SHARE THIS SHOW:
ON THE BLOG:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
The TOL Blog
TAGS:
Sentencing and Spending
Back in November, Oregonians passed Measure 57, a ballot initiative drafted by the legislature as an alternative to Measure 61. Both measures addressed changes to sentencing laws for drug and property crimes. Though Measure 57 was billed as the less costly of the two, in these tough times, some legislators want to save the state an estimated $74 million by delaying the implementation of 57 to 2011. The deferral would require a two-thirds vote in the legislature (40 votes in the House and 20 in the Senate), meaning both Republicans and Democrats would need to get on board.
Critics argue that by delaying the measure's implementation, the legislature would be going against the will of the voters. The Oregon District Attorneys Association has proposed an alternative money-saving measure: a one-time early release of approximately 2,000 nonviolent offenders.
Governor Ted Kulongoski spoke in favor of a delay in response to a question following his State of the State address last Friday. He said,
What if we just said that because of these economic hard times, let's not spend more money on building another prison, but let's invest in our schools? Why don't we just delay it for two years, get us past this, let the economy start coming back and then do something? You know what my problem is? It takes a two-thirds vote of the legislature.
Measure 57 is intimately linked to the construction of a 532-bed state prison south of Junction City. Many residents there oppose the delay because it would mean postponing the prison construction project that could serve as a much-needed boost for the local economy (one that has been hurting for jobs since two area RV manufacturers laid off a lot of people earlier this year).
Do you live in Junction City? Do you work in the Oregon Corrections Department or in drug treatment? Have you ever been the victim of a property crime? What would a delay of Measure 57 mean for you?
GUESTS:
- Jeff Barker: Oregon state representative (D-Aloha) who is part of the legislative workgroup trying to find savings in the public safety budgets
- Doug Harcleroad: Former Lane Count district attorney and past president of the Oregon District Attorneys Association, currently an attorney and advocate for the Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance and an adjunct professor at the University of Oregon
- Max Williams: Director of the Oregon Department of Corrections
- David Rogers: Executive director of the Partnership for Safety and Justice
- David Clyne: City administrator for Junction City
Tagged as: budget · measure 57 · prison
Photo credit: Still Burning / Flickr / Creative Commons
-
I campaigned for Measure 57 and I would love to see it delayed. Like many people, I voted for it because Measure 61 would have been a disaster.
In 1978, Oregon had 2600 people in prison. Now we have almost 14,000. That’s an increase of about 600%. By comparison, our state population has increased about 40% over that time. We spend over one billion dollars annually on corrections. Our state spends a larger portion of its budget on corrections than any other state.
This is madness. People often come out of prison in worse shape than when they go in. They are not any more prepared to hold a job, raise a family or participate in public life. We are disenfranchising a huge number of people with these policies.Until recently, prisons have always been about rehabilitation and trying to encourage good behavior in people. Now they are human garbage cans. Our mentality is one of waste management. It’s very sad. It’s actually something that I believe is threatening the well-being of our whole society and the future of our democracy.
Jeff
Milwaukie, OR
-
If the state population has increased by 40% and the conviction rate has increased 600% then isn’t that an indication that there is a higher crime rate? Last I looked you had to be convicted to end up in prison. Is the conviction rate in error, have ‘we’ increased the number of laws so that the conviction rate went up 600% or, did we breed “Human Garbage”?
IF prisons are not the answer in the long term. To be clear I do not think that they are! What then is the answer? Personally I feel that this is a clear indictment of our society’s education system on all levels.
The near term question is; if not incarceration what do we do with the "human garbage" that we have generated today if not to contain it in some form of “dump” until we can figure out how to address the under lying problem(s)?No, I do not have the answers, only observations and questions.
-
It's a bit of both.
Smart people don't have children. So, yes we breed human garbage more often then not. But, then again breeding isn't everything.
Many of these incarcerations are drug related. We clearly need to legalize drugs and treat addiction, in order to solve many of these problems.
It's deeper then our education system---our popular culture is rotten on all levels. We are infested with a love of mediocrity, it has invaded every tier of our society.
-
To answer desolation's question: the reason our prison population has increased way out of disproportion to the population is not because of crime but because of policy changes.
1989- Sentencing guidelines - meant that the average person convicted would serve a longer sentence and parole release was abolished
1994- Measure 11- made HUGE increases in sentence lengths will no early release for any reason.
Here's an example of policy: In Sweden the average prison term for all offenders is 4 months. In the USA, the average prison term for all offender is 8 years. Think about that. It's not crime, it's policy that makes the difference.
-
ju9piter,
I agree wholeheartedly. It seems that in some form or another the public's anxiety has been exploited in order for one group or politican to increase their own power by being "tough on crime".
I think the questions we need to ask ourselves are simple: Is our current justice system reflecting our moral priorities--is this really how we want to treat people?--and is it reflecting our economic priorities--do we really want to spend all this money on locking people up?
-
As if the will of the voters meant something! I'm so tired of hearing about the will of the voters. I don't trust the average public with anything but being average. Sometimes (many times) the will of the masses is the wrong answer.
-
I agree, people are just not educated on the issues and their long-term consquences. Until people become more proactive and less reactive this problem will not be solved.
On a positive note, it's good to see that their are so many organizations that are forming to champion different issues and they care about educating themselves and the public. It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
-
I voted for measure 57 only because it allows more people to actually get treatment.
Warehousing people is not the answer. Most people get out of prison eventually. They should get the treatment they need so that when they do get out they can be successful.
-
This conversation is not addressing the fact that Oregon voters had no choice with regard to this measure.
It was the lessor of two evils and therefore the majority of voters your guests are speaking of is a false majority.
We had no choice and I would like to know how 61 and 57 made it on the ballot so that we could not vote no for both?
-
Hear hear!!
-
When will state officials start talking about prevention for non-violent crimes? It seems that we are talking only about effects and need to focus more attension and dollars on cause.
When you encarcerate someone for a non-violent crime, with violent offenders, you are asking for them to come out with more problems.
When can we start using these funds for programs that are proven to work and do more for our society in the long run.
Why are our state officals not talking about this? We talk about it on the local level, but there doesn't seem to be the state level conversation.
-
I am a survivor of both a violent crime and identity theft that will never be fully resolved. I know first-hand what it's like to deal with victimization. And what I need -- more than keeping the people who victimized me in prison for a long time -- is for the people who victimized me to not do it again, to me or anyone else. What I need is for the offender to be rehabilitated. And what I need is for there to be services in the community to give me counseling, support, and information. I've used these services and I know that they're severely underfunded. Why do we keep investing in warehousing people instead of giving offenders and victims the tools they need to rebuild their lives? That's my understanding of justice.
-
Measure 57 passed only because it contained funding for drug treatment. When is Oregon going to learn that incarceration without treatment is a losing proposition, both for the individual and for the taxpayers? Oregon should learn from the example of the very effective program federal Bureau of Prisons 500-hour Comprehensive Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP).
Individuals who completed RDAP were significantly less likely to recidivate and significantly less likely to relapse to drug use.
Come on Oregon! When are we going to get off this “tough on crime” path – it’s clear in today’s budget climate that we have to get smart on crime and increase funding for treatment – not only to save the lives of individuals but to spend our limited tax dollars wisely. -
Once again we are forced to choose the least effective method of dealing with drug and crime issues and that is spending time and money delaying and then modifying a poorly written measure.
It also sounds like many of the guests have motives around expanding the corrections infrastructure when we really need to be focusing on education, transportation and healthcare infrastructure, things that will keep people out of prison to begin with.
Scrap 57 and start again.
-
I'm struck that drug crimes are often crimes without a victim. The prisons are full of people who at best shouldn't be be criminals at all. If they are driven to violent crime it is to obtain drugs. I think that we could even close prisons if we legalized drugs, or at least decriminalize them (at least cannabis).
Legalized drugs would create a tax bonanza. We should treat drug addiction as a public health problem. The police would not be so demonized, prisons would no longer need to be built, which, after all, this is all about. We could move down from the top of the list of nations that incarcerate their citizens. That's not all bad! Mexico would thank us, too.
-
I, too, was disappointed in the choice between 57 and 61. I believe that we have way too many people incarcerated in the US and also in Oregon. We should not be jailing people for simple drug use or possession.
Drugs need to be decriminalized and made legal and taxed. We could have "Drug stores" similar to the liquor stores where adults over 18 could purchase their drugs legally. It is only a small percentage of the general populace that use drugs, other than the norrmal experimentation that all kids do with both alcohol and cigarettes. Just like the poor, we shall always have drug users amongst us.
What other country in the world has a WAR against its own people than the US?
I am in favor of permanently delaying Measure 57.
-
As a head of a household on a limited budget, I'm forced to set priorities and make harsh decisions on what I can fund for the household. It seems that the state government compartmentalizes money in order to avoid setting priorities. My personal priority list looks something like this:
1) Kids
2) Kids
3) Kids
4) Kids
5) Kids
6) Kids
7) Kids
8) Kids
9) Wife
10) me
In other words, I would sacrifice absolutely everything in order to ensure that my children are not harmed or affected in any way by the economic downturn. Their enrichment, education, nutrition, health, etc. trump absolutely everything else, end of story. Once I have that clear eyed priority, the other decisions, although highly impactful, are not difficult to make. I believe that as a collective, we Oregonians need to have a similar set of priorities.
-
This is an interesting point. I think the difficulty of achieving a simple priority and proprotion policy for the state budget is the multitude of competing interests that are presented to the legislature. It seems like most people have their pet programs they like to endorse. Most of them have merit, but it's important for people to keep things in perspective.
-
When I looked at my ballot last November, I felt coerced into voting for Measure 57 despite my opposition to it. Sadly, It was the only alternative to ensuring that the draconian consequences of Measure 61 would not come to pass.
Thank you to David Rogers for bringing up so many very imortant points, including the crime rate that has actually hit a 40 year low.
-
Yes Yes!! Abuse of the ballot measure system is the REAL issue here.
-
I called in this morning and was very grateful to have an opportunity to talk about some of what I wanted to say. I have additional comments.
I campaigned for measure 57 because of the 40 million dollars targeted for drug and alcohol services and to defeat measure 61. It seemed the only way to beat back that bad legislation. I would be happy to see both of them go away.
If we are unable to implement part of measure 57, i.e. the treatment end of it, we are not doing what the voters asked for, why implement just the incarceration part of that bill?
I know the importance of drug and alcohol treatment, I became addicted to pain medication after a back injury that led to street drugs, crime, jail and prison.
I was unable to quit using on my own, I kept getting arrested for violationing the of the conditions of my probation which ended in a prison sentence.
My life changed with the tools I received in community based treatment, today I am a good community member, a good mother, grandmother, I have a job where my felony conviction allows my experience to benefit others – I vote and I pay taxes.
Because of the community based treatment I received, and my previous incarceration, I know incarceration is not the best way to treat addiction and addiction driven crimes.
I disagree with the former DA from Lane County; we have been trying to incarcerate our way out of this problem for years. IT doesn’t work. Building new prisons DOES NOT work.
The proposal the DAs came up with is a band-aid not a solution, if the folks he is talking about had been able to “earn” their way out of prison and prepare for their re-entry we would be setting them up to succeed. If we let folks out, without re-entry support, how does that set people up for success?
The city manager from Junction City was interested in economic advantages to his community at the cost of human-toll—that does not bide well with me – I think that to build a prison for economical growth at the cost of one living human being is not a smart way to think about healing as a community.
This year’s National Recovery Month mantra is “Together we learn, Together we heal.” We need to take what we have learned over the years and begin to heal as a community and as a nation.
-
I voted for measure 57 because it seemed to me the lesser of the two evils. I know for a fact that in the prisons they do not have enough programs against alcohol and drugs. In my case, my son was sent to prison for violating his probation and drank beer. He does not do any drugs and he is not an every day drinker. The judge told him he could apply for "many" of the programs they have in the prisons. That is not so, they waiting lists are long and the inmate has to be transfered to a far away prison even when his name has not come up in the list. He has been incarcerated for a year and half and six more months go to. Many of the inmates where he is are not violent criminals, it's a minimum security prison and everyone works. If he refuses to get transfered to another institution, he automatically will get 18 days additional and on whose authority? The prison administration. The judge's sentence can not be changed, but why the DOC has the authority to ad more days to his sentence? They do not have enough programs, they have a long waiting list, and for what? for nothing, most likely because the name might not EVER come on the list.
The inmates at this minimum correctional are fathers, husbands, someone's son and brother, they are not violent criminal, not sex offenders, seems to me that the Judges and the probation officers act without thinking of the future of these men. However, this same judge, allowed a woman accused of murder take a one month's vacation on ANOTHER STATE after her indictment. She got 19 months in prison, for killing and stomping to death a human being, my son got 19 months for drinking beer. Let them release some of these non violent inmates, that are producing with their labor working day after day, doing laundry for the State Hospital, producing vegetables, etc. I am sure that many of these guys have learned their lessons, release them early so they can have room in the prisons for the real criminals. I hope someday they realize that mixing these men with hard core criminals, will not help them, but some will become bitter and angry, then what?
-
I voted for 57 because it had treatment options rather than just incarceration. I am a recovering addict and I KNOW that treatment works and is a less expensive alternative to jail and prison time.
I have just celebrated 3 years in recovery. In these last 3 years, I have gotten a job, paid all my fines and court costs and gotten off probation early and not cost the state any money. I pay my taxes, rather than taxing the system by having to be housed, clothed and fed because of a prison sentence.
This change in my life came about because I was offered drug treatment. I know first hand that most of the people convicted of property crimes, have a drug problem. If we can find a way to address that issue on the front end, our city, counties and state will be able to save money, as treatment is more cost effective and has long term benefits.
I have a son, who is serving a 48 month sentence for property crimes. He was never offered treatment, just time. Had he been given the chance at treatment, he too, could be learning to be a productive member of the community, rather than costing us all unnecessary money, being housed in prison. As my former probation officer said to me "jail time is wasted time."
-
I agree with you, specially the segment about your son and treatment. They do not have enough personnel to offer programs in the prisons, and why send an inmate at minimum security institution to a bigger prison where the real criminals, hard core criminal and reside with them where he might not even to get his name at the top of the list, he will be released without the program or treatment, but they have to experience living with the real criminals? Yes, jail is a "wasted time", burden to the State's budget, offered Measure 57 to the voters it won, and for what? For nothing because now they want to delay it two years? Let the non violent inmates go home and start productive lives, even with a program, it's up to individual to amend his errors and mistakes, instead of having a cruel learning experience at a large prison with killers, child molesters, etc.
-
I am pleased to see that the Legislative Joint Ways and Means Committee has asked to look into ways that the State of Oregon can save money within the corrections system. I am in full agreement that OYA and State Troopers need to be protected, but equally as important, I believe that Oregon’s current sentencing structure is financially unsustainable. It’s not just the current impact of Measure 11 or the pending impact of Measure 57. Oregon also has the lowest earned “Good Time” opportunities for inmates in the entire country. The national average is 33% and Oregon sits at 20%. When you combine low good time with tough sentences, Measure 11 and Measure 57, the fixed costs will handcuff our state budget for eternity and continue to eat up the funding necessary to operate other vital state functions.
A solution is at hand that will cost us little and save the state significant money immediately. By increasing “Good Time” to 25%, 30%, 35% or even 40% for minimum security, low-risk inmates, we will immediately begin to move inmates (who have served appropriate time) through the system. In doing so, we will be opening up much needed beds for the state. There are those who would argue that is light on crime, I say they are simply wrong, “Good Time” is earned by those who are compliant and who are working to better themselves, it is not just handed out to everyone. “Good Time” serves as a motivator for inmates to cooperate with corrections officers and has the potential to make our system more efficient and safer for the inmates as well as for corrections officers by providing hope and a viable incentive to guide positive inmate behaviors.
Earned “Good Time” has the potential to save our state big money (100’s of millions of dollars over time) without costing current jobs in corrections. This will reduce the need to expand current facilities (Shutter Creek) and build new ones (Deer Ridge & Junction City) saving the state both construction costs and operation costs for years to come.
-
Comments are now closed.
I was very disappointed when voters were given this "false choice" of measures 57 and 61. I had planned to vote no on both, but was advised that one of them will pass, so I'd best choose the one I prefer (57).
Currently, nearly 1/3 of the state budget goes toward public safety. It just doesn't make sense that much of this money needs to be wasted keeping people incarcerated. It would be a better investment to devote more of the budget to education and social services. This is shown to reduce crime and also give a return on the investment in the form of increased citizen productivity and independence.