Maybe you could ask Kari for help making links. That's kind of the point, right?

The problem is that M57 offenders have already HAD a chance at probation at least once, and probably twice. I wouldn't object to a quick and certain sanction, if it were applied to ALL probationers, not just people who would otherwise be looking at a prison sentence. The problem with the current probation system is that the consequence for most violations is essentially no consequence - a written or verbal reprimand. "You bad boy! You used drugs again!" C'mon - these guys are not impressed by that kind of thing. The HOPE program is effective because it imposed a short, but stringent sanction - usually two days jail - for EVERY violation of the rules. Miss a rehab meeting? Two days jail. Fail to pay your fines? Two days jail.

Drug Courts get a lot of good press here, too, and some of it deservedly. However, the problem is that they are generally only used for serious drug offenders about to go for long jail stays otherwise. Good Drug Court programs get first time offenders as well.

The problem with the Governor's idea, as well as increasing Drug Court programs, is not that treatment is a bad idea. The problem is that we're focusing our efforts only on people who, frankly, don't deserve them. By the time you're on your third property crime, it's not time to be getting verbal reprimands! If we think these are good ideas, spend them on the first time offenders so that we can stop them from being second time offenders. These suggestions are not well-intentioned attempts to get people off drugs, or they would apply to all offenders. Instead, they're callous manipulations to reduce the cost of imprisoning repeat offenders. If we really want to decrease the prison population, we should be doing a better job with first time offenders, not giving three time losers an undeserved break.

"Repeatedly asked (by the Probation dept) to revoke offenders' probation for failing numerous drug tests, missing probation appointments, or refusing or failing to attend treatment. Typically, he said, a probation officer would recommend the offender be sentenced to several years in prison".

I doubt many offenders in this area are recommended for jail because of not checking in with the PO or for missing appointments as required. I am not a PO, but I would love for one them to weigh in and clarify.

I think a swift result could have a positive impact, but there is a problem that I can see occurring. Many jails are at full capacity. If there is a mandate to bring drug and property offenders into jail for a few days then someone (person crime offenders for instance) may have to walk out the back door. I hope the person coming in is more deserving of the stay than the person going out.

It's ego strokes for the Christian soldiers, marching on for temperance. Harm reduction and cost reduction strategies are all still too "progressive". We still practice deterrence. If you think that can be sane in today's world, look at the results with a LEGAL drug, like alcohol, in the form of the OLCC. Add that its illegal, and of course the policy doesn't work.

That's how left, right and center do it. "Our vision was flawed, we totally F'd up, now we've got a bigger problem...give us more money".

I wonder why they just can't learn.

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20090504/LEGISLATURE/905040331

is the URL for a story about the Oregon Business Association and Oregon Dist. Attorney's Assoc. talking about the possibility of saving the state money by postponing Measure 57.

[Sorry, too frustrating to try to do links--gave up after several tries long ago and just cut and paste URLs.]

Seems to me in such a tough budget climate this proposal deserves debate.

First, some version of better, reality based, intervention is needed. As a society we need to take a proactive approach to drug addiction and the warehousing mentality which does nothing to prevent recidivism. My question though is what happens to a potentially effective program once the stimulus money is gone?

Ahem, not to be a spoilsport, but we should remember the history here. Mannix sponsored M61, which would have imposed prison sentences for first time offenders in some circumstances. The Leg saw that it was polling well, saw the fiscal impact, and made a deal with the voters with M57 - no mandatory prison for first timers, they would fund rehab for first timers, and repeat offenders would get prison. A lot of folks like me voted for 57 and against 61 because of this.

Flash forward - now they don't want to fund rehab for first time offenders and want to use the prison money for rehab for repeaters. If the left supports this, there will be a price to pay for acting in bad faith with the voters. Not only will we lose some elections, but ODAA and Mannix will get on board for a more punitive measure that will revoke the watering down provisions and probably impose more prison sentences. We've been down this road before, and it doesn't end well for legislators who anger the voters.

This is almost exactly like the death penalty debate. We may not like what the public supports, but we have an obligation not to act in bad faith once we know their wishes.

Intensive probation for repeat offenders isn't a trick by some liberals to prevent bad guys from going to prison. Thats extremely insulting. Its a strategy to keep our community safe and reducing recidivism by trying to fix criminal behaviors using result based sentencing tools

Intensive probation of first time offenders may be OK. But frankly, many first time offenders never re-offend. So you'd be spending a lot of money and not getting much bang for your buck, if you covered all first time offenders.

We should be funding Intensive post prison supervision. And I'd like to see the ODDA support that. If intensive Post Prison supervision programs prove effective, both in cost savings and reduced recidivism, perhaps the public would be willing to modify the mandatory minimum sentencing laws and thenimpose the intensive supervision model as an alternative for people facing their first prison sentence in order to avoid the cost of the initial prison sentence.

I hope so, because I'd really like to get back to having judges sentence defendants, rather than having a 31 year old Dep DA deciding who goes to prison and who doesn't.

Mr. Harris - You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but that was not the deal the Legislature struck with the electorate. To renege now would be an act of bad faith, and would not serve the larger interests of progressives. Indeed, it would put us crosswise with the rather large segment of society that believes that repeat offenders should go to prison, regardless of whether or not it reforms them or simply punishes them.

On the larger issue of sentencing policy, I think broad segments of society and the interest groups agree on the need for a comprehensive reform. The best that we could hope for out of this legislature would be a study committee to examine an overhaul next session. That would give it the time it needs.

mlw. Actually, I was proposing that we DO send repeat property offenders to prison just like M57 provides. I was suggesting that we get more intensive supervision for offenders on their release from prison.

Thne,If, but only if, that is successful at reducing recidivism, there'd be a better argument to the public that intensive supervision of some repeat offenders BEFORE we sentence them to prison is cheaper and more effective at protecting our community. Then new legislation could be offered if the public supported it.

I'm not against more intensive supervision of first time offenders, I'm all for it. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I just don't think that its as cost effective in a world of limited budgets, and was pointing out that as the probable reason why the proposal outlined here was being touted.

Maybe you were put off by my last comment?

I have seen ISP programs work. You're right in that they should be used in appropriate cases. The problem is that probation offices are too cash strapped to provide an effective ISP program.

Here's a good public service idea. When you donate your vehicle to a charity, and DPS records show no others registered to you, and you sign an affidavit to that effect, you get free public transport vouchers when unemployed.

It is a minor sacrifice to live without a car...until you become unemployed. That is when it's time for the State to give back for your sacrifice.

M57?

M61?

The idea of electric cars is great. I am just curious when this project will become reality. I am sure that that moment will be the greatest one in the world's history.