I once visited a non-profit organization in Bend called "Bridge to Hope" ministries. The group works with women who are meth addicts, providing support and help to overcome their addiction, and assistance with normalizing themselves back into society. They got help with finishing high school, filling out a job application - even going back to college. The results from this organization are astounding.

It became apparent to me that long jail sentences do nothing to help 98% of these folks. Jail time, without the appropriate programs, does nothing to cure these women (or men) of their addictions. And without that help, they'll be right back in jail, costing society and taxpayers even more.

I wholeheartedly disagree with Mannix's position on this issue. I'm not suggesting we minimize a crime or reduce the punishment, but judges need to have more discretion based upon the circumstances. And Steve is right, unless we as a state are willing to pay for mental health programs for inmates, longer jail/prison sentences will do more harm than good.

Let me get this straight...

she is mad at Kevin because her son comitted a crime and a majority of those that voted on the measure agreed with him.

I'd like to her from the mother of the person her son vicimized.

I'm in complete agreement with the comments that treatment programs deserve greater funding and that a trade-off between treatment and prison dollars might be a preferred outcome sometimes, but let's not turn criminals into victims.

Jason, Jason, Jason.

These blue folks don't want any part of the religious organization you talked about.

They are only into government solutions.

Faith based solutions were Bush's idea, don't you remember?

The blue team is going to rehab criminals using education. --- 'If you stop selling drugs and making $500 a day, we'll show you how to get a job making $10 an hour minus taxes, after you're educated and trained.'

Criminals are reasonable people. They'll just talk them into it. You'll see.

According to Kevin Mannix, "each of us is challenged to use our gifts to work for the greater good. Oregon needs to take a comprehensive approach to public-safety. This includes good parenting, strong families, a good education system and job opportunities. It also includes good prevention and early prevention when children engage in risky behaviors."

Yeah Kevin, time for you to put your money where your mouth is and start pushing for ballot initiatives that enable sensible educational reforms, provide for cost friendly child care and after school programs, and provide job opportunities for those 18 to 24. It is time you start writing ballot initiatives that are not unfunded mandates (Measure 11) contributing to the $3.8 billion dollar deficit.

Not to go binary here, but to over-simplify there seem to be two major mindsets about crime: Punish versus rehabilitate.

Given that for more than a generation investment into confinement and punishment has outpaced rehabilitation perhaps at 100 to 1 in terms of public money, we face an entrenched industry as well as prevailing mindset to overcome. This presents us (us being progressives) two hills to climb.

First, we need to ensure we reach those who think punishment is the only solution to crime, but know that prison usually turns out career criminals, even from minor first offenders (statistics can be quoted, if required). We know why this is, as it's difficult for a prisoner returned to the community to fit in by getting a decent job, overcoming stigmas, etc. So, our PR and lobbying about rehabilitation -- before prison is an option --is as important as anything else we do. The prison industry is a major player in Oregon because of the "jobs" it creates.

Second, we have to be more proactive for rehabilitation in the legal realm as those who push for punishment. We have to prove there's as much opportunity for employment and industry in rehabilitation as there is in the prison industry.

Having been a crime victim myself, as well as knowing people who have been sent to prison who didn't deserve it (and some who did), I still favor preventative measures for victimless crimes. And even some crimes where there are victims because of the root cause of the crime.

Thank you so much for calling attention to the continuing crap that we endure from the misapplied pseudo-principles of the War on Drugs.

There's a story, that my boyfriend was following, for purely the sports angle, but it recently took a turn for the weird in a way that may be a foreshadowing of revelations to come. There's a possibility that some of the financial highjinks that have rocked Wall Street were perpetrated by people with government connections and inside information, which they were given in the name of the War on Drugs.

The particular scandal I was looking at involves Sir Allen Stanford , a Texas billionaire, that has sunk millions into West Indies cricket. He announced last year that it was his intention to grow the game to the point that it replaced football in world popularity, and followed-up with huge donations for touranments in England and the Carribean. Earlier this year, he was found to be operating a Ponzi scheme, and is under indictment as a mini-Madoff.

This involves the British authorities heavily, and they care more about saving face, still, unlike Gonzalez and co. that were content to look dumb. The big fart in the room, is that he was investigated many times by the SEC and there were warning signs all around. For months the question has been about why they were never pursued.

Now there is information coming out , that he was working as an agent of the ATF, courting drug money launderers, in the Carribean, and passing the info to ATF. Besides the huge financial losses, this guy has seriously f*d up a sport on the side!

Point being, we just don't know the cost of this constant War on Drugs rhetoric and its guiding every policy move, acting as a constant filter by which political behavior is viewed. Enough is enough. No drug is a bad as the abuses we have suffered to rid society of them.

I guess this eats the hyperlinks if you put html in. So, I have to put them in text. What's the point?

en . wikipedia . org / wiki / Allen_Stanford

www . businessinsider . com / sec-was-told-to-back-off-stanford-in-2006-2009-2 news . bbc . co . uk / 1 / hi / uk / 8029494.stm

OK. If you do that you get "Your comment could not be posted. Error type: undefined No entry_xid in request ".

So I mangled the URL.

Mr. Novick you need to finish reading Freakanomics because the book is clear that long prison sentences reduce crime.

Martin, I think you are right that our efforts to punish are clearly outpacing efforts to rehabilitate. Sadly, rehabilitation success relies too often on the desire of the offending individual to be rehabilitated, not always in the amount of money or resources thrown in his/her direction. Careful management of the resources available for adult offenders and directed to those most likely to benefit would be a start. I have also known a few folks who went "down south" for a while. Not every one of them wanted or could be "rehabilitated".

Every study I have ever read shows that early intervention is the key to success. Not that I would advocate giving up on adult offenders, but if additional resources are to made available we might consider sending much of it to treat youngsters starting down the wrong path.

Sending folks to prison or jail for victimless crimes makes little sense in any economy. Mandatory jail or prison time without funding for the sentence or any rehabilitation efforts is just another mistake we will spend years recovering from.

Except that Mannix's measures are generally focused at repeat or violent offenders and are, more importantly, popular with the electorate. Yes, he goes too far, but we should be careful about being apologists for repeat or violent offenders. Yes, education and human services do more to prevent crime, but that doesn't give us a good answer as to what to do with the guy who has had his shots at rehab and continues to steal cars or burglarize people's houses. A good budget has balance. You can't take away all consequences from criminal conduct simply because you want to add 10% to the schools budget. You end up with what's happening in Lane County - no jail beds, violent offenders on the street, increased crime rates, and decreased public safety.

Carla's a good columnist, but she's no expert in criminal law. After 11 years of criminal practice in 5 jurisdictions, I think it's safe for me to say that Oregon's system currently strikes a good balance. First time offenders get treatment recommendations. If they don't do the treatment, they generally re-offend and eventually get sent to prison. That's the way it should be. If there's a problem, it is that they have underfunded treatment for FIRST time offenders. Measure 57 and the other property crime statutes target repeat offenders. How many burglaries should a guy have to do before we send him to prison, drug problem or not? As for drug crimes, I'll repeat what I've said many times here before - the maximum possible sentence on a simple possession charge is 6 months in jail. The presumed sentence is probation, no matter how many times the person has done it in the past.

As for the Measure 11 opponents, I would encourage you to go down to your local DA's office and get the police reports for the last 10 Measure 11 sentences imposed. If you don't throw up halfway through, you're not human. Most prisoners sent up on (non-departure) Measure 11 sentences are people who have sexually assaulted or abused children, committed horrible assaults that have left the victims with lifelong injuries, committed armed robberies, or even killed people through their drunk driving. These are people who absolutely need to be in prison. If they don't, DAs routinely use the opt out, as evidenced by the fact that 50% of Measure 11 offenses resolve with sentences outside of Measure 11.

As for the parents of the offenders, I do often feel sorry for them. However, I feel more sorry for the victims of crime. I get a lot of parents of offenders begging for mercy for their sons. I don't get a heck of a lot of them offering to pay restitution for them, or telling their sons to apologize for their criminal actions. There are some innocent parents who really have done their best, but, frankly, there are also a ton of them who haven't been accountable for their own crimes throughout their lives and don't see any reason why their children should be.

I fear that we are becoming the party that promotes the abdication of responsibility. Commit a crime? Oh, you must have a drug problem, have rehab. Do it again? Same answer. Do it again? Same answer. We need to be responsible and advocate for sensible personal responsibility. That means funding treatment for first time (non-violent) offenders, and holding them accountable if they continue to re-offend. Filling a short-term budget hole by removing the consequences for criminal behavior will not make us a safer or happier society.

Roy, got any ideas about how we change minds?

I think that's the key to countering the arguments of people such as Mr. Mannix and convincing the legislature that lobbying for rehabilitation is more vital than the lobbying for more prison and prisoners.

How we quantify the monies spent for incarceration and construction is easy enough. The trick I reckon is how to quantify the costs of the results of incarceration.

Quantifying the expense of the rehabilitation and education services needed to prevent crime and recidivism seems daunting.

You'll notice this is a theme with me, but we progressives have no trouble presenting the emotional and logical side of our stands on issues, because we're generally intelligent and articulate people. But coming up with real numbers, dollars as it were, to back up our arguments and give weight to our proposals always stumps me, at least. But I know the dollars and cents have to be there in order to talk sense into non-progressives on a whole host of topics, such as crime and punishment.

Until we escape our "feel good, hug and coddle criminals" public image -- underserved and inappropriate I adamantly say -- and instead present a new way of thinking people can embrace we've got an uphill battle.

How much money does Mannix recieve in kick backs from the prison industry?

No, Chung-Su, "long prison sentences" do not "reduce crime"... anthills and ropes hung from a lampost prevent crime. People are far less likely to murder or rape if the expectation of immediate rape or murder were present. You got your info from the right place though, freakazoid.

Steve Novick wrote:

" So if crack dealing is the most dangerous job in America, and if the salary is only $3.30 an hour, why on earth would anyone take such a job?"

Why indeed?

Obviously your premise is false because they DO take the job.

If you think that drug dealers only make $3.30 an hour, then maybe you've been hitting the bong too often yourself.

Joe White,

The notion that all liberals hate God or are secular humanists is a tired argument. I have many liberal friends who are Christians, attend church regularly or serve God in other forms besides attending a building.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Carla and others, but I don't see you guys decrying a ministry who's intent is to help inmates break the cycle of addiction and become active, healthy citizens.

And the program I was referring to isn't focused on evangelizing people. It's about loving and serving them and doing something proactive rather than just making them serve time in a jail cell that won't change a thing.

And to say that a program has to be faith-based in order to be successful is also a farce.

Lane County's violent crime rate has declined steadily for over a decade.

Meanwhile, taking money away from schools and human services to pay for prisons is just great if you're interested in maintaining the need for more prisons as our children grow up ignorant and desperately poor.

Remember, it costs less to keep someone on welfare for a year than to keep that person in prison for a year. and it costs even less to give that person a year's decent education in the first place.

If I had my way, at least half of the "mandatory" prisons budget would be diverted to schools as THE BEST CRIME FIGHTING MEASURE. If it would make conservative Republicans feel better, we could call the benefited schools "preventative correctional halls".

Jason,

Nowhere did I say that:

"all liberals hate God or are secular humanists"

or

"a program has to be faith-based in order to be successful"

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

I simply made the observation that it is liberals who typically lead the opposition to faith based programs like the one you mentioned.

"Lane County's violent crime rate has declined steadily for over a decade"

Yes, that would be the decade (+) that Measure 11 has been in effect. The property crime rate is going to skyrocket because they basically street all property offenders in Lane County, rather than hold them, even if they're facing a lengthy prison sentence.

I reject the premise that schools are a panacea for crime. Yes, increasing funding to them will lower the crime rate, but not if we eliminate the consequences of criminal conduct. You can reduce crime rates to a degree with educational funding, but we have to have a credible prison system to punish those people who persist in committing crime. We lose points with the voters when we insist that the problem is the educational system only, and that personal accountability has no place in the system.

Steve,

Your knowledge of things you know nothing about is astounding!

By the way, did you see the vote in California yesterday? It wasn't right wingers (your statement above) complaining about government spending and borrowing, it was a Democrat leaning/voting state that rejected plans for the Gov't to tax them into oblivion.

Thanks.

mlw gives the essential fact that shows why measure 11 is flawed. In 50% of the cases where M11 applies, even the DA thinks the mandatory sentence is too long.

How can any law that even the DA disagrees is too harsh in half of the cases be good law?

The defense that most true non-departure M11 sentences are appropriate based on the facts of the case is a red herring. In those cases, child rapes, murders, attempted muder serious assaults, even prior to M11 Courts had plenty of sentencing authority. And they exercised it. Do you think child rapists didn't go to prison before M11?

The real problem with most mandatory sentencing laws is that it shifts the power to sentence from the Neutral courts, to one litigant. It seriously chills some (not all but some) defendants from exercising their day in court.

Like I've said before, the solution is to increase the presumptive sentences for all M11 crimes to 120% of the current M11 time and put them back on the sentencing grid, allowing the Judges to decide on downward (or upward) departure sentences. This would give just as much time as M11, but would let the courts, not the DDA's decide when a departure is appropriate.

And, the real reason most DDA's favor mandatory sentencing laws isn't because they provide for long sentences, increasing presumptive sentences does that. Its because it gives them, rather than the courts, the power to determine the sentence of an offendor.

Would you let Kobe call the fouls. Or the referees?

a href=http://5bc04e79.ubucks.netIMGhttp://img135.hotlinkimage.com/thumb/128542374.jpeg/IMG/a a href=http://02ed1a09.ubucks.netIMGhttp://img132.hotlinkimage.com/thumb/1849043987.jpeg/IMG/a a href=http://d05724db.ubucks.netIMGhttp://img127.hotlinkimage.com/thumb/396018214.jpeg/IMG/a a href=http://fdfebf07.ubucks.netIMGhttp://img131.hotlinkimage.co

Mr. Harris a criminal defense attorney ignores the fact that Oregon Sentencing guidelines are very soft. Under the guidelines (assuming there was no M11 or Jesicca's Law)a person who rapes an 11 year old with no history would receive a sentence of 34-36 months with good time (20%) and an opportunity for further programming (ie: boot camp). A jury would have to find any aggravating factors (why this rape of an 11 year old is worse than a "normal" one) and even then a judge may decide not to depart up, however a judge can always depart to probation. The reason for M11 was that judges were doing too many downward departures for dangerous people.

Criminal defense attorneys have a vested economic interest in seeing M11 repealed since most criminals are recidivists and will need the defense attorney services.

Prosecutors are more accountable to the electorate than are judges. If M11 is used unfairly than the electorate can vote them out. What confounds the defense bar is that the people want harsh sentences for violent criminals. As Democrats we should probably be siding with the people and not people who make their living as retainers for criminals.

Chung-Su

I was going to ignore your post because you're so obviously ignorant of the criminal justice system. But I find your comments extremely personally offensive. To say that I want child rapists to get little jail time because it financially profits me is not only incorrect but....well, extremely personally offensive.

Just a couple of gross errors you made.

You're incorrect about your example. That would be at least a level 10 crime.

You place all sorts of caveats onto your example because it is so far from reality, its the only way you can try to make your point. You make the similar arguments to anti-abortion people who say that Roe v Wade allows abortions up to a minute before delivery. I guess if you tilt your head, stand on one foot, squint your left eye and hum while you read the guidelines, you may be able to make that straight face argument about the child rapist. But I doubt you'd find a case like that in the real world.

You didn't read my comment very carefully either, Or you ignore its main point, because I suggest that we change the grid to make the presumptive sentence 120% of the M-11 sentence. Which would, after the 20% off for good behavior, make the presumptive sentence the same as the defendant would receive under current M-11 sentencing. But, it leaves departures in the hands of judges where it belongs, not prosecutors.

Mandatory sentencing laws really are a big shift in the allocation of power. And I believe that 800 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence serves as a better guide than the wisdom of Kevin Mannix, Steve Doell, and any particular crop of DA's. Not that we should ignore these opinions, They've made some important changes that protect us all, but just because they cloak themselves as the champion of the victims doesn't mean every idea they have is gold. We should take in historical context before we shifted the power of sentencing from the court to a party litigant. Give me Brandeis, Holmes, Brennan, Burke, Lock, Marshall (x2), over the previously mentioned group any day.

Criminal defense is maybe 30% of my practice. I do it because I believe in the constitution. I believe that the system must follow the rules. I believe that if there is a highly trained lawyer and police force attempting to put a citizen in jail, that the citizen is entitled to a person with equal training and resources (Which we don't have now, but we do the best we can). I don't believe criminal justice is a game to be played, its a process to be followed so that the correct results is reached.

You should read some of the debate mlw and I've engaged in. S/he appears to be a prosecutor, and obviously a smart and passionate one. And we agree on some things and disagree on others. But we've avoided being unduly disagreeable and personally insulting.

"Have any facts to back that up? Any cogent reasoning? Of course not."

Well Steven,

my cogent reasoning is a read of your simplistic post. You just regurgitate the writings and blog posts of others.

The comments by mlw look appear to be far more enlightening than your recycled comments. You're trying, desperately, to agree with and support the official party line like usual, whether it is out of touch or not. Yawn.

And yes, it is amazing I can type, considering that I'm a rock dwelling moderate that appears to be a conservative to a leftist such as yourself.

Departures (up and down) are always in the hands of the judges, except in specific circumstances, like Measure 11 where the voters have eliminated the opportunity for a downward departure because the conduct involved is so heinous. Are we really going to have another one of those discussions where we discuss why the voters are too dumb to know what they voted for? Aren't we supposed to be democrats as well as Democrats?

Mr. Harris's post ignores the fact that judicial races are a joke. The rules of judicial conduct basically prohibit commenting on a specific case in a judicial election. So you could say, "Judge X almost always gives the M11 opt out, so vote for me b/c I'm tough on crime." But, when someone reasonably asks you to give an example, you're not allowed to.

Look, if you really want discretion in sentencing, have jury sentencing. Make the guidelines as advisory and let the jury decide on a reasonable sentence. I've practiced in two jury sentencing jurisdictions and have no complaints. It's more democratic and allows the jury to appropriately express societies' condemnation or tolerance of particular conduct. Why do we pretend lawyers know anything about what works in sentencing anyway? There's not even a law school class focusing on scientific criminology. We'd be much better off leaving it to jurors.

Mr. Harris,it was not meant to be a personal attack, just a recognition that there is a financial motive with defense lawyers in general. Just as there have been past comments that cops and DAs that only do their cases for political reasons as motivation. Sorry, if your feelings were hurt.

My lawyer friends tell me that 11 year olds get (statutory) raped all the time and that the only error with my example was that (as you said) it was a 10 and not a 9 on some grid.

Amen, Joe White, amen!!! You know he has to be correct with a great name like "Joe White". Too bad the trolls didn't have the guts to sign their name, Roosevelt Jefferson!

You might be wrong about liberals and religion, though. They are the exception that proves the rule, though. The rule is that liberals are hypocrites. Christianity is hostile to the environment, individual rights, women, and is anti-Israel. Good Christians are too! God wrote it, I believe it, if that doesn't settle it, we'll get 'ya! Oh, we have. Look at the economy. Did your savior appear first with McCain at a wilderness area, or at a tele-evangelist's parish. THAT'S WHAT COUNTS!

As to deterring crime, it is a fact that 1) Ten Beers is right, and 2) liberals are trying to destroy that. Look! Crime in Ireland has been non-existent while Holy Mother Church and the Pontiff have implemented TRUE Christian values. Not the crap lip service that Obama likes! Now, liberals are thanking them by trying to apply the letter of the law, without looking at the results.

God bless Bernie Ahern for putting a tiny cap on what the Catholic Church will pay in Ireland! Those goddamned (literally) liberals, for their troubles, will end up paying for all the restitution and treatment. Serves 'em right!

Personally, I'm pleasantly surprised at Obama. I didn't vote for him, but he's gone 100% down the line so far, what I would do. Conservatives that whine about the bail-out forget that it was our guy that started it. If those two agree on something it has to be right. Like Gates and carte blanche to the CIA. Oh, you didn't know? Never mind...

Hi, just join hereyesterday. I am great that i joincome here because i just find my online sex partner at http://findyouradultfriend.info. Take a look there and maybe you also can looking what you want.

Steve Novick wrote:

"For the record - I did not write that crack dealers make $3.30 an hour; that was part of an excerpt from "Freakonomics." "

Yes, an excerpt that you quoted as authoritative.

So are you gonna stick with it, or admit that it's hogwash?

crickets

And you ran for the Senate, eh?

<hr/>