in
in the criminal-justice system tend to operate and see the world, go to the website of the Public Safety Strategies Task Force at
www.toughandsmart.net
Dr. Ken Robinson's testimony is insightful.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Oct 17, 2008 11:14:23 AM
DB, actually Eric Parker has a dual obsession: boredom and uptightness. Together they provide a unified theory of human behavior.
Eric also is not a believer in evidence.
Posted by: Joel H | Oct 17, 2008 12:23:12 PM
Josh Marquis, you claim that M. 57 contains zero mandatory minimums, but the explanatory statement appears to contradict you. It says, "This measure requires that courts shall sentence persons convicted of the following crimes as follows:" and goes on to list mandatory sentences of, for example, "58 to 130 months" for "Manufacturing or dealing 500 or more grams of meth or cocaine, or 100 grams or more of heroin or ecstasy" where the current sentencing guidelines are "Probation to 45 months". Since I think it's unjust to imprison anyone for engaging in voluntary transactions, I'm voting against M.57. If that makes M. 61 more likely to pass, so be it. Other people's votes are not my responsibility.
Posted by: Joel H | Oct 17, 2008 12:30:44 PM
And my answer to "what’s up with all the progressives supporting the tough-on-crime ballot Measure 57?" is, they're playing with fire. In one of the other documents hosted with the previously linked poll, David Rogers worries that Partnership for Safety and Justice may be alienating their base by supporting M. 57. He's right. I donated to their campaign, and I never will again.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Oct 17, 2008 1:33:54 PM
January is a long time ago. It is hard to believe there isn't more recent polling, and it doesn't speak well of those who are advocating the Yes on 57, No on 61 strategy if they aren't providing information to show that it is the only course to defeat 61.
Posted by: Robert Harris | Oct 17, 2008 1:35:32 PM
Joel H. ...in some ways I admire your decision to vote against M-57, regardless of the fact that M-61 will certainly pass so your vote is helping M61 becoms law.
On the other hand, I can't resist asking....How's President Nader doing?
Posted by: Josh Marquis | Oct 17, 2008 2:22:44 PM
Joel is correct. There is ONE area where Measure 57 does have mandatory sentences. If someone is caught with 500 grams of meth or cocaine. That would be over one POUND of coke or meth. I have seen that much dop in a non-federal bust maybe 4 times in my career. So I stand corrected someone dealing POUNDS of meth would actually have to go to prison for 4 to 5 years. Of course as likely the Feds will have sent them off for 25 years for the same dope.
But ALL the rest of the sentences are PRESUMPTIVE, meaning IF the judge wants to.
I would hope, that part from whether 61 is bad policy and too expensive, that even people who identify themselves as "progressive Democrats" would agree that someone who continually breaks into other people's house and steals, flunks out of probation and treatment programs....repeatedly may actually need to be incarcerated.
When we held a Meth Summit in Clatsop County two years ago the sober addicts ALL said that but for being jailed or imprisoned they would still be using or dead.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Eric Parker | Oct 16, 2008 1:48:43 PM
Excuse me...but a NO on both measures just makes a NO for both. Telling us that NO on both is a vote for Mannix's measure is just them trying to give you extremely sweetened kool aid to persuade you to do what they want.
I reapeat - Many people will look at these measures as an either-or. While Chip is asking us to vote Y on 57 and N on 61, many will vote the opposite, while some will vote NO on both. Three scenarios, two out of three scenaios cast a NO on either one. So just vote NO on both because, logically, they will both fail anyway because of the above scenarios.
And besides, voting Y on both is not a logical step to the average voter, 61 is a Mannix measure that gets a NO out of hand, and treatment in 57 is such a cop out. People commit most crimes simply out of boredom and sending them to treatment will just get them even more bored.
NO on both. NO On everything (except the housecleaning stuff).