Measures 57 & 61

Jeff Alworth

Measure 61

Title: Creates mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain theft, identity theft, forgery, drug, and burglary crimes.
Sponsor: Kevin Mannix
Type: Statutory
What it Does: Creates mandatory sentences on a variety of crimes, in many cases on first-time offenders
What it Costs: Estimated to cost $522 million to $797 million over the first five years and require the state to borrow $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion for prison construction.      

Measure 57

Title: Increases sentences for drug trafficking, theft against elderly and specified repeat property and identity theft crimes; requires addiction treatment for certain offenders.
Sponsor: Oregon Legislature, responding to M61
Type: Statutory
What it Does: Increases sentences for some crimes, provides drug treatment for offenders
What it Costs: Estimated to cost $411 million over five years and require the state to borrow $314 million for prison construction.   

These two measures come with complex arguments for and against them, but they ultimately come down to priorities.  Kevin Mannix is the sponsor of Measure 61, and his priorities are clear: property crime is a critical problem, and the state should spend a large portion of its general fund arresting and incarcerating perps, even though it means less money for education, social services, and infrastructure.  The Oregon legislature's response to Measure 61 is a less-costly, less punitive approach that highlights drug treatment.

We have two measures on the ballot because Kevin Mannix first proposed M61.  In brief, this measure seeks to impose mandatory sentences many new crimes, including first-time offenses.  The theory behind this measure is incarceration--Mannix thinks we're safer if criminals are locked up.  He doesn't think it creates a deterrent effect, nor does he think treating drug offenders is cost effective.  "It's pulling this limited mass of bad guys off the street," he told Willamette Week.  (Go watch the first 15 minutes of the interview they have posted for a revealing look at the mind of the man behind the proposal.)

The downsides to this measure are substantial.  First off, the cost.  It will increase the prison population by 4,106 - 6,389 inmates, and cost $1.3 billion over ten years.  That will take a big chunk out of the budget the state might spend on other priorities.  The Oregonian estimates that it will radically increase female incarceration.  A quarter of new inmates are expected to be women, ultimately making Oregon the state with the highest proportion in jail.  Since 1994's Measure 11, which Mannix championed, Oregon's prison population has increased 80%.  This would continue that trend, but with no particular plan for what to do with all these hardened convicts coming back into society.  Mannix cites Measure 11 as the cause of dropping crime rates in Oregon and is certain that cracking down even harder will be even better. 

Measure 57 is the legislative response to 61.  Legislators agree that there's a reason for new laws: property crimes have been steadily rising, and the penalties for identity theft are too slight to act as a serious consequence.  But they share few of Mannix's other assumptions.  This measure has a provision for drug treatment.  It gives more discretion to the judge and is far less blunt in its provisions.  Nearly everyone from local DAs to police to corrections officials support 57 and oppose 61.   

Measure 57 contains a clause stipulating that if both measures pass, the one with the highest vote count becomes law.  If you think crime is a problem, the choice should be clear--Measure 57 will do a better job of lowering crime in the long run without a lot of the unintended consequences. 

But it's trickier if you are generally opposed to tough-on-crime laws.  If you vote no on both, you risk getting Measure 61.  I started by opposing both, but in the process of writing this post I plan to vote for Measure 57.  This is partly a matter of political strategy, but I've also been brought around by the pro-57 arguments.  The treatment provision is important--it offers something other than the short-sighted, punitive approach we often adopt. Since drug use are at least contributing causes for crime, treating addiction will get at the root. Furthermore, the law does need to be updated.  According to M57 supporters, the current law doesn't allow for a prison term for identity theft until the fifth offense.  This is obviously a law that needs updating.  So on balance, Measure 57 seems like a reasonable option.


OPB, Oregonian, Register-Guard, Yes on 57, Willamette Week

  • Eric Parker (unverified)

    Treatment is not the solution or a meathod to deterr any crime. Treatment just shifts the person's boredom to another area and level where they can abuse that area util they become criminals in another area. Most people commit crimes out of pure boredom inthier lives, and treatment does not promote anything socially or physically constructive to aliviate the boredom - just more boredom. Sorry - that's a NO.

    As far as Mannix goes - automatic NO. Anything connected with Mannix, siaemore, and thier ilk gets a NO.

  • Don (unverified)

    I'm voting yes on 57, no on 61 only because if both pass, the one with more yes votes gets enacted....

  • Dev (unverified)


    No, boredom causes people to post inane comments on blogs. Alcohol and drug dependency causes people to commit property crimes and treatment absolutely is socially constructive.

  • David R (unverified)

    Voting Yes on 57 is only way to defeat Mannix's horrible measure 61, but Measure 57 is also the better way to fight crime. Measure 57 includes an important treatment component that addresses the root causes of addiction driven crime. If we actually want to break the cycle of crime we need to invest in treatment and support 57.

  • Phil McCraken (unverified)

    If Measure 57 crime measure, was so important why did our democrat politicians wait to put it out until there was a real anti-crime measure (Measure 61) on the ballot?

  • (Show?)

    the same reason they were forced to put the children's health package thru the constitutional hoop: Republican/neocon game-playing. M61 is not a "real" anti-crime measure; it's a Kevin Mannix agrandizement measure. he's not content with the gutting of state finances thru M11; now he has to play on people's (legitimate) fears regarding property crimes to drive another reactionary piece of trash into law.

    M57 is not just an attempt to thwart M57, of course, which you & the neocons would love to pretend. it actually deals proactively with the real source of property crime in Oregon, which is drugs. M57 has a treatment component, which, in conjunction with the programs that will be spearheaded by new AG John Kroger, can make real progress in stopping these kinds of crimes by removing the incentives -- the needs -- to commit such crimes.

    of course it's easier just to scream "lock 'em up" as if prisons were cheap. they're not, and they're not humane, either. not that i'd regret seeing Mannix spend a few years in one and give the state a chance to recover from the damage he and his sugar daddy from NV have inflicted. they can share some space with Sizemore. it would be just like the end of Seinfeld. only much cooler.

  • Eric Parker (unverified)

    There is another item here that no one has mentioned yet.

    By creating a simular measure, the legislature has doomed both measures to utter failiure, even with the caveat of the best passing measure percentage.

    And here is why...

    These are competing measures over the same issue. The average voter will address them, logically, as voting for one or the other. "Which one is better?" they will ask themselves and will either vote for 57, or 61...but not both unless it's a NO on both of them.

    Scenario 1: Y on 57, N on 61 Scenario 2: N on 57, Y on 61 Scenario 3: No on both measures.

    As you can plainly see, in two out of 3 scenarios for both measures, there will be more No votes than Yes votes, and I do not believe that any logical, average, intelligent voter will vote yes on both unless they really aren't thinking straight or is severely uninformed.

    No matter how you vote, they both will fail. It's a forgone logical conclusion.

    So just put an end to it and vote NO on both so we don't have to worry about all the nonsense over the issues within the measures. They are going to fail anyway. Logic dosen't lie.

  • M57 (unverified)

    Actually, most voters will vote Yes on both 57 and 61. They are frustrated with property crime and identity theft and want action.

    The actual scenarios look like this:

    R's: Vote overwhlemingly for 61 and 57, with 61 leading I's: Vote for 61 and 57, with 61 leading D's: Hold the key because if they vote no on 57 and 61, 61 will still have enough votes to pass and will end up with the most votes and become law.

    Don't fool yourself. Voters across the board, including most liberal obama supporters, want something done about this issue.

  • (Show?)


    Your logic is not a clearcut as you think, as I read it -- depends on the # of two noes being large enough to prevent either of the yes totals being a majority, and excludes the two yes possibiity

    But, assuming you were right, it would still make sense for me to vote yes on 57, no on 61. According to you, my preferred outcome (no on the bad Mannix bill, and no on a bill flawed by being formulated to oppose the Mannix bill rather than address the issues based on analysis of them independent of the Mannix risk) is going to happen whatever way I vote, so there's no reason not to, since I'm not sure you're right. If you're wrong, my votes would be the strongest against the worst outcome I fear, so I can hedge against that.

    Unfortunately I think this is not so much a matter of logic as game theory. It's not really the classic prisoners' dilemma (or see hardcore explanation, probably just as well for avoiding stupid irony, but it's some kind of a cousin.

    The issue is that I can't really tell how many people see a problem and think Mannix's prop is a good solution and M57 isn't (y/n), how many think that way but think 57 is better than nothing and want to ensure that something passes (y/y), how many people see a problem but think Mannix's prop is a bad solution and M57 is better (n/y), how many people see a problem but think neither approach is a good answer in terms of other problems they cause (n/y or n/n), and how many people think there isn't really a problem (n/n).

    I fall into the fourth group. If I were confident enough that there were enough of us to keep either of the others from passing, I'd vote no & no. I'd also do so even if I thought one would pass but was confident enough that the second and third groups outnumbered the first without any of the fourth, if both measures passed. But I don't have that confidence, so I feel I have to bolster the numbers in group 3, because I think M61 is sufficiently bad.

    That of course reduces the chances that there might be enough people who agree with me to keep either from passing, because I'm taking myself out of the n/n group.

    To me this feels like putting the good of the whole via harm reduction ahead of my personal desire to express my true preference. In the presence of fuller information and an organized, visibly effective No/No campaign that would give me more confidence, I might act differently. But neither of those things exist.

  • Jim H (unverified)

    My wife and I were just talking about this. Our initial thought is to vote no on both and hope neither passes.

    Why can't the leg just pass a drug rehab/treatment bill on their own?

  • Pedro (unverified)

    Please tell me why we need to borrow and spend 314 million dollars to build new prison space?

    Wouldn't that 314 million dollars plus the 203 million dollars in interest be better spent on education, health care, jobs, and some more cops and prosecutors instead?

    Didn't we just spend millions on new prisons that aren't being used yet?

    I haven't decided how I'll vote on M57 yet. My gut says NO, my head says YES...

  • Jim H (unverified)

    Re: Chris' post: I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me

  • Law-n-Order D (unverified)

    Under current Oregon Law you do not go to prison until your FIFTH conviction for Identity Theft. When you finally do go it is for only 13 months. See ORS 137.717. 5 strikes = thirteen months for ID Theft. Selling a non-substantial quantity of meth? Hope you are prepared to do the whole 30-90 DAYS of jail w/probation the first two times; and a whole 19 months the third under current law. What about judicial discretion? Statutory sentencing provisions are in place because there is already a big limit on a judge's discretion via the weak and defendant friendly Oregon Sentencing Guidelines.

    If there was not the so called property crime minimum (under ORS 137.717 mentioned above) then under the Oregon Sentencing Guidelines it would be IMPOSSIBLE to go to prison for most property crimes including Identity Theft, Felony Theft, Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, Burglary II (non-residential),and other serious property crimes.

    I'm a Democrat b/c I believe the government has a role in protecting society's most vulnerable victims who have done nothing to deserve the way they have been treated. Whatever measure passes is a step in the right direction.

  • (Show?)

    In a certain sense, I'm still in Chris's camp of the n/n group. I think America has a grossly inappropriate system for dealing with crime. But neither M57 or 61 deal with my issues, so I'm left with the measures we have (not the measures I would like to have).

    Strategically, it's worth noting that almost everyone thinks both of these will pass. The real question is, which one do you want? I'd vote no on 61.

  • DB (unverified)

    I just want to point out that property crime has not been increasing. Between 2004 and 2005 we went from being 4th highest to 18th, the largest drop in the country.

    Jim H, this is a voter initiative because the leg knew that voters needed an option, or they'd vote for Mannix's crazy idea. Them passing a treatment bill would have been insufficient. I heard that polling shows both bills passing by a comfortable margin, with 57 slightly ahead.

    official stats

  • Pedro (unverified)

    DB - can you please provide a link to the polling that shows measures 57 and 61?

  • (Show?)

    Actually, in many areas around the state property crime has been increasing. However, when police don't have the resources they need top investigate the crimes, people stop turning them into police.

    That's the case out here in Gresham. I speak with people all the time who have on multiple occasions been the victim of property crime. After turning it in the first time, only to be told all they do is a report so you can turn it into your insurance company, people stop turning them in unless it's something they would report to their insurance company.

    We're not talking about a person here and a person there who was a victim once - we're talking about many people with multiple instances each. I know we've been victims a few times ourselves.

  • Law-n-Order D (unverified)


    Looking at those stats I see a vast disparity. We have a low violent crime rate compared to the rest of the country and a relatively high property crime rate compared with the rest. That means we are doing something right and something wrong.

    I don't like Mannix's other politics, but he helped pushed Measure 11 which is arguably responsible for that disparity between the violent and property crime rates. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater because of partisanship.

  • Robert Harris (unverified)

    For REAL Identity theft cases, and REAL cases of drug dealing, prison should be a sentencing option for judges, and under the sentencing guidelines, which the LEGISLATURE imposed by the way as a tool to take sentencing discretion away from Judges, it isn't always.

    However a couple of things people probably don't know.

    Did you know that DA's charge people with ID theft because they have a name tag with a made up name on it when they commit a theft? Or use a made up name when they forge checks. Theft sure, forgery sure, but who's ID did they steal? No one's but its still ID theft under the law.

    Did you know DA's charge people with being drug dealers when they admit they occassionally buy Pot for their friends?

    There's certainly a problem with sentencing law in Oregon. But the problem is the Legislature continuing to take sentencing discretion away from Judges and giving it to DA's through mandatory sentences.

    Now we have a choice between two measures that continue that trend. But the reality is, we need to vote for Measure 57 because it does fix some things that need fixing, and provides treatment. Which DOES reduce recidivism by all studies.

    Finally, it doesn't make any difference, but the legislature and Mannix were actually very close to a compromise where the legislature would pass legislation (which legislation is now embodied in 57) and Mannix would withdraw his ballot measure, until.....February 7th, 2008, when Rep. Hooley announced her retirement. On February 12th Mannix then announced he was withdrawing from the negotiations and soon thereafter he announced his candidacy for Hooleys seat. Measure 61 was simply a vehicle for mannix who thought he'd ride it as a campaign horse. Now, we're stick with not only 61, but Erickson's candidacy as well.

    God could Mannix be any worse for Oregon.

  • Pedro (unverified)

    So Robert...

    It's heads Mannix wins, tails Oregonians lose?

  • Gil Johnson (unverified)

    Before I vote for the lesser of the two evils, I would like some factual information to back up the argument that if I don't vote for #57, then #61 will prevail.

    The City Club today approved a ballot measure study on 61 and 57. The members present voted to substitute the minority report on 57, which basically supports the strategy of voting for 57 and against 61. During this debate, several speakers said the polls show both 61 and 57 winning. But no numbers were given out, or any trend data.

    So, exactly what is the polling data? If #61 is winning by a 60-40 margin, hell yes, I'll vote against it and for #57. But if it's up only 53-47, or if there is a substantial undecided block, I might take my chances and vote against both of them, that being the principled thing to do.

    And why is there no organized opposition to #61?

  • YoungOregonMoonbat (unverified)

    Yes on 61. No on 57.

    I have been victimized by hardened, untreatable lifelong criminals in the past year.

    Car broken into twice within a months span. First time they stole my $200 Kenwood CD player. The locks cost $300 to repair each time.

    Third, I was the victim of Black on White hate crime on St. Patrick's day when I was walking to a bar on Burnside St. in Downtown Portland.

    I stopped at Burnside and SW 6th as this gangbanger was looking to cross Burnside, he had his "hoodie" on, said "White boy!", socked me on my left cheek, and scuttled across Burnside to get props from one of his soon to be in jail "homies."

    I didn't follow or call the police. I celebrated St. Patrick's day at a local bar.

    I will not forget what that Black gang banger did to me.

    57 is bullshit. Just buys lowlifes more time to commit crime while in "treatment."

    Put them in jail for 2+ years. That will get them sober and give them some time to ponder on the consequences and meanings of their actions.

    Maybe then will they realize personal responsibility for their actions and stop blaming their messed up childhood as the reason for their bad behavior in fucking pathetic attempt to claim victim hood themselves.

  • DB (unverified)

    Y.O.M.- If you put them in prison, they'll still be stealing from you by costing you (and the rest of us) $30,000-40,000/year to house in prison.

    Treatment is not "blaming their messed up childhood". Treatment focuses on getting them to take responsibility for their actions, and breaking the cycle of going in and out of prisons. Hundreds of studies show that treatment reduces recidivism, prison increases it.

    The point is that we can get the same public safety outcomes for a fraction of the cost by investing our money in intensive treatment. Offenders in treatment quite frequently quit in order to go to jail/prison "because it's much easier". Those that don't however, (around 50%) get better, and stop ripping people off.

    Jenni- that is a compelling point. There have been several phone surveys conducted, however, that support the official report data however. I couldn't find links based on a superficial google search, unfortunately.

    I don't mean to say that because property crime is decreasing, it's not a problem. Obviously if you get ripped off, you don't care where Oregon ranks, you just want retribution. Locking people up is effective in the short term, but it's also extremely expensive. I think we had a huge drop in property crime in 2005 because of the statewide focus on meth. We eliminated meth labs, and provided some money for treatment. I think Measure 57 takes those efforts a little further.

    There are no public polls available right now. Both sides have conducted their own polling, and don't want to tip their hand. My understanding is that in late August, both measures were passing with over 60%.

  • (Show?)

    I haven't seen or heard of any studies that say anything differently. And I'd say the fact that I probably find 10 property crimes that go unreported for every reported one, I have a hard time believing that property crime is going down.

    A lot of these people are committing these crimes for their drug habits. They maybe go to jail for a very short time and then they're back on the streets. Back to their addiction and back to crime. They need treatment so they can kick the habit and return to a life of no crime. Not only is this good because it gets people off drugs and lessens crime, but many of the criminals are women - often with children. Getting them out of crime and back to a productive life means their kids will have a much better life.

    The poll numbers I've been told have them both passing with more than 60% voting yes. It wasn't even close on them - it was close to a 2 to 1 margin.

    I'll be voting yes on 57 and no on 61.

  • Eric Parker (unverified)

    "why is there no organized opposition to #61?"

    Beacuse we are all naturally opposed to it already by the virtue of having Mannix being the champion of it. Any Mannix measure is an automatic NO vote for very many people. I like to call it the "Sizemore effect" where any measure dies because of who is involved in it's existance. Sizemore's car insurance measure some time back is a great example. It failed becuase Sizemore wrote it - end of story. Mannix has become a pariah much like Sizemore has when it involves initiatives.

    Mannix = NO Sizemore = NO Loren Parks = NO OCA = NO Don McIntyre = NO

  • Law-n-Order D (unverified)

    I think Eric Parker's "Sizemore effect" point is well taken. Another reason that we Democrats should not concede the crime issue to Republicans.

  • mlw (unverified)

    The biggest problem with 61's all incarceration method is that it doesn't reduce crime over the long run. Yes, prisoners don't have the opportunity to commit crimes against people on the outside while they're in prison, but they tend to be more inclined to commit crime when they get out. 57 is a reasonable balance - you get a chance to straighten out, then you go to prison if you do it again.

    Those opposed to 57 generally oppose it because it effectively takes money away from schools. That's a very reasonable objection. However,57 is very popular, so the solution is probably to increase the size of the pie by getting a new revenue source (yes, new taxes), not by opposing what is a very reasonable measure. To quote Justice Holmes - "I like paying taxes. With them, I buy civilization."

  • Harry (unverified)

    Vote for both crime measures. The one with the mosts votes becomes law.

    Reduce crime. It's a good thing, even if you are a Democrat.

  • mp97303 (unverified)

    So you want to vote NO on any bill Sizemore or Mannix or a handful of others propose without even reading it and deciding if it has any merit....and you call conservatives idiots. Look in the mirror.

  • Rob Douglas - Editor, (unverified)

    I find it hard to believe that the projected costs of these bills are as stated. At we follow these issues closely.

  • (Show?)

    mp97303, Eric Parker speaks only for himself. Look at the rest of the comments.

    I don't call conservatives idiots. Some conservative policies I consider idiotic, but most that I disagree with I think wrong for other reasons.

    There are some conservatives I will get ad hominem about, mostly ones who make stupid or lying generalizations about people by defining a label and then pinning it on persons who do not fit it. So, lots of Freepers are idiots & that's about the nicest thing you can say about them. Not everyone who posts there, but lots.

    Eric, Sizemore has not passed many if any of his nuisance measures. Mannix on the other hand has, and his greatest success, M11, he is tying closely to M61.

    You may be right about why there's no organized opposition to M61, but that doesn't change the fact that the absence and lack of information probably is going to lead me to vote yes on M57 in addition to No on M61.

  • Josh Marquis (unverified)

    Under current Oregon law sentencing guidelines regulate how tough a judges can sentence most felons. (Not how lenient, they can give probation and no jail whatseover if they so choose). Keep in mind that less than 80 percent of felons go to prison at all. And that more than 60% of those in prison are there for violent felonies. Or that the number of people in Orego prison for smoking dope is ZERO. To deny the anger Oregon voters have to a higher-than-national average property crime rate is pure denial. You can denounce Mannix all you want - the fact is that polling shows when you say "mandatory prison" most Oregonians think that is a GOOD idea. I've been a prosecutor for 20 years and I don't get bonus points for sending people to prison. But when the convicted felon who stole the statute of Sacagewa (valued at over $25,000) chopped the head off and sold it for metal scrap got caught the MAXIMUM the judge could give him was 20 DAYS in jail. And of course immediate release because he'd already served that time. No treatment, no threat of more jail or even prison if he didn't shape up. Ironically Mannix's 61 doesn't even cover that particular crime - Aggravated Theft 1. All Measre 57 would so is give jduges - not prosecutors - the OPTION of giving repeat property offenders two years in prison with a whopping 2 months for every their subequent (third/fourth/fifth/sicth) conviction up to a maximum of 36 months. Does anyone, even here at Blue Oregon, think a man convicted of five home burglaries who has flucked out of three different treatment programs, violated probation more than half a dozen times, shouldn't at least face the PROSPECT of going to prison? Quit ceding the law and order issue to conservatives or don't be surprised if you see even more draconian ballot measures down the line. A No-No vote will guarantee either the passage of 61 or even more drastic ballot measures in 2010.

  • mp97303 (unverified)

    Chris Lowe

    Check out any thread here that deals with any ballot measure involving Mannix, Sizemore et al. So many people say they will vote NO just because of who is the sponsor.

    I find it ironic that so many have criticized John Stossel for suggesting that uninformed voters stay home and yet they are suggesting they will vote about a bill they know nothing about. Maybe John was right.

  • Ms Mel Harmon (unverified)

    Sizemore gets an automatic veto from me because he's gaming the system in order to keep putting these measures on the ballot. If he'd pay the money he owes for his past convictions from the LAST TIME he screwed over the initiative system, I might be inclined to listen to him again. The fact that he's found (he thinks, we'll see) some loophole to allow him to spend millions to put these measures up and still not pay the judgments he owes is enough for me to say "NO" to anything he proposes. Period.

  • mlw (unverified)

    For you pragmatists out there, here's a quick voting guide. If you -

    Vote yes, yes - Probably no effect - both are likely to pass.

    Vote no, no - Probably no effect - as above, feel free to vote your conscience, but they're both polling over 50%

    Vote no on 57, yes on 61 - put a lot of people in jail, at a very high cost. Maybe reduce crime in the future, maybe not. The K-12 budget takes a big hit.

    Vote yes on 57, no on 61 - take the balanced approach. K-12 probably takes a small hit. Crime may go down over the long haul. Fewer first time offenders behind bars.

    Personally, I think we should have judicial sentencing without guidelines in Oregon. Vote for judges who reflect your philosophy. Otherwise, what's the point in judicial elections.

    On a side note, Mannix is running really atrocious billboards in Albany - Measure 61 - send criminals to jail; Measure 57 - catch and release. Yes, dear voter, he thinks that you are that dumb.

  • reality, not dearly-held notions (unverified)

    "On a side note, Mannix is running really atrocious billboards in Albany - Measure 61 - send criminals to jail; Measure 57 - catch and release. Yes, dear voter, he thinks that you are that dumb." . huh?

    That IS the gist of the matter according to the many comments above; both 'progressive' and otherwise.

    I'm neither Demonrat or Repukelikan so it's not a political issue to me; it just represents yet another case of an urban and feel-good-notion dominated government failing to act in citizen's interests.

    That was a good question posted above, that went unanswered. The person who 'responded' to it really just danced around it.

    To wit, why did the leg. do nothing, and only submit 57 when 61 appeared?

    Or, from another perspective, why did folks have to come up with an initiative (61) themselves in the first place?

    149,000 signatures....any honest person has to acknowledge the strong grassroots support for the issue, and the essence of 61 (and 57, if you insist).

    As usual, the -root- of this issue, as with so many others, is an UNRESPONSIVE government.

    Why does the gov continue trying to shove the sales-tax down our throats after being clearly told NO! five times?

    Same question on the double-majority requirement for off-main-date tax/bond items. Three times this has been voted down by -citizens-; yet here they are pushing it AGAIN.

    Why does every single finance problem result in knee-jerk shouts of "raise taxes!"; with the usual extortionate threats that 'of course' police, fire, libraries, etc. will 'have to' be cut....without EVER a single word about cutting bloated NON-direct-service agencies like DEQ etc. instead?? Never any serious effort to CUT any portion of an ever-growing government; with its attendant outrageous pensions predictably growing into an unpayable-sized giant millstone on our necks.

    Unresponsive gov., with its own agenda completely unrelated to the CLEARLY expressed wishes and priorities of the -citizens-.

    The genesis of 61, then 57, is just another example of an urban/'progressive' dominated state-gov that's increasingly inimical to its own citizens, sad to say.

    We should wish and work for -more of the same- ????

    It blows my mind to see, over and over, a statement by someone decrying current conditions, then in the same damn breath, shouting for more of the same!

    More government, more 'action' by government, more 'laws' if it isn't blatantly obvious that the current mess being decried IS the result of 50 years of EXACTLY that. All those laws, all those programs, all those dearly-held notions and ideologies.

    What an astounding mass-psychosis it is that everyone involved lives in total denial of this; avoding even acknowledging it; let alone mentioning it out loud.

    No wonder a majority of Americans of -all- parties are 'bitter' and 'clinging' to what little they have left.

    Neither 57 nor 61 are very good legislation; but I'll likely vote 61 because at least it accomplishes -something- in the near-term; and because the cost figures given look skewed to me. Not much honesty about the true burdened-costs of the so-called 'treatment' on a per-success basis, including the many hidden long-term costs of adding yet more agencies, departments, employees with their full-salary pensions, that will all be with us forever.

    Also, I reacted negatively to 57 because not a -single- supporting argument for 57 in the pamphlet even mentioned the existence of 61; let alone made cogent arguments as to why 57 was better than 61. Instead, the 57-pushers burned up who knows how many tens-of-thousands of tax-dollars trying to overawe me with how many 'authorities' supported 57.

    In fact, that's another reason I'm likely to vote 61.....those pages and pages of powers-that-be and 'groups' who're pushing 57....almost every one of which slurps from the public-trough and also has been "part of the problem" all along in every other issue we face.

    Good luck Oregon...what a sad pass we've come to...

  • (Show?)

    I voted no on both, but now wish I'd reconsidered on 57 given it would have been the better of the two. Given the fact I'm overseas and voted early and there wasn't a ton of information out there on it, I went with the gut feeling. After reading though this conversation, I am guessing both will pass. As to which one gets more, it might be pretty close.

    As for 61, no regrets on voting no on that one.

  • Kevin (unverified)

    In February, the state's district attorneys worked closely with the state legislature to craft a balanced approach to property crime that would not break the bank. M57 is the outcome of that discussion. Here's why we need to address the issue of property crime: 1. Oregonians are victimized by property crime far more than virtually every other state. Particularly when compared to non-border states. We should find that unacceptable. I do. 2. We are getting numb to the victimization. When my bike was stolen my reaction was "I left it in a bad spot and should of had a better lock" not "what the hell is that jerk doing cutting the lock and stealing my bike."
    3. People steal stuff because they don't think they will get caught and they know that if they do get caught they won't be held accountable. Often, but not always, they are doing it to feed a habit. But it is not the drugs that drive them to commit crime (there are plenty of drug users that don't commit property crime), it is the lack of accountability. That said, if we can reduce dependence it will have lots of beneficial effects, including reduction in crime. 4. In Oregon, it is impossible to go to prison until you have committed FIVE separate property crimes (not including burglary), and even then a significant percentage of Multnomah Co. offenders don't go to prison until the have been convicted of over a dozen property crimes. Why is M57 a good solution? 1. It gives judges the tools they need to send property offenders to prison earlier in the cycle of crime. Now their will only be a trail of two or three victims, not five to ten victims. Everyone agrees that a property offender that commits two crimes is not likely to stop until they are treated or incarcerated. 2. It provides unprecedented support to treatment by tripling the available treatment dollars and it takes a sensible approach to treatment. After the first crime, we'll try to treat you outside of prison. If it doesn't work and you commit another crime, we'll treat you in prison and, if you complete the program, we'll give you a 40% reduction on your sentence. If you do it a third time(or more), you serve the time. Folks, that's how we raise our kids: warning, then time out, then grounding; isn't it okay to do that with our criminals? 3. It is a helluva lot cheaper than M61 and they are both going to pass. In fact, the incarceration costs of M57 are probably less then 1/3 of Mannix's measure (half the cost when you add the treatment component). And it bears mentioning that the folks who estimated the costs of the measure were absolutely unwilling to factor in any reduction in costs due to reduced crime. We can all agree that M57 will reduce crime, and if not, then the legislature is justified in completely undoing it in 3 years.

    Sorry for the long post, but this is an important measure for us all. I'm tired of being victimized, but I also want to be sure that if my kid makes a stupid mistake (they never do that), he isn't going to prison for 3 years. M57 is the right approach.

  • mayfly25 (unverified)

    I am not a fan of Kevin Mannix and never will be. I think he is a disgruntled man who is looking for revenge in any state he can. That said, I do support his Measure 11 to a certain extent. However, I do NOT support Measure 61 for many reasons.

    First, I have personal experience with Measure 11. I was a victim of a crime and my offender went to trial as a 15 year old. He was sentenced under Measure 11 for 5 1/2 years to a Youth Correctional Facility. I kept in contact with him, after learning that he came from a troubled family and was never taught how to live as a responsible citizen. Now, 11 years later, he has been out of jail for 5 years. Since being released, he has completed a Bachelor's Degree, holds a full-time job, owns a house, is getting married, etc. He has turned his life around. In speaking with him, he said going to the facility was the best thing for him. He learned how to work, how to study, how to obey, etc. He took anger management classes, drug and alcohol classes, and sat in on a talk about the harms of stealing. He learned more in that facility than he could have learned if he were locked up in a Prison with no treatment programs. I believe the time he spent there has changed his life. Therefore, depending on the severity of the crimes, criminals need to pay their time.

    However, Measure 61 does not offer treatment programs. It just locks people up. There is no discretion from the judges, attorneys, etc. The DA has all power because of the mandatory sentencing law. If Measure 61 were to pass, we would be locking even more people up in prisons throughout Oregon. But, what happens in 10 years when all those criminals are released? Sure, our crime rates drop temporarily, but with no treatment, our crime rates will sky-rocket when all are released.

    I know some will not be able to receive treatment. Therefore, if one is not cooperating and making substantial progress in their treatment program, they should be removed from treatment and sent to prison. However, if they show a desire to change, confess what they have done, don't blame anyone but themselves, etc . . . we might have another successfully treated former criminal released. Then they can contribute to society and hopefully make life better.

    The reason some criminals re-offend??? They have close to no hope when being released. They can't live just anywhere, so housing is hard to get. They can't get a job because of their criminal background. How do we expect them to survive? They can't. Therefore, they steal, assult people for money, etc. If we have apartments for criminals that are built away from children, schools, etc, some criminals who really want to change may have a chance. If we allow criminals to work in low-key jobs (like construction, in the fields, etc) even with their conviction, they may start to live a better life. Then, once they have proven themselves clean and responsible, they can move up in the world again and hopefully get better jobs and better living arrangements. However, they need to EARN it.

    Measure 61 does nothing to help criminals. It just brings our prison population up. We will have more people in prison that in the public education system with Measure 61. We will not be able to keep up with expenditures, no matter how much taxes are raised. Before you know it, we will be asking the federal government for a 2.5 billion dollar bail-out.

    Measure 57 needs work, I agree. But, it is a better choice than Measure 61. Some criminals can be treated - especially youth offenders. We need to try to treat so we can ensure that our children are not faced with a million released convicts who will offend again and again.

    Judge me all you want. But as a victim with up close and personal experience with Measure 11 - I know some treatment can be effective.

connect with blueoregon