2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I have a question/comment about an Oregon public school student who is 17 years old.  His 15 year old girlfriend text him a picture of her naked, which he forwarded to his friends at school so he could brag.  The boy was arrested for sharing child pornography.  Now in this case, if he had two pictures of her from different occasions, or had taken naked pictures on his own phone of two different girlfriends and sent them to his friends, is this boy going to serve a mandatory 25 year sentence?  I think as disgusting as child pornography is, in this case it's clearly age appropriate as far as the the kids concerned in participation in these events.  I would NOT qualify this boy as a sex offender by any stretch of the imagination.  I would not date him anymore if I were in high school, send him to some therapy to learn about respect and self-esteem if I were his mother, but in no way can I classify this normal 17 year old as a sex offender.  

In addition, on the addiction side of this argument, I think if Mr. Mannix actually wants to make a difference, he should look into making drug and alcohol treatment available for people BEFORE they commit crimes.  The poor are unable to access treatment, and eventually they commit crimes under the influence, or in order to maintain their addiction.  Over 80% of incarcerated Oregonians are in prison for either committing drug related crimes, like selling or using in public, or for committing other crimes while under the influence like violent crimes and robbery.  Instead of sending them to prison where they are violated and tormented and learn to be worse criminals, we need to treat them!  

I value safety in my community so much that I am extremely opposed to this measure.  Incarceration, especially longer incarceration, does not "teach the lesson" you want anyone to be learning... especially people who are already not doing so well in life.  

Mannix tied these two together to try and pass longer incarceration and felony status to drunk drivers, thinking Oregon voters would have to pass it if sex-offenders were attached.  He is wrong.  Oregonians are too smart for this nonesense.  

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context