Why should anyone believe Kevin Mannix on anything?

Oregon also includes more government functions in the DOC budget than other states, so it's not a particularly good comparison.

The problem was that HB 3508 was hashed out at the last possible minute. They stripped the rehab funding from M57 early in the session, but dithered about how to balance the budget with sentence reductions and finally passed something that's just really dumb and poorly written.

Look, most of what the Lege does is the budget. The honest thing to do would have been to bite the bullet early in the session and invite all the stakeholders into the process, rather than taking the "wait and pray" attitude with the budget forecast. Law enforcement was pretty much frozen out of the negotiations.

The biggest hypocrisy is, of course, that the biggest sponsors of HB 3508 (which temporarily repeals M57 as well) were the very people who endorsed M57 to avoid having M61 pass - Prozanski, Shields, etc. When you speak to the supporters of M57 on the left, they're usually pretty honest that they think that it's bad policy. If that's really so, why did they sponsor it in the first place? Are they afraid of the electorate? In any case, look for the M57 repeal effort from the same people who sponsored it.

Carla - Yes, I admit that M57 and the costs of the prison system take money from the education budget. I'm also sensitive to the fact that Mannix's initiatives are irresponsible in that they never contain a funding mechanism for their reforms. However, the responsible thing to do would have been to refer a tax increase to fund M57 to the voters(preferably IN M57), rather than to effectively repeal it behind closed doors, and, oh by the way, give a 10% sentence cut to some of the sleaziest criminals around in the most time-intensive, least efficient way possible.

Typepad is acting up. Pls forgive if this posts more than once.

Carla,

You are right on in your analysis. And mlw, your closing statement that the legislature gave "a 10% sentence cut to some of the sleaziest criminals around in the most time-intensive, least efficient way possible" ignores the hypocrisy that the Mannix/Doell/DAs plan was to let 2,000 minimum/medium prisoners out six months early without the checks and balances that the hearings via HB 3508 permitted. Hearings that, by the way, honored the constitution by giving victims their say in the process.

The Legislature should not let fear-mongering override the facts. Earned time is supported by significant research as an effective correctional tool and has actually been proven to reduce recidivism.

I hope the Democrats in the legislature don't given in to the Republican right operatives like Doell and Mannix. They are wrong and you were right. Stick to your position and we will stick with you. Flip flop and you risk losing your support.

Mannix et al never did believe in earned time.

"You did the crime, now do the time, but no one should ask how to pay for it" is their true motto.

Don't forget: Mannix ran for Gov. on "tough on crime, no new taxes" and LOST.

Why would anyone take him seriously?

Regardless of whether you think we should take him seriously, the electorate does. M61 didn't lose by that much.

HB 3508 is inefficient in that it failed to give any clear and concise guidelines about who SHOULD be let out early and required re-sentencing. I've done dozens of these hearings and the judge inevitably asks, "So, what criteria are we using? What's the legal standard?" Regardless of the policy itself, it's written even more poorly than the medical marijuana law. You'd think our elected reps could do better than a bunch of dopers.

As for the argument that M57 would have failed if it had a built in funding mechanism, well, that's what we have voters for, isn't it? If, given the choice between a balanced, funded approach (M57) and an unbalanced, unfunded approach (M61), they chose the latter and screwed the education budget, then we'd have to accept that it was at least an informed decision. However, to pass M57 without a funding mechanism, then plead poverty (with the clear intent to repeal it fully later), is just hypocrisy plain and simple. It's bad enough to play politics with the other party, but it's unforgivable to try to game the electorate that way.

Both these guys deserved to be hung by the balls and publicly flogged.

Posted by: LT | Feb 4, 2010 11:37:15 AM

Why would anyone take him seriously

Why does anyone take Ted seriously? The majority of the people that care, only care about the letter after the name. If there's one thing this blog illustrates, the letter after the name is more imporant than the actions of the individual. Obviously, no one with a brain, memory OR decency would support this serial stat offender!

Let's not let the real message be overshadowed by Mannix-hating or Mannix-loving.

Earned time is good correctional policy and it's fiscally responsible policy. Period.

Amending the bill, as Prozanski has proposed, is the right move. Playing "what if" games about last session clouds the issue. Let's deal with the reality of what's on our plates today. Fix the bill, keep it, study the results and let the results dictate future policy.

Carla:

I was also taken aback by the scare-mongering ad on KPOJ, not that I should have been, perhaps. The professionally fearful (i.e. those who profit from fear) seem willing to say whatever they think supports their advantage; reality has little or nothing to do with it.

The legislature is reported to be looking at 3508 to improve it where that seems useful. Meanwhile, the possibility of additional earned time for this limited class of offenses is a strengthened incentive to good behavior by those who would soon be reentering society on their original schedule. This is consistent with the goal of correction. Further, it has a small but significant effect on reducing the drain of state funds from education and from programs (such as substance abuse treatment and victim support) that should further enhance the correction process.

The legislature has taken a commendable step via 3508. It should resolutely resist the apparently well-funded but very ill-advised attempts to bludgeon both the measure and the public with these scare ads and with faulty data such as you so clearly expose.

We should thank the legislature for making some tough decisions in the worst economic downturn in our nation's history since the great depression. HB 3508 was one of the many tough decisions the leglislature had to make and they should be commended for it. As the director of Juevenile Rights Project--a non-profit organization providing legal representation to juveniles and foster care kids--I can tell you the budget shortfalls the state was facing in 2009 could have resulted in the transfer of young people from youth facilities to adult prisons. Youth expereince disproportionate abuse in adult prisons and are more appropriately dealt with in youth facilities. HB 3508 allowed funds to be shifted within the public safety budget to keep the Burns youth facility open and prevent the transfer of youths to adult prison. There have been some technical problems discoverd in the bill and the legislature should address those in the short session, but the underlying stucture of HB 3508 shoud remain intact.

What's scary about Mannix is that so many people do listen to him. I'm glad the legislature is looking at this issue. As Ann said above, it's good policy and fiscally responsible. Good for them and they have my support.

Don't forget Mike Dugan is married to Rep. Stiegler who supported the increase in earned time. Not exactly a neutral source (if he still wants to go home at night...).

Demetrious Payton? I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Al Gore race card. Back to the post about "whitening" the resume, isn't this an attempt to do just the opposite? You've mentioned that a lot of these ads. appeared on radio. Isn't that a pretty transparent ploy to say "black", without saying it or showing his picture? Or his he not black? Manics and Fool. Pretty much describes the audience as well as the speakers.

Think you're immune? What race did you imagine the woman was? Most burglaries are black on black crime. In the era of Faux News, a "neighborhood under siege" is predominantly white. Neighborhoods with endemic crime and violence are probably what "those people" want. Kind of like rationalizing leaving the dog out in the cold because "He likes that; he's a dog".

And what Ann said.

While HB 3508 may not be perfect, it is far better than the ill conceived, poorly thought out plan that Mr. Mannix and Mr. Doell and their cronies put out. Their plan would have run up against the same consecutive sentence issues that they have criticized in HB 3508 without any of the safeguards, including hearings with victim participation. For an organization that purports to represent victims, they produced a plan that essentially ignored victims.

It would be a tragedy if HB 3508 were repealed now. Most of the hearings for those currently incarcerated have been completed. In the future, judges, victims and all concerned will know at sentencing what the sentencing conditions are, including the possibility of early release and victims will not have to testify at future hearings.

Mr. Mannix and Mr. Doell have been pushing their personal vindictive agenda for too many years oblivious to the adverse consequences of their actions. They are willing to throw vulnerable populations all over Oregon under a bus to achieve their mean-spirited goals. Their negative and often factually incorrect rants and rhetoric should be called out whenever and wherever they appear and I applaud Ms. Axtman for her articulate denunciation of their misleading statements.

Ron Chase

Check out the audio from this mornings Senate Judiciary hearing. Senator Prozanski calling out Mannixs' lobbyist on his scare tactics http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/

In an unprecedented move, Senator Prozanksi asked Doug Harcleroad (from Mannix’s Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance) to account for dangerous and misleading radio ads. The radio ads have provided misleading information about the earned-time policy and have been designed to scare the public.

You can listen to the audio at Partnership for Safety and Justice.

Thank you Ms. Axtman, for this post.

I will echo some of the posts already in that earned time has been proven to be effective at reducing recidivism, which most of us can agree is a good thing, not in the least because it is cost effective. If earned time is repealed it will be a huge set back to one of the better tools proven to address the often misguided policies of mass incarceration. The legislature should stand firm in addressing exaggerated prison spending, seriously consider their priorities here, and not cave to fear mongering from Mannix and Doell.

The problem w/voting for 57 was the sword of damacles hanging over the voters heads regarding the alternative. Had the legislature shown a little leadership and backbone perhaps neither bill would have been on the ballot November 2008.

Do I really care how DOC decides who gets early release? Well, I guess I do. All it takes is one Maurice Clemmons to ruin the prgram as well as several people's lives. Mr. Clemmons had his sentance commuted by then Gov Huckabee and even though he had subsequent issues in both Arkansas and Washington states he was not re-incarcerated. Late last year he murdered 4 police officers in Lakewood, WA.

Yeah, because Doug Harcleroad is just a shill for the the far right. Give me a break. The man did more for victim's rights than any other prosecutor in the State. Prozanski doesn't like those ads because they make him look weak on crime, which he is, his grandiose claims of being a prosecutor (in Municipal Court) notwithstanding. Why not hear from the victims themselves - here.

As for "wasting taxpayer money", shall we at least admit that it's theirs to waste? Shall we agree, just perhaps, that the passage of M57, after its referral by the very same sponsors who put forth HB 3508, might indicate that the taxpayers, whose money it is you claim is being wasted, WANT their money spent that way? Or do you claim that Prozanski and company just know better than those dumb ol' voters?

Regardless of whether it "reduces recidivism" or not, punishment for hard core criminals remains popular with the voters. As a friend of mine put it to me, "I'm all for treatment for a guy who possesses meth, but I'm all for punishment if he burglarizes my house to get money to support his habit." Prison doesn't exist for reform. Prison exists to punish offenders and keep them out of society for a period of time to incapacitate them. Voters strongly believe that. You want rehab, fund post-prison supervision programs, not "early outs" for criminals.

The reason these guys get traction is that many of us who post on BO view prison spending as taking away from education spending and view prisons as inherently evil. They're not. They're places where we send people who have committed acts which endanger society (usually repeatedly). Plus, you forget that there are real victims here. Talk to any burglary victim and see how they feel about it being "just a property crime"!

You want to defang these guys? It's easy - just provide responsible alternatives that punish criminals, and FUND those proposals through additional revenue. Oregon voters are conservative when it comes to spending money, but they'll pay for it if they really believe in it. If we are not willing to fund incarceration for repeat offenders with new revenue, then we deserve the "hug a thug" reputation we get from Mannix and company.

Sent to the committee by Doell...regarding how effectively DOC manages "good time" -

I thought you'd be interested in this story. DOC inmate John Anthony Brown was sentenced to 24 months in prison for a Mult. Co. robbery on May 16, 2008. Brown went to Coffee Creek for DOC intake, where he promptly used a razor blade to sharpen the end of his plastic fork into a weapon. He used the weapon to take a DOC counselor hostage for 90 minutes. I presented the case to grand jury and Brown was indicted on charges of First-Degree Kidnapping, Unlawful Use of a Weapon, Supplying Contraband and Possession of a Weapon by an inmate. Those charges are pending with a January 5, 2010 scheduled trial date.

Defendant went to the Oregon State Penitentiary where he received a total of 9 additional major rules violations that landed him in IMU for the majority of his stay. Defendant also received a host of "minor" rules violations. The major violations are as follows:

June 29, 2008:  Defendant fashioned a 4-inch bolt into a weapon by filing down one end and concealed 11 pills in his cell.



July 14, 2008: Defendant was ordered to pack his property in order to move to another cell in the Segregation unit.  Defendant refused and refused again.  Officers explained that he would be placed in "closed supervision status" if he did not comply.  He refused again and said, "if you put me in a cell with somebody, I'm going to murder him."



August 5, 2008:  Defendant covered his cell light bulb and hid a small orange pill, Wellbutrin, in his cell.  No segregation sanctions were recommended because Defendant had previously received 180 days in Segregation, the maximum allowed by DOC rules.



August 12, 2008:  Defendant fashioned two toothbrushes into weapons by sharpening them into a point and fashioned a makeshift handle by wrapping cloth around the other end.  No additional sanction because Defendant was already in IMU.



August 24, 2008:  Defendant became combative with staff during an escort back to his cell in the IMU.  Defendant tried to turn towards staff and pull away and said threatened, "when these hands are free, its just you and me."



August 25, 2008:  Defendant blocked the entrance to his cell with sheets and his mattress.  He was ordered to remove them but refused.  The corrections officer notified the sgt, and Defendant removed the items but re-fortified his cell 15 minutes later.  When an entry team was assembled, Defendant removed the sheets and mattress a second time.  No sanction was available, because Defendant was already in IMU.



August 29, 2008:  Defendant concealed five Benadryl pills in a role of toilet paper.



November 29, 2008: When taken from his cell to the shower in the IMU, Defendant pulled on his "tether," pulling a corrections officer in to him.  He repeatedly ignored orders to stop pulling, but it took multiple corrections officers to gain control of him.  When it was over, one officer had received a cut to his hand.



July 22, 2009: Concealed Wellbutrin and Benadryl in his inmate tote.

Defendant was scheduled to be released on January 11, 2010, per DOC time computation records.

However, on September 30, 2009, DOC notified the Washington County Jail that Defendant was released to the Washington County Jail because he qualified for 30% Good time/Earned time on his Multnomah County Robbery sentence. I obtained written records for DOC's time computation department and learned the following: Defendant received a total of 122 days of Earned Time/Good Time Credit--again, per DOC records. This is 16.9% of his total sentence.

Apparently, Kidnapping a staff person, committing 9 additional major rules violations, and spending the majority of your prison sentence in the IMU/Segregation Units are insufficient reasons to forfeit good time/earned time. Are there no circumstances that would cause DOC to revoke all of an inmates Good Time/Earned Time?

"Prozanski said that this is a snapshot before someone enters the system, but that he believes the public would rather know and understand the risk assessment when someone is on their way out of the system"

Then he is confused.

Roy,

I think it is you who is confused. Whether or not someone will be considered to be eligible for earned time is determined at the time of sentencing.

Whether someone actually gets any the earned time is determined by the DOC based on how the person did while in prison - in plain words, whether that person earned time off their sentence.

Ann, how it is actually determined is one thing. The large majority of the public however will want to know what is was that got the person there in the first place when release is considered. If you think differently then you are confused as Prozanski.

That whole example seems specious. Who cares what he was sentenced for? Why the hell were the crimes committed in prison not prosecuted fully? Would a 2nd degree kidnapping conviction be an early release candidate?

They're talking out of both sides of their mouths. Every last one of the folks using that argument, I will bet, dearly love to make jokes to the tune of "you're going to prison where a guy named Tiny is going to make you his love bunny". That's the other side of the argument. Some folks are still concentrating on reform, and others want to torture folks. You allow that kind of chaos in the system, and you get just the results quoted. That has zero to do with his burgling a house and that making him eligible for early release. The other reason crimes in prison don't get prosecuted is the aforementioned "too many statutory 'criminals' in the system".

The comments about stopping debate and measuring outcomes was a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, a big part of the Reagan revolution was the attitude that "facts are stupid things".

Uh, no, it's we who need to do better. The voters are extremely unhappy with 3508 and putting crime victims through yet another hearing. They're on his side on this one. I've seen a lot of stories about victims suffering through hearings and criminals committing new crimes while on early release in even the most liberal press outlets. I have yet to hear the story about how someone saved a life or finished a college education while on early release. Sure, those things happen, but the public is in no mood to hear about them. They want blood, and it's not Doell's blood that's in the water right now - it's Prozanski's. He's not venting at Harcleroad because those ads are having no effect - he's mad at him because they're making him look like an idiot for supporting a shoddily written, back room, last minute compromise at the end of the last session. The best bills don't come out of the Lege in the last few days before sine die, folks.

The whole point of the vignette described above is that DOC can't be trusted to properly determine who is really a risk and not. To be fair to DOC, that's because prison funding is inadequate, so they're desperate to get people out.

Look, most people think that these people should be in prison because they're bad people. The only reason we should think otherwise is because, frankly, increased prison spending means decreased education spending. The answer is not to oppose proper incarceration, but rather to support adequate funding mechanisms. If we're talking about property crime, then a surtax on property tax premiums is a reasonable way to fund the increased costs. Yeah, that sucks, but you get what you pay for when it comes to state government.

[Full disclosure: I work for the Department of Corrections, but I speak only for myself.]

I posted this on a previous thread, but it seems appropriate here as well. It’s a response to MLW’s John Brown entry.

As for John Brown, MLW, I think you know the answer to your own question since you seem to work in the court system. First, Inmate Brown’s conviction must be for Robbery III, otherwise this wouldn’t be an issue as both Robbery I and II are 137.700 crimes and are restricted from good time. Moreover, this is where the illusion of “discretion” comes into play for DOC. As you indicated, Inmate Brown received almost 17% good time. DOC must abide by the rule established for good time, in Brown’s case, specifically:

…inmates sentenced under the sentencing guidelines prior to July 1, 2009 and for whom the sentencing court has issued a supplemental judgment authorizing the Department of Corrections to consider the inmate eligible for additional earned time credits, may be eligible to earn sentence reduction credits (earned time credits) up to a maximum of 30 percent of each sentencing guidelines sentence.

The sentencing court must authorize the Department of Corrections to consider good time. Additionally, as I mentioned in my previous post on Kari’s related entry, the 30% is split into two 15% categories – one of which is relatively easy to meet. The Oregon Corrections Plan is meeting basic programming requirements – for short term inmates this is a fairly easy hurdle – and since it’s a pass/no pass requirement there’s 15% of the good time which DOC must award to meet due process requirements (about a 110 days for a 24 month sentence). Finally, maintaining appropriate institution conduct is measured in terms of review periods. I don’t know the length of the current review periods, but if it was 6 months for example, and Brown had clear conduct for all 6 months of the review period, he would be awarded a proportional percentage – 27 days for the 180 day review period.

That is a fairly straight forward explanation from the rule book that provides so much discretion to the Department of Corrections. More to the point however, is that the sentencing court could have simply refused the supplemental judgment that authorized the computation of earned time. Still, I believe the more important issue is that pending cases cannot be taken into consideration. The kidnapping charges must first be adjudicated, Brown found guilty and properly sentenced before DOC can properly “use” that information for the purposes of sanctions.

Ultimately, we can go back and forth here, or we can provide a position. Mine is simple – I agree with the Oregonian: mend it, don’t’ end it. If you think the DOC should have less discretion, then by all means, lobby to change it when the legislature tweaks the bill to improve it. Rather than address the benefits of good time on recidivism and current institutional behavior (save that for Carla’s post?), I’ll say sincerely, thanks for the challenge to my thinking! Though I might not change quite the way one might wish – your comments definitely led me to re-evaluate my position.

Cheers, The Skald ;-)

Look, most people think that these people should be in prison because they're bad people

If we never get beyond that classically human cognitive short circuit, that power labels you "criminal" and you become a "bad person", then we will only be led around by the nose by demagogues. Statutory, non-violent offenders should never be imprisoned, full stop. How does that affect funding? Prison is a form of violence. If they haven't committed a violent act, it doesn't help matters to respond with violence. CODB is not a bad way to enforce statute, where purely statutory matters are involved. If tax cheats are willing to pay 150% of what they owe if caught, and that satisfies the budget, why send them to prison? It's the Puritan in us still thinking some time in the stocks is warranted.

How would the police be different if, instead of "I joined the force to lock up the bad guys", we cultivated more of an understanding that it isn't black and white? Of course, you would likely have to do more than require an associates degree, and raise salaries. Mon dieu, you might actually get people joining the force that don't think time in a gym and steroids are the best preparation for dealing with the pressures of the job!

On the other hand, reform is still a relatively new idea. Prior to the 19th century, a violation was either serious enough to be dealt with in a court or it wasn't. If it was, and you were convicted, you were executed or permanently renditioned. We're not done yet, and this clearly has to evolve further. I know the "hug a thug" crowd finds that incredible. That same crowd was around in the 1820s and, in most societies, would have thought not hanging a kid for stealing food was just as incredible.

Earned good time legislation is under attack by Kevin Mannix, Steve Doell and others. These folks will go to any length to achieve their goal. Fear mongering, personal attacks, distortion of the facts will be their tools, but I believe 3508 is conceptually sound, if flawed in its final form and agree with the Oregonian that it needs to be modified. The Oregon legislature should stand behind this legislation. I would go further with this idea, but believe this is a good start and feel strongly that it needs to remain in place.

Vern

For me, the issue is public safety. 95% of all prisoners are released to live among us. When these men and women are released, what do we want them to be like?

Non-violent offenders earn time off their sentence by completing prison programs and behaving in socially acceptable ways while they are incarcerated. This encourages pro-social behavior and reinforces the importance of working and living peaceably with others.

The alternative is having no incentive to improve. Without that incentive, many young men just entering the prison system will choose to join a gang and act violently because they believe that is the only way they can survive their long incarceration. So a young man who enters the prison system as, for example, a burglar, will leave the system a hardened fighter who has learned the importance of hitting the other guy first.

How does that make us safer?

Also, notice how the money saved by the earned time bill is being re-invested. We are providing funding for crime-victims, state police officers, drug courts, and parole and probation supervision. Would we be safer without these programs?

Our state economy is in trouble. We don't have the resources to throw money around carelessly. I want to be safe. I want my family to be safe. And that is why I support HB 3508 and the proven safety practices that it ensures for our public.

People focus on the extra 10% good time on HB 3508, but the most interesting thing about the law is that felony probation violations were cut 66%. This affects far more criminals than the prison reduction.

Most people don't know that the vast majority (over 80%) of felony sentences in Oregon are probationary sentences with no chance of the offender EVER going to prison. Even before HB 3508 an offender could get only 6 months in the county jail for absconding probation, not doing treatment, using meth ect.. Now, post HB 3508 there is a limit of 60 days jail(unless it is for conviction of a new crime). So with 30% good time, that means around forty days for a felon who absconds probation, avoids going to treatment or continually uses drugs. What a joke the system is becoming.

Dugan is the only DA of 36 to support 3508.

It was a scam because Measure 57 which was passed by Chip and Floyd and the DAs and Cops to thwart Mannix's 61 was going to cost too much.

So screw the 60% of voters who said we want repear property offenders to maybe get prison. People like Peton who is a repeat criminal, who did get out early and is charged with breaking into the same building but this time sexually assaulting a woman.

Democrats are intent on screwing themselves out of a majority.

Most Oregonians think third time burglars deserve a little prison time.

So with 30% good time, that means around forty days for a felon who absconds probation, avoids going to treatment or continually uses drugs. What a joke the system is becoming.

In other words, if they don't submit to custodial supervision and live the way you think they should, athat confirsm that they are criminals. Yeah, the joke is between your ears.

I just don't get it. Does the misery of the victims lessen when the prisoner spends this 10% longer sentence time behind bars--which usually amounts to only several weeks or months? Are we safer in our communities in Oregon because of those few extra weeks spent in prison? Every year the prison population in Oregon increases as it basically warehouses poorly educated, addicted, and mentally ill men and women. Other than basic GED, all educational and job-training programs have been slashed so we could spend millions building more prison warehouses currently holding some of our neediest citizens, almost 14,000 of them. Does removing the 10% motivate released prisoners to avoid commiting further crimes? Certainly the recidivsim stats don't support that notion. However, what has clearly been demonstrated is that strategic services provided in the community for releasing men and women definitely impact recidivism positively--drug-free housing, drug and alcohol treatment, mentors, job training and job finding. So, legislators, the voters in Oregon got it and we are tired of being ignored, frustrated with all the FLIP FLOP. Stick to your principles, repair the obvious shortcomings of the bill but DON'T BACK DOWN!

There is a purpose to earned time that encompasses far more than I've read throughout these postings; till I came to Jennifer's comments. Earned time is an incentive for people in prison to complete programming and to maintain consistent and positive behaviors. There are benefits to not only the person who is in prison but also to correctional staff (providing a safer environment inside the facilities) and YES, to taxpayers as well (by shortening the length of prison time).

The increase of earned time from 20% to 30% has been extended to less than 7% of Oregon’s prison population. There have been no increases in earned time to anyone who has not received authorization by the DA and the judge from the county where the trial was held and the sentence determined. With the implementation of HB 3508 in the court system, it is determined at the time of sentencing if there will be earned time allowed and what that earned time percentage will be.

For every one released person who commits a new crime and is sensationalized by the media; how many people are re-entering our communities and making a successful transition? How many of us can actually stop the turn style of recidivism and offer employment or rent housing to someone with a legal history? Jobs and housing will make our communities safer, longer sentences won't.

Perhaps people who believe in the anti-any-tax rhetoric should consider how things are going in fundamentalist conservative heaven.

The bottomline is that the voters passed M57 and the legislature via HB 3508 made the criminal justice system weaker than it was before the ballot measure.

It would be like if a Republican dominated legislature undid M66 and M67 and lowered the tax rate and fees to a level less than they were before

So, Roy, "The large majority of the public however will want to know...".

Why do you alone speak for "the large majority"?

How many people voluntarily agreed to let you speak for them?

My guess is that Bill Bodden's link comes a lot closer to the truth than some people would like to believe.

And perhaps 66 & 67 passed by the margins it did (incl. narrow margins in some unlikely counties---no, counties are not R or D, they contain significant numbers of people who don't vote straight party line) because we have seen this movie before and people were afraid that if the measures went down there would be this sort of sniping about any budget cut---and the Feb. session would have lasted into March.

That guy is a scoundrel.

Steph Weezy

"Why do you alone speak for "the large majority"

@Lt, I guess you could ask the same question of Prozanski

"Prozanski said that this is a snapshot before someone enters the system, but that he believes the public would rather know and understand the risk assessment......"

The majority of the voting public has opted time and again for stiffer sentences, especially for repeat offenders. How many Oregonians do you think would have voted for early release.

Releasing folks early is a bad bad idea. Remember that most if not all have had countless opportunities for behavioral change prior to ever going to prison. Judges are well aware of the costs to incarcerate, and try everything under the sun before sending non-M11 folks to the big house. Bench probation, formal probation, jail, drug treatment, anger management, bracelet program, etc etc....

Once finally inside those walls felons learn the game better than the experts treating them. They can play it perfect in a strict structured environment for early release, but that oversight ceases to exist once outside. Cost prohibitive to keep them in, who are they kidding?

If I may repeat a quotation from Aristotle: Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime. "Conservatives" of the Mannix mold endorse policies that ensure a certain percentage of the people will live in poverty. For example, opposition to increasing the minimum wage. So, if they create conditions that ensure poverty, they should recognize they are contributing to crime and the creation of criminals.

No matter what system of sentencing is used [except universal life sentence or execution], some released prisoners will commit nasty crimes. So Doell, Mannix, and their ilk will always have stories with which to scare the public. The antidote is clear communication by experts in corrections and crime prevention and responsible journalism.

People get scared, but their fears can be assuaged with reason and perspective.

Carla commented: ... you only have to look to Measures 66/67. Oregonian's hadn't voted to raise taxes on themselves since 1930. Yet when they were presented with the cost-benefit analysis in real terms--they did this time.

Well, let's keep some perspective: Oregonians still only voted to raise taxes on ~2.5% of themselves. If an electorate is presented with a projected benefit of $733M in the state coffers at zero direct cost to 97.5% of the voters (the indirect cost remains to be seen...), then sure, they'll do it - at least the first time. It was somewhat surprising to me the margin was as close as it was.

If bad people are released from prison that will make room for worse criminals to be incarcerated - such as the war criminals who initiated and promoted the illegal war on Iraq - a crime against humanity.

Ho hum

I don't know what they want to do through this campaign,its only make a peresure on taxpayer. Apple Ipad

Carla,

This is a perfect example of why people know you to be dishonest. "Oregonian's hadn't voted to raise taxes on themselves since 1930. Yet when they were presented with the cost-benefit analysis in real terms--they did this time."

The only reason 66 & 67 passed is because people were told, by liars, that they would be taxes on other people, the rich and corporations.

Now you're claiming people were taxing themselves?

You're a scoundrel.

Carla: "So are you advocating here for locking people up and throwing away the key..or what? Do you have some evidence that releasing people on early earned release is a greater catalyst to re-offend"

Me: Ah, so the truth is revealed. This was never a post about defending the plan to deal with "a massive budget shortfall", or the obnoxious ad by the Mannix crew. Rather, it was an opportunity for you to express your personal views that convicted prisoners who behave in prison give them the right to have time taken off their sentence.

All this in spite of their past crimes, the plea bargain which likely dismissed most of other charges, and the extensive and expensive presentence investigation helping to identify the suggested length of stay.

Carla: "Do you have some evidence that releasing people on early earned release is a greater catalyst to re-offend?

Does it not make sense that someone being released because of "a massive budget shortfall" might be more of a risk to others than someone who has really earned the time off under normal circumstances??

Carla - you only have to look to Measures 66/67. Oregonian's hadn't voted to raise taxes on themselves since 1930. Yet when they were presented with the cost-benefit analysis in real terms--they did this time.

Carla, Oregonians from the 9 northwestern counties and Lane voted to raise taxes on OTHER PEOPLE. Some of us voted yes only because we believed the scare tactics and didn't want public education, public safety and public health damaged.

there is no link between early release and a choice on 66/67 that was the lady or the tiger.

Early release can produce further unintended consequences. The system is ill prepared to deal with the Maurice Clemmons' of the United States who should never have been released and who could/should have been reincarcerated by two states several times.

David Black should have been pardoned no later than 30 days after going to jail.

Kurt: is there evidence that early release is a catalyst to re-offending?

Carla, in light of the Maurice clemmons episode is there evidence that early release IS NOT a catalyst to continued offending?

Whether it is early release, serve the full term, or extending the term, there is the small issue that is mentioned briefly but never addressed - what to do with the truly evil offender who has no desire to rehabilitate, no desire to live peacefully and within the law.

Should that judgment be made to extend the incarceration? And who should make that call?

I don't have a solution, but it is certainly something the corrections and law enforcement professionals worry about. There is no silver bullet that will prevent someone from offending again, except for their own willingness to live within the rules of our society. No amount of money will solve this problem.

Carla, your capacity to remain intellectually benign is starting to wear thin. even a cursory review of the Maurice clemmons case history shows a repeat/continuous offender who a, should never have been let out, b. once reoffending should have been sent back in and c. had he been inside where he belonged 4 police officers would be home tonight with their families instead of 6 feet under.

When someone shows you the empirical data, don't place cute and become Prissy from "Gone With the Wind". you DO know and should engage accordingly.

Carla Axtman commented: Hmmm..that doesn't seem like an especially keen analysis to me, especially since Oregonians voted down a cigarette tax not that long ago. That certainly wouldn't have effected a good share of the population.

Well Carla, I wasn't particularly overwhelmed with the perspicacity of the case you tried to make either.

During the cigarette tax campaign, the electorate wasn't subjected to the constant vociferous browbeating of 'the schools are going to close, criminals are going to run wild, old people and hungry children are going to die in the streets, civilized society will end as we know it and chaos will ensue' mantra employed by the M66/67 YES campaign (as also noted by several other people here)... coincidentally not unlike the 'scare tactics' you're decrying in this very post.

Somewhere between 20 to 30% of the population still smokes - so nearly 10x the number of people directly affected by the higher cigarette tax vs M66/67. And people rightly knew that a higher tax on cigarettes would just drive more people to look for alternative channels through which to purchase cigarettes.

Carla, mostly it seems you're being deliberately obtuse - it's unbecoming. I'm hoping it's just a perceptual problem on my part, because, you're better than this, I know you're up to it.

Carla Axtman commented: ...the tobacco tax was about "healthy kids" and making sure all kids had health insurance. Is it really now your position that there wasn't a case being made for it being bad that kids didn't have health insurance?

And on the percentages, now you're just parsing. The number of people who smoke is vastly less than those who don't..so a much greater percentage would not have been paying that tax. Your point upthread was that people would vote for a tax that they don't have to pay. Clearly, that wasn't the case prior to this vote--for many years.

Right... and Oregon promised to spend a significant share of the money it receives as part of the 1998 multi-state tobacco settlement and its tobacco tax revenues on programs to prevent kids from smoking and help smokers quit. As it is, Oregon spends less than 20% of the CDC recommendation - and less than 3% of the state's total tobacco-generated revenue of $319M - on such programs.

I never said there wasn't a case made that it would be bad for kids to not have health insurance during that campaign... Hopefully you're not trying to imply the campaign for M50 in 2007 was as strong as for M66/67.

And going from 2.5% of the population to 25% or more is not 'parsing'... especially if that segment of the population is motivated to vote.

Add in the number of business owners that would have been both directly and indirectly impacted if more smokers start purchasing cigarettes from Indian reservation stores, online, and from other out-of-state sources plus people just plain tired of one segment of the population repeatedly demonized and targeted for these 'sin' taxes... and you've got enough people to turn back a cigarette tax increase proposal.

(i.e., a majority of the voters did your 'cost-benefit analysis in real-terms' and decided it wasn't worth it...)

Carla Axtman commented: Exactly. For decades, Oregonians decided that they wouldn't vote to raise their taxes. Lots of arguments were made (constant, vociferous browbeating, to use your upthread vernacular). Yet they remained unmoved.

Something changed from then until now. And to bring this comment thread back to topic--if mandatory minimums were on the ballot this cycle, I think it's quite reasonable to presume they'd fail.

Yes, and what changed was, rather than a more broad-based tax increase, M66/67 only targeted a very small segment of the population. Voters were told 97.5% of them wouldn't pay a penny more directly. So you and I have come full circle on this...

<h2>You may be right about minimum sentences. But because the impact of M66/67 was so narrowly targeted, I maintain it is not a reliable barometer of some sudden great sea-change in voter sentiment on every issue.</h2>