ALL OR NOTHING

Don't Go Halfway With Measure 57

Oregon voters are playing a gambling game with Measures 57 and 61. How
are we gambling? There are three scenarios: 1. Neither 57 or 61 pass,
and neither take effect, 2. Only one passes and takes effect, and 3.
Both pass--but the one with more votes takes effect. If you want
neither 57 nor 61, but happen to prefer one to the other, then there
is a chance at getting the one you don't want.

My aim here is to clarify the choices and convince those of you who
like 57 to support 61, or vote no on both.

In regards to drugs, opponents of 61 are right to point out that it
does not require nor provide drug treatment for first-time drug
offenders, while 57 does. Certainly treatment has to be a part of an
overall plan, and not simply mandatory minimum sentences.

I say this not out of sympathy for dealers who are addicts (I don't
generally have much), but I view it from the perspective that
rehabilitation is lest costly than recurrent incarceration.

On the other hand, 57 is a mandatory minimum measure--it is mandatory
that when police don't find the minimum amount of illegal drugs, the
sentence may not exceed 45 months and might receive probation. So, if
you're caught making or dealing 100 grams of methamphetamine, you will
get at least 34 months.

But if you were a clever criminal who happened to read measure 57, how
much would you deal or manufacture at once--assuming you feared nearly
three years in prison? Probably no more than 99.9 grams.

And you'd never deal near that much at once. A 2007 Oregon State
Police news release said that meth (one of the cheapest drugs) has
about $80-100 in street value. At only $80 a gram, carrying 100 grams
on you is like carrying $8000--not a safe move! You would be an idiot
to get caught with the amount under 57's requirements!

Proponents of 57 have raised the issue that measure 61 takes
particularly hard measures against identity thieves, many of whom are
women with children. Current law only has a "presumptive" sentence of
13 months for a first time identity theft, which can be reduced, while
Measure 57 claims to act tougher by providing that repeat offenders
with prior convictions get a mandatory minimum of 24 months--if it is
the second serious property crime.

But first-timers can still get probation-which proponents of 57 claim
is better for women and children than 61. After all, they would lose
their children to the state if they were jailed under 61.

It's true. As The Oregonian reported, Kevin Mannix, the principal
supporter of 61, admits such. Either he's a cold and hardhearted man,
or he believes that serious sentences are serious deterrents, which is
what he said ["Two measures would increase Oregon prison population,
but at a price" The Oregonian, Sept. 17].

I should also ask, is it more equitable to continue a probation policy
on a lot of identity thieves because they are women, or to hold them
to the higher standards of Measure 61?

An identity thief, Vanessa Clausen (the subject of The Oregonian
article), claims that there is no value in locking people like her up,
those who are not "dangerous criminals." Apparently she doesn't think
substance abuse and identity theft pose a threat to her children.

Apparently she also thinks that there shouldn't be much of a penalty
for first-time identity theft, as she got off with probation. But she
had no access to drug treatment at state cost, so she continued her
habit.

Thank goodness! Not, of course, that she continued using, instead that
if the state had given her only probation and treatment the message
would be clear: Commit identity theft until you get caught, and get
one "get out of jail free" card plus kick your habit! While the state
doesn't go that far yet, it does say that there is little consequence
if you steal identity.

Again, while 61 does not require treatment (I wish we could pay for
it), you have to choose whether you fundamentally think deterrents or
treatment are more important, when it comes to drugs.

Measure 57 only provides deterrent and treatment for repeat
offenders--not an initial harsh incentive to avoid these crimes. So if
you must choose between the two, 61 is the better choice. Even though
it costs significantly more, it at least carries a deterrent.

And as long as there is a war on drugs and illegal drugs remain
illegal, the law ought to be enforced harshly and directly. Whether or
not you think certain illegal drugs ought to be legalized instead, as
this will reduce the associated financial and social impacts of
illegal drugs (robbery, assault, death from impure substances), this
is an entirely separate issue.

And I am one who suspects this may be the case. Some noted
conservatives who personally are anti-drug, like William F. Buckley,
made convincing arguments about the legalization and regulation of
illegal drugs--claiming the associated financial and social impact
would be more favorable. If this is your position, you really should
vote down both measures. Supporting the weaker of the two does nothing
drastic.

That is, if you trust that the new government laws in the forms of
either 57 or 61, and spending will effectively solve Oregon's
identity, property crime and drug issues, then you ought to go full
throttle and choose 61. But if you believe culture has more power than
government, then you should vote down the extra spending 57 and 61
require.