And under that form of math, 3.6 million (96% of the state's entire population) voted for Sizemore's initiatives.

It also needs to be noted that many people who voted for Measure 57, did so ONLY to ensure that it would get more votes than Measure 61. I would not count these as votes in favor of tougher sentencing, but instead as votes against obnoxiously tough sentencing. The math is stupid, but the analysis of the vote is worse.

Why stop there? If the votes for Measure 61 and the number of snowflakes that fell on Portland this morning are counted together, BILLIONS of people and snowflakes voted for tougher sentencing.

To: Glen HD28

I too lazy to do the calcs, but I'm pretty sure that, under the DA's math, the number of "no" votes on all of Sizemore's measures exceed the population of the State.

My original post was meant to illustrate the ludicrousity of the DA's math.

Jim Robison: Regardless of their intent, everyone who voted Yes on 57 actually was voting in favor of tougher sentencing. Hopefully the outcome will make us more reluctant, the next time, to vote for a "lesser evil" in the hope of preventing a greater evil.

Yes that could have been worded better. So what? Kari didn't you endorse M57?

M57 will cost a ton, and is yet another unfunded mandate that will cause havoc for our police, jails, and courts. Unfortunately, the conventional wisdom is that M61 was worse, and would have passed easily if not for M57.

This is yet another example of what is brought forward by the people when our lawmakers sit on their hands and fail to address problems such as identity theft and petty crime. This happened year after year. They should all be ashamed of themselves.

I for one only voted for 57 so as to defeat 61. I and so many other Oregonians did exactly that because our "wonderful" politicians left us not real choice. If I had the vote of my choice, it would have been how long to jail Sizemore for wasting everyones money on an annual basis.

I would just like to point out that, using the DA's math, well over 6 million Oregonians voted Democratic in November.

Not bad for a state of around 3 million people.

Steve, I am happy too about the fact that finally there will be some form of treatment, rather than having incarceration as the only alternative. I just get angry when issues need so desperately to be addressed and our legislators leave Salem time after time with no solutions.

Next thing you know we find extreme initiatives brought forward by the likes of Sizemore or Mannix. There is no alternative then, other than to offer another choice that may get thrown together overnight. The folks in Salem need to be more forward thinking. One did not need binoculars to see how the meth and petty crime problem was disturbing Sue the plumber, or George the roofer, or whatever you call em.

Notice how there are always local and state measures for schools and law enforcement but rarely for social welfare benefits? Law enforcement and schools bear the brunt of the lack of political courage where officials gamble that voters won't cut core services. The legistalture could have done something about the 5 strikes 13 months rule for Identity Theft and Burglaries of businesses, but those evil DAs who wanted to do something about the problem are made the bad guys for supporting a so-called unfunded mandate. Let's have a vote for the Oregon Health Plan and other well intended social welfare benefits that we can't afford right now since the legistalture won't cut them. Why not schools and public safety first and everything else later?

What the hell is it with Blue Oregon and their aversion to law enforcement? M-61 and M-57 were a "Matched Pair"? The Pro-61 people HATED M-57. Just read the Voters Pamphlet. More than 60% of people voted for 57. 49% voted for 61, and some of those were probably the same. But to try to claim that Oregonians didn't really know what they were voting for sounds like those who say that we can't trust the voters. Because only REALLY smart people like Chip Shields understand what they really want. Whether it is assisted suicide, decriminalizing marijuana, or putting repeat criminals in prison, respect that Oregonians use the initiative system to get what they want. Usually it's what legislators fail to deliver. What is "Stupid" is trying to deny that an overwhelming majority of Oregonians want change in the justice system. Get over it or get out of the way.

And don't underestimate laziness as a motivation. Statutory crimes and property crimes are much easier to solve and investigate (and profitable in fines) than are crimes against persons.

I don't see how the system could ever be responsive to the citizenry. The Normans saddled us with this notion that the offense is against the State, so they have to bring the case. The original shire reeves (sheriffs) were to see that State will was followed in the shires. The first major statute was murder, defined as killing someone that could not be proven to be non-Norman. If they were English, it was OK. The offense was against the State, not the person. As such, inanimate object can be guilty or adjudicated responsible, called the Law of Deodand. This is still our system. If you don't believe that things like deodand are still used, check out how many cases have titles like, "State of Oregon v 15 Antique Firearms".

A thousand years later, with the exception of some boating violations and the like, you can not bring a criminal complaint before an Oregon court. If someone breaks into your house and tries to murder you, you have no complaint. You have to report it to a peace officer, who writes a complaint, forwards it to the DA's office, who decides that it is in the State's interest to prosecute and brings prosecution. We may lambast Muslim societies where honor killings go unpunished because the woman's family doesn't prosecute the murderer, but we miss the fact that they have the option, unlike us, to bring a complaint or not.

But, a millenium on, that's just the way America is, and, if one is not comfortable with it, it is perhaps the best argument for emigration.

There are a lot of folks posting here that are exceptionally bright. Most would only vote yes for a particular measure if they really understood the impact. Kari began this thread to challenge us with a math problem of sorts. I would challenge anyone here to tell me what they think M57 will cost the State over the next 5 years (if carried out as intended). You might want to follow up your answer with a stiff eggnog.

I'm a trial court Deputy DA. Setting aside the rather obvious number issue in the op ed, we should be honest that that overwhelming majority of Oregonians want there to be more serious consequences for felony crimes. That being said, and to paraphrase Michael Clayton, I admit that I am the garbageman. By the time I get someone, sending them to prison is often the least worst way of dealing with the situation. Dollars for prison are far less effective in preventing crime than dollars for education and other social services.

However, funding for increased imprisonment remains popular. (And, I should note, M57 is a balanced prison/prevention package, unlike M61.) So, as progressives, perhaps we should light a lamp and advocate for increased stable funding for education and social services, rather than curse the dark by bemoaning the costs of imprisonment.

Keep in mind that the Criminal Justice Commission just release data showing that overall imprisonment rates are DOWN 3% from 1990 to 2007 and that 50% of Measure 11 cases are handled outside of Measure 11. In other words, Oregon DAs are using prison and M11 selectively, as they were elected to do.

Kari- I am not one of the authors nor a District Attorney. I do work in law enforcement, but as a worker bee so I need to keep my name out of controversial issues to avoid backlash from a largely Republican law enforcement structure which I believe we can change since many of the folks are socially liberal and union members- they just hate criminals who prey largely on the poor and dependant- you know, the people Democrate say they are there to help.

The problem goes deeper than funding, and becomes a public safety issue when we are mandated to lock up certain property offenders. Judges are prone to lock crooks up for a year or less for just about everything that does meet the M11 test, apparently to keep "local control" of the offender. Property offenders are now "mandated" to be kept in jail. Great, does this mean DUII drivers, spousal abusers, and other person crime offenders (who do not fit the criteria for M11) will be let out early to make room for car prowlers? Last I checked the local jails were still being forced to release offenders early, do to overcrowding. Maybe the DA or LE person can explain.

Roy M: good question.

The vast majority of felony sentences in Oregon are (even with M57 passing) going to result in a probationary sentence.

For prison sentences M11 offenders are not subject to good time or early releases so they are not going anywhere. DUII drivers don't go to prison until their 4th within 10 years and even then rather minimally, spousal abusers are generally handled at the misdemeanor level and if prison generally for not very long. The M57 people are more likely to go to prison on repeat crimes now and less to the county jails, so if anybody gets let out early in prison it is still likely to be the property offenders since M57 did not have requirements for a truth in sentencing (no good time) sentence like M11. Oregon's sentencing will still remain weak for everything but major M11 person crimes.

I am not the author but one of the signatories (along with every single other DA in the state) of the Op-Ed in question. The Op-Ed was in response to a front page article in the OREGONIAN and a series of editorials by the OREGONIAN's editorial that stated that M-57 was terrible social policy and would bankrupt the state. M-57 was a compromise crafted by many Democratic legislators, led by Floyd Prozanski and representatives of Oregon's elected DAs. Original polling showed 61 winning by as much as 65 or 70 percent. Measure 57 was a response that involves virtually no mandatory sentences (only for possession of huge amounts of cocaine and heroin - like a pound or more). It gives Oregon's judges the CHOICE to send a repeat property offender to prison - presumptive vs. mandatory sntences. It is very likely that as a result property crime will go down, further reducing the need for prison beds. In 1994 the prediction was that Measure 11 would require 6000 additional beds by 2000 (its in the 1994 voters pamphlet). Because of the judicious charging decisions of DAs the real number of beds turned out to be 3000 - 50% less than predicted. Rcent statistics compiled by the Criminal Justice Commission shows that of those charged with Measure 11 indictments, less than half end up being sentenced under Measure 11. Oh, and violent crime dropped dramatically, in Oregon even more than other states. The point of the Op-Ed is rather than ranting against how stupid voters were to pass 57 that it would be better to take advantage of the mandate to provide treatment to those who might benefit. DAs are elected. We don't get frequent flyer miles for the people we send to prison. We're not worried about going out of business and therefore the idea that this is some sort part of a "prison-industrial complex" is ridiculous paranoia. What we want is fewer victims, who tend to be poor people, women, children, and people of color out of proportion to the general population. The "math" of which Kari is so critical was simply used to make the point that despite calls by the OREGONIAN and others to vote "No" on both measures, a very large majority of voters chose to support one or both of the two measures. Like most DAs I felt the mandatory provisions of 61 for many first-time property offender was unfair and too harsh, even if it would have given my office considerable leverage in resolving cases. But we supported 57 because we thought it was balanced and fair. Now some of those of supported it are claiming voters actually voted AGAINST stronger sentences for repeat burglars and ID thieves. And Bill Sizemore had nothing to do with either 57 or 61, BTW.

This thread is reinvigorating my congenital disgust of nouns. How many nouns ending in "er" are in this thread that all function as simplifying placeholders and behavioral litmus tests? What a coincidence that the systemic probs I mentioned and that particular linguistic habit originated with the same people.

"M-57 was a compromise crafted by many Democratic legislators, led by Floyd Prozanski and representatives of Oregon's elected DAs."

That is why people like me voted for it. I have great respect for Floyd.

However, M. 57 advocates need to watch their rhetoric lest they sound like "First, we fully fund 57, and then with whatever money is left over and no change in revenue (isn't there a presession filed bill to provide some sort of mechanism to evaluate whether each tax break is providing expected benefit, and if not should be considered for termination?), we will fund everything else in the state".

I'm a believer in the old fashioned idea that budgets are not set in concrete before the session starts, they are to be openly debated in Ways and Means. And, as I recall, at least one member of legislative leadership has said "we can't solve Oregon's budget problem with taxes alone or cuts alone". 57 supporters would be wise to speak to W & M members and other legislators and say "this is one way to fund 57" or other helpful ideas. Perhaps there is a program which can be more effeciently run and that savings could provide some of the 57 funding.

It wasn't that long ago that "tough on crime no new taxes" was the mantra, and anyone who disagreed with the mantra was "soft on crime". Talking about the Oregonian endorsement doesn't impress those who ignored Oregonian ballot measure endorsements.

57 may well be an excellent idea, but people alienated by all the years of "agree without question or we will call you soft on crime" are not required to accept with blind faith that 57 should get funded first, and then everything else can take the leftovers.

And as I read this topic, it is about a claim regarding accurate reporting of the election result on 57, and the motives behind the vote.

Don't make the mistake Knopp made assuming (without asking people) that those who voted on his side of M. 28 voted that way for the same reason he did. People thinking that 57 made more sense but also that it was a way to protest 61 might have been voting for drug treatment or against Mannix, not for "tougher sentences" as a slogan regardless of cost.

I haven't read the entire thread, and I regret that I didn't see it on day one, as the initial article by Kari completely missed the facts and improperly accused the District Attorneys of distorting the vote count.

The Op-Ed that was submitted to the Oregonian with an accurate statement. The original editorial we provided stated that between the two measures there were 1.9 million VOTES cast in favor of tougher sentences. It was a carefully crafted and ACCURATE statement. We did the math. Several times.

Unfortunately, the editorial staff at the Oregonian changed the Op-Ed (it happens all the time), and the result was the inaccurate statement upon which Kari based his post.

John Foote, the Clackamas County DA, immediately contacted Bob Caldwell and was assured there would be a retraction in the Oregonian the next day. I am not sure if it was printed, but you can bet I'm going to check.

I am always up for a good discussion about sentencing laws in Oregon, but in the many years I have worked with or represented the District Attorneys, I have only known them to honest, hard working and committed to the safety of all Oregonians. The fact that the Oregonian so horribly edited this Op-Ed is inexcusable. The fact that it appeared here without a quick call to me (Kari, you know I represent the DAs) is regrettable.

I haven't read the entire thread, and I regret that I didn't see it on day one,

<h2>That'll teach you to not read BO!</h2>