Macpherson & Kroger on Measure 11

There's been a lot of discussion here at BlueOregon about Measure 11 and the race for Attorney General between John Kroger and Greg Macpherson.

In the midst of an excellent extended profile of both candidates, the Oregonian provides more detail:

Kroger and Macpherson also are divided by Measure 11, the 1994 ballot initiative that set mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes. Since Measure 11 went into effect, violent crime in Oregon has dropped substantially, but the big growth in the prison budget has taken money that otherwise could have been spent on education and health care.

Kroger opposes changing Measure 11 sentences, saying minimum sentences for serious violent crimes are appropriate.

Macpherson wants to look at reducing sentences of lesser violent crimes, such as second-degree assault. Most prosecutors oppose changing Measure 11.

"I told them that Measure 11 needs to evolve," Macpherson said.

Kroger said that once it was clear that most prosecutors and police supported him, only then did Macpherson start talking about changing Measure 11.

"If Greg was going to reform Measure 11, he had six years to do it," Kroger said.

Discuss.

  • (Show?)

    This isn't news, unless a mischaracterization by the Oregonian counts as news. John's real position, cribbed from loadedorygun, is as follows:

    On Measure 11, the parts that I support--and strongly support--are mandatory minimums for murder and rape, and for other violent crimes like armed robbery. I believe that's appropriate for several reasons. First, serious crimes deserve serious punishments. And before we had mandatory minimums, particularly rape was way underpunished. You'd have a rape case that might get a six month sentence. Our sentence now is 8 years, which is still well below the national average, and I think that's appropriate. When I talk to audiences, even liberal Democratic crowds, and ask them what they think an appropriate sentence for rape is, no one says eight years, they say 20 or 25.

    It also makes sure that all defendants receive equivalent sentences for equivalent crimes. One of the problems with purely discretionary sentencing is that race and class wind up being factors that correlate with the size of the sentence, and that troubles me. Mandatory minimums help even that out.

    The parts of Measure 11 that I worry about: one of them is how we handle juvenile cases, because it's a very serious thing to charge a juvenile with a mandatory minimum crime, and I've just never seen a comprehensive set of statistics county by county of what juveniles are charged with Measure 11 offenses, what ones aren't. and I would like us to collect those statistics and do a really comprehensive study and look for ways to make sure that that the law is being applied in a sensible way--and if it's not, fix it of change it. But that has to start with fact collection, and I've never been confident that we have that fact set put together. That's an area that is really really important, and we need to get that right.

    Outside of that I'm very willing to explore changes to the law.

    So let's sum this up. John Kroger:

    1] Supports Measure 11, and the current sentence structure, for adults committing violent crimes. 2] Wants to review juvenile sentence structures for Measure 11 crimes with an eye towards reducing them. 3] Wants to get statistics on whether other portions of Measure 11 are actually reducing crime, and based on the results of that research, is willing to explore changes in the law.

    This is hardly a blanket opposition to changing Measure 11 sentences.

  • ben rivers (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Before people think Macpherson is soft on crime, let's clarify that he recognizes that some people belong behind bars. However, he knows that this one size fits all system of criminal justice has put a major strain on public services. The state of Oregon invests more in prisons than higher education, all because of Measure 11. He raises this issue, because if we want to make sure our general fund is being used to better Oregonians lives, a look at changing the impact of Measure 11 is necessary.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steve, I appreciate the clarification.

    However, these 2 quotes confirm my impressions of the candidates:

    "I told them that Measure 11 needs to evolve," Macpherson said.....................

    "If Greg was going to reform Measure 11, he had six years to do it," Kroger said.

    ``` Prior to the Democrats getting control of the House, "Measure 11 needs to evolve" would have been spun as "soft on crime" by Queen Karen, in Wayne's World, etc.

    How exactly does Kroger think Greg could have changed Measure 11 prior to 2007? And does he think changing it in 2007 should have been a higher priority than passing Measure 49?

    I rank the non-legislators running for major office as Marks first, Kroger second, Novick 3rd.

    The reason Kroger is not tied with Marks in my view is that "6 years to do it" crack.

    I'm tired of hearing that we should have edgy, outspoken politicians because they accomplish more.

    I was really impressed with Howard Dean today on Meet the Press. For a man with an outspoken reputation, he did a great job of getting his point across diplomatically and with some humor.

    THAT is the kind of politician I admire--diplomatic words backed up by actions. If that means I'm not "progressive" or some such rot, tough luck.

  • Justin (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As an ardent Kroger supporter, I certainly do not think that Macpherson is soft on crime. Yet, gmac does repeatedly distort Kroger's position and attempts to paint Kroger as a draconian prosecutor, who does not care about people, just convictions and jail sentences. Yet, Kroger keeps talking about real plans for serious drug treatment in Oregon, while gmac drones on about putting the ingredients for meth behind the counters. P.S. Gmac, you won't have the authority to implement that plan nationwide, like you say you want to.

  • A. Rab. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    For those keeping tabs, in December, Blue Oregon had a post in which Macpherson explained his position on Measure 11 to the District Attorneys: "I will not pursue any changes in Measure 11 without the active participation and support of the district attorneys." Maybe it is just me, but that does not sound like telling the DAs that "Measure 11 needs to evolve."

  • (Show?)

    LT, I completely agree with your sentiment about "edgy outspoken politicians". In my experience, they usually accomplish less.

    However, in this case I think the Measure 11 "crack" is completely fair. Why? Because the Attorney General doesn't control Measure 11 sentences. So what the hell does it have to do with this race?

    Certainly you're right that Greg would have gone nowhere under Karen Minnis attacking Measure 11, but at least he would have had control over one vote: his own. It's more power than he'll have if he wins this race.

    I'm sorry, but I see Greg's attack against Measure 11 is more or less the same light as Hillary's election year conversion against the Iraq war - a cynical attempt to pander to progressives, not any real change of heart.

    One final thing - John's approach is the only real one. Measure 11 will never change so long as it has such broad support among Oregonians. To change that support, there's got to be pretty convincing body of evidence built up to show that the law isn't working. And to do that, you need to do the studies to show that.

    As an experienced legislator, Greg knows that. Therefore, the only conclusion I can draw is that he is knowingly trying to BS Democratic primary voters with false promises. While John, on the other hand, is being honest.

  • mamabigdog (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hearing both Kroger and Macpherson speak earlier this month, I came away with the impression Kroger was much more energized to take on the reforms desperately needed at DOJ. Anyone who regularly works with those folks knows the department is in need of a leadership overhaul. DOJ has allowed state agencies to ignore or circumvent their advice, and just go about doing business however they damn well please, resulting in more lawsuits, higher settlements and more cost to the taxpayer. DAS is an even bigger example of this problem.

    Kroger also understands the wider costs of drug abuse, and seems to be more willing and able to institute programs to truly help the addicted and their families. The cost of treatment can be expensive, but not treating the whole problem only leads to more drug abuse and/or crime in that family down the road. Then you have more people using, more people committing crimes, all while the prior generation sits in jail eating up more tax dollars.

    Kroger said he's willing to work 24/7 to make it happen, and I believe him.

  • Amanda (unverified)
    (Show?)

    LT - I agree with Steve. I don't see it as a crack. Certainly, leadership would've been hostile to any changes in M11, but I have been fortunate enough to have been represented by a state rep - Jackie Dingfelder - who brought forward and fought for ideas stifled by leadership, knowing that she might not get anywhere, because it was important to stand for what she believed in (among other ideas unpopular with the majority, she sought to decouple SUV tax credits with the federal system and also sought a beer & wine tax to backfill funds for mental health issues). I'm sure other representatives have similarly fought what had to seem like hopeless quests when we were in the minority, so I can't really buy that 6 years of non-leadership on an issue means that a legislator cared about an issue but was too pragmatic to bring that fight on.

  • Robert Harris (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So Mr. Kroger says ....

    ....On Measure 11, the parts that I support--and strongly support--are mandatory minimums for murder and rape, and for other violent crimes like armed robbery...

    But M11 crimes are ALL crimes of violence.

    And of course for violent stranger to stranger rape and murder people should get more than the M11 minimum, and in most cases they did before M11 and they do now.

    Again, I'll say what I've said Many times. The issue that is worth considering is where you have a M11 crime but significant mitigating circumstances, or a real question of guilt. M11 gives the DA in essence, the power to sentence, or force defendants to give up their right to a jury in many of these cases.

    No one is saying that violent danngerous offendors shouldn't serve long prison terms. Or that we shouldn't have sentencing consistency. But we can acheive that without shifting power away from judges and to DA's. Mr. Kroger likes the power residing with DA's in all adult M11 cases. If appears that Mr. McPherson is more willing to consider changes, and perhpas shift the power to sentence back to the judiciary.

    This is a big difference.

  • ben rivers (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You are right on Robert. With the changes Macpherson is seeking, we will hopefully see a more sensible sentencing structure. And, we will see people that belong behind bars, put behind bars and we will hopefully avoid situations like this:

    A Brush With Measure 11

  • A. Rab. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Robert, there is very little difference between Kroger and Macpherson on this issue. Macpherson has said he will not change Measure 11 without the support of the DAs, while Kroger says he supports mandatory minimums for violent crimes but wants to change the way Measure 11 deals with juveniles. As a practical matter, this leaves little to no daylight between the candidates' positions. Furthermore, Macpherson had a legislative session, and special session, as Chair of the Judiciary Committee, with Democrats controlling all levers of the state government. If he was really interested in reforming Measure 11, that was his opportunity, because the AG does not have the power to make these changes.

  • ben rivers (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Macpherson had a legislative session, and special session

    A.Rab.,

    I call B.S. Here is a quiz.

    What was more important in the 2007 session?:

    Changing M11 or Getting M49 out to the voters

    What was more important in the 2008 special session?:

    Changing M11 or Getting a response to the new mandatory minimum ballot measure out to the voters

    Ok...pencils down.

  • A. Rab. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ben, the legislature is allowed to consider more than one issue. If this was really an issue that drove Macpherson, he would have done something about it. Macpherson had the opportunity to pursue reforms of Measure 11 and he did nothing.

  • Josh Marquis (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Measure 11 has been changed, at least twice since it was passed in 1994 by about 65% and then reaffirmed by 75% when opponents sought to overturn it in 2000. Measure 11 second degree crimes that do not involve death were changed to allow judges to "depart"down, meaning giving little or no prison to someone who attacks someone with a baseball bat breaking their arm (Assault 2) or Robbery 2 (two men with a knife mug a jogger and take his money but the victim's injury is not "significant." So how draconian is M-11? A 30-year white upper middle class man who is 30 years old and has no prior record grabs a 12-year old girl and throws her in the bushes and rapes her. This is not hypothetical. It happens all to often. What is the draconian penalty for that rapist....8 years in prison. The man who molests a child for the SECOND time get a whopping 6 years in prison...too long?

    McPherson had the chance to help blunt Kevin Mannix's property crime initiative but did nothing. He had virtually nothing to do with coming up with an alternative measure that will be on the November ballot(Floyd Prozanski worked with the DAs).

    Whoever wrote that the AG does not have much to do directly with M-11 is correct, but the Attorney General is the person district attorneys and victims look to as an advocate. Most victims are poor people, women, children, and people of color.

    Kroger represents the politics of hope, of change, not the same old good old boy politics. He has a broad base of support. He had the guts to oppose LNG. He has actually tried cases in court, Greg McPherson has not.

  • (Show?)
    Macpherson had a legislative session, and special session A.Rab., I call B.S. Here is a quiz. What was more important in the 2007 session?: Changing M11 or Getting M49 out to the voters What was more important in the 2008 special session?: Changing M11 or Getting a response to the new mandatory minimum ballot measure out to the voters Ok...pencils down.

    The answer of course is none of the above, since BOTH Measure 49 and the Mannix Alternative are bullshit copouts by the Legislature. Macpherson and Prozanski wasted MONTHS on a moratorium bill that they allowed to become a hearing referendum on M37, rather than an argument to hold claims or not. THEN, they gave all day and night to Larry George and their group--who HAD M37 CLAIMS ACTIVE--to work as some sort of partner with them to harm their own interests. Yah, right. So it was left until the very last minute, in closed door sessions among Democrats, to come out with something that the Leg wasn't even going to vote on themselves. Boooo. And this, mostly because the Magic Man, Jeff Merkley, couldn't get Mike Schauffler off his incredibly stupid committment not to vote for it until a Republican did.

    And writing a bill that's only half as utterly harmful as Mannix's, rather than believing you could defeat something so draconian straight up and keep the status quo, is plain old Democratic capitulationism at its finest.

    When the going gets tough in the Oregon Leg, time and time again the Oregon Leg punts.

  • KB (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm still undecided between Greg and John. I have to say that the DA endorsement is something that makes me lean towards Greg. I think DA's have way too much power in sentencing in Oregon.

    The idea that Greg could have done anything about M11 is ridiculous. When his committee looked at giving M11 juveniles a "second look", the committee received so much resistance, it was clear it was going nowhere. Sure, Greg could have been like Jackie and pushed things that go nowhere, but then he would not have been able to get the cooperation from the other side to pass m39 reforms or the alternative to Mannix's m40.

    Torridjoe, no matter how draconian you think it is, the only reason they capitulated was that it was becoming clear that Mannix's initiative would have passed easily. Everyone would have rather fought, if they had any chance of winning.

    The last thing that bugs me about John is his "support" for treatment. I am a huge believer in treatment and while the moral support may be nice, the AG has absolutely nothing to do with treatment. It seems like an easy stance to take, because it doesn't have to translate to any action.

  • KB (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oops, I meant m49 reforms, not 39!

  • (Show?)

    It's funny, KB. To me the DA's endorsement is one of the biggest things going for John. It means he'll have influence to change things on the ground. Because of their hefty control over sentencing, all the laws in the world won't make a difference until DAs and Police buy in to the idea of drug treatment. John has the prosecutorial chops to do that. Greg simply doesn't.

    So yes, the AG can have the ability to push hard for drug treatment and alternative sentencing. Greg's promise to substantially reduce sentences for violent crimes covered by Measure 11, on the other hand, is simply an empty political promise to primary voters. (Good thing too - I agree with John that a 6 year minimum for rape is hardly onerous.)

  • (Show?)

    "it was becoming clear that Mannix's initiative would have passed easily."

    Based on what? Did the Dems even TRY any pushback? Nope. This strategy guarantees a loss.

    "cooperation from the other side to pass m39 reforms"

    what cooperation? It was a 31-vote passage for mere referral to the voters, wasn't it?

  • I work at the leg (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It was clear the Mannix's measure is going to pass in November. The legislature did a lot of polling and the measure had significant support and would pass by a wide margin. The legislature had to act to prevent the measure from being adopted. Yes, it's unfortunate that we will have one or the other, but the legislative alternative is about half as costly and has the largest increase in funding to drug treatment in years. Also, Greg could do very little to change Measure 11 in the legislature, as they need a 2/3 vote. The votes simply aren't there. If we get more democratic seats this session, and have an attorney general who is pushing for a retooling of Measure 11, it is possible we could see some changes. It makes no sense to use up your political leverage on a measure that is doomed to fail. And I doubt Macpherson has ever said he wants to "substantially reduce sentences for violent crimes," as Mr. Maurer said. When I heard Macpherson speak, he said that he agrees that there are some people who need to be taken off the streets and put in prison for a long time. but that there are some cases under Measure 11 (he gave some heart-wrenching examples) that are simply cruel punishments that don't fit the crime, and that we need to reevaluate the Measure considering its impact on the state's budget. He has never said he wants to abolish Measure 11. He has simply said he is open to changes, a door that Kroger closed (Except for Juvenile offenses, which sounds nice, but M11 is rarely used in those circumstances).

  • (Show?)

    "It was clear the Mannix's measure is going to pass in November. The legislature did a lot of polling and the measure had significant support and would pass by a wide margin. The legislature had to act to prevent the measure from being adopted."

    Yeah, how about arguing against it? And on the basis of what kind of electorate in November was this polling done? Did we account for Democrats being likely to outvote Republicans in this state for the first time in decades?

    If that polling exists and was paid for by the Legislature, it should be public record. Let's see it. If it was paid for by the caucus, I don't trust it--and let's see it anyway.

  • (Show?)

    I work at the leg:I doubt Macpherson has ever said he wants to "substantially reduce sentences for violent crimes," as Mr. Maurer said.

    Maybe you should read the Original Post that kicked this whole discussion off: "Macpherson wants to look at reducing sentences of lesser violent crimes..."

    Again, if Rep. Macphearson had really been interested in Measure 11 reform (other than something to wave in front of Democratic voters during the election) he could have at least mentioned this issue some time when he had actual power to do something about it.

    But promising to "look at" something is an easy, empty, promise to make.

  • KB (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't remember exactly who did the polling, but the results were fairly clear. It was also clear that there was not much money available to fight it (i.e. to compete with Loren Parks and friends). There was a lot of discussion, but the outcome was that everyone was convinced Mannix would win.

    I think the DA's have too much influence over sentencing. By reducing judicial discretion, they effectively control the system through their charging practices. They have shown little to no interest in treatment, often diminishing its effectiveness in their public statements. They are interested in only one public safety intervention- prison.

    If you're unhappy about the cost of incarceration included in the alternative bill, you can look at the DA's (you know, the people who endorsed John) who refused to sign off on the bill without increased sentences.

    If John wins, the DA's will have influence over him, not the other way around. Greg now has nothing to lose by challenging the DA's, and the more I think about it, the more I certain I am that I'll vote for him.

  • (Show?)
    I don't remember exactly who did the polling, but the results were fairly clear. It was also clear that there was not much money available to fight it (i.e. to compete with Loren Parks and friends). There was a lot of discussion, but the outcome was that everyone was convinced Mannix would win.

    How did they determine that any attempt to actually FIGHT the initiative would fail? Are you saying they did a round of informing and it made no difference?

  • KB (unverified)
    (Show?)

    No, they didn't have time for that. I believe the polling was done in December and with the session starting in February, they didn't have a lot of time to test things.

    <h2>I think it was a gamble either way, but in light of the history of other initiatives in OR (children's health care, measure 11, every tax initiative) I think it was the right way to go. You may be right that we could have defeated it, but I honestly don't think so.</h2>
in the news

connect with blueoregon