October 18 Letter:

A letter by Howard Rodstein:

One Person's Views on Crime Victims' Rights in Oregon

My name is Howard Rodstein. I've been a member of Crime Victims United for the last five years.

There are seven victims' rights measures on the Oregon ballot this fall and I find myself deeply involved in the debate over them. I didn't know how involved I was to become until last Tuesday evening when I heard Arwen Bird, a leader of the opposition to the measures, speak about them at a League of Women Voters debate in Portland. I was stunned by the number of inaccurate, far-fetched, and misleading statements that Miss Bird made. Once the stun wore off, my blood began to boil.

Before I explain why Miss Bird's speech stunned me, I want you to know where I'm coming from. For that, we have to go back about five years.

I don't remember which Oregonian article set me off, but it certainly resembled this one from August, 1995, which I paraphrase:

I couldn't get the thought out of my mind: Who in the world thinks that this person needs yet another parole hearing?

I cut the article out of the paper and filed it.

And then there came Roger Brady. Served 2 years and 9 months in prison for six bank robberies in Los Angeles. Paroled from California. He then murdered police officer Martin Ganz in Manhattan Beach. And then he murdered Catalina Correa in the parking lot of the Cedar Mill Safeway in Portland. I cut the article out.

And then came Jonathan Susbauer. On parole. Parole officer recommends parole be revoked. It is not. He kills three people. Another article for the file.

And then there came Girly Crum - 5 people dead. And then there came Douglas Wright - four people dead. And then there came Billy Oatney and then there came John Knoch and then there came . . . and then there came . . . and then there came . . .

Who in the world thinks that these people should be on the street?

I wondered about the people involved in releasing these criminals - the judges and the parole boards, the psychiatrists and the social workers. What did they feel when they learned about the devastation they unleashed on the world? It bothered me so much, I couldn't see how they could live with themselves. Where was the outcry from the public?

I wanted to do something. What could I do? In a Town Hall program on television, I saw Bob and Dee Dee Kouns from Crime Victims United. I had never heard of them or their organization, but I saw immediately that here were people doing something. I went to a CVU meeting.

CVU meetings always start with a round-robin in which each of the participants explains what brought him or her to the meeting. So I heard stories.

I heard the story of a couple whose daughter Nicki was murdered by a shotgun blast to the back of her head. The defense attorneys tried to exclude them from the courtroom. The perpetrator had a previous assault conviction. (While on bail for the murder charge, he backed over and killed a two-year old girl.) The case went badly. Evidence was suppressed. Defense attorneys spun the story around 180 degrees. The prosecutor failed to say some magic words, and the murderer got off with a slap on the wrists - less than three years in prison.

I heard the story of a woman who was stabbed and her husband was stabbed to death by a paroled violent criminal who had been in prison for previous stabbings. She said that he was paroled after 6 months of a five year sentence. When he repeatedly violated conditions of parole, his parole officer tried to have him re-incarcerated but the bureaucracy was too slow or too indifferent - Debra's husband Andrew was murdered.

I heard the story of a man whose 12-year old daughter was reduced to a pile of rubble by a 16-year-old boy who had told his friends he wanted to kill someone and submitted a school essay about his fantasy. He spotted Lisa walking on the side of the street with her back turned. He gunned it. He crushed her. He told police he did it on purpose. In court, evidence is suppressed, defense attorneys spin the story, one juror out of twelve would not accept that the boy intended to murder Lisa, so he got off with a slap on the wrist - less than three years in detention.

I heard the story of a woman whose brother was shot to death by his girlfriend. Defense attorneys spin the story, but a jury votes unanimously to convict her of manslaughter. The Oregon Supreme Court makes a ruling on technical grounds - victims have no right to a jury trial. The jury verdict is thrown out. The judge, notoriously lenient, decides the woman is not guilty. She walks free.

And now it's October 11, 1999 and I'm at the League of Women Voters debate. I have under my arm a digest of the horror stories that I culled from the newspaper, 25 pages worth of them. I added them up: 152 cases, 79 innocent people dead, nearly all of them murdered by criminals on parole, probation or bail.

And I hear Miss Bird say that the ballot measures - the measures that give the victim the constitutional right to be in the courtroom, the right to a jury trial, the right to be protected from the person who assaulted them in the first place - that these measures do nothing for crime victims, they are not crime victims' rights, they're a power-grab by rampaging prosecutors. The people who I worked with to put these measures on the ballot - they're not real crime victims, they're just vindictive. There is no need for mandatory minimum sentences - criminals served enough time before Measure 11. Spinning, spinning, spinning.

I claimed that Miss Bird made inaccurate, far-fetched, and misleading statements. Now I want to substantiate that claim.

Inaccurate: Miss Bird stated that these measures would leave no recourse to victims who feel that their rights were denied, based on a section in each measure that says that it is not intended to be a cause of action for compensation or damages.

Professor Doug Beloof of the Northwest School of Law at Lewis and Clark College corrected Miss Bird, pointing out that the provision means that victims can not bring civil suits for monetary damages, but they are still entitled to every other remedy provided by the justice system, including bringing their case to the Oregon Supreme Court.

Far-fetched: Miss Bird stated that these measures would "strip the Oregon Bill of Rights". (In the voters' pamphlet, her comrades warn of a police state.)

Professor Beloof pointed out that nearly every provision in these measure is in effect in other states and many of them have been upheld by the United States Supreme Court as fair and constitutional. And I would like to point out that these measures were in effect in Oregon in 1997, after voters approved Measure 40 and before the Oregon Supreme Court struck it down on narrow technical grounds. As I recall, 1997 is not known as the year of the police state in Oregon.

Misleading: Miss Bird claimed that the politicians are "cloaking themselves in the mantle of victims rights" to allow prosecutors to grab power while leaving "real victims naked".

I know many "real victims" who wholeheartedly support these measures. They resent being portrayed as pawns. They know what it is like to be a crime victim without these rights and they don't want to see it happen to anyone else. In addition to Crime Victims United, other victims groups like Parents of Murdered Children and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, groups that have battled for victims rights for decades, support these measures.

Far-fetched: Miss Bird stated that Measure 70, which would give victims the right to a jury trial, would allow prosecutors to force rape and incest victims to face a jury even if they object.

Professor Beloof pointed out that in over half of the states in the country, the state has a right to a jury trial, and there are no reports of rape victims being coerced by prosecutors.

Far-fetched: Miss Bird claimed that Measure 73, which would deny certain witnesses complete immunity from prosecution in some cases, would leave citizens naked at the mercy of prosecutors.

Professor Beloof pointed out that the provision of Measure 73 is already in effect in nearly every jurisdiction in the country.

Inaccurate: Miss Bird stated that these measures do nothing for crime victims like her.

Measure 69 gives crime victims the right to restitution, the right to be informed of and appear at hearings, the right to be consulted about plea negotiations. Measure 70 gives the victim the right to a jury trial. Measure 71 gives the victim the right to not be attacked or killed by the perpetrator pending trial. Measure 74 gives the victim the right to see the perpetrator's sentence carried out.

Inaccurate: Miss Bird stated that these measures do not need to be in the Oregon Constitution because they are already in statutory law.

They do need to be in the constitution. Why? Because judges have repeatedly denied to victims the rights granted by the statutory laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional.

Misleading: Most blatantly misleading was the story that Miss Bird told in her comments on Measure 71. An executive was arrested for assault in an apparent hit-and-run case. A witness saw the executive hit a young man with his car and speed off. What the witness did not see was that the executive was escaping from an attempted carjacking. Miss Bird said flatly that under Measure 71 the executive would be denied bail and would spend months in jail awaiting trial.

What she did not say is that the executive would be denied bail only if a judge found that there was probable cause that he was guilty and that there was clear and convincing evidence that he is threat to the safety of the victim or of the public.

Misleading: Miss Bird stated repeatedly that these measures don't give rights to victims, they give rights to prosecutors.

But prosecutors are the sole representatives of victims in court. I have seen victims snatched out of their normal existence into the judicial world in an instant by a violent criminal act. These people have no one to rely one except their prosecutor. Just as the defense attorney asserts the rights of the accused in the justice system, so should the prosecutor assert the rights of the victim. The opposition to these measures is trying to turn "prosecutor" into a dirty word. If you ever find yourself in the position of the parent whose child is murdered, you will find that prosecutors are your main hope of seeing justice done.

Inaccurate: Miss Bird stated that Measure 69 gives the prosecutor the right to pick and choose who is the victim.

In a violent crime, the grand jury picks the victim. The term victim is defined in Oregon Statute 131.010. A prosecutor is bound to follow it.

And now some distortions and inaccuracies from Miss Bird's web page.

Misleading: "These measures would give government the same powers abused by Kenneth Starr."

Miss Bird fails to mention that the provisions of the measure in question, Measure 73, are in effect in nearly every jurisdiction in the country. Ken Starr had an unlimited budget and unlimited time while Oregon prosecutors have neither.

Misleading: "These measures would allow people to be jailed even before the facts are established."

Miss Bird fails to mention that Measure 71 denies bail only when a judge rules that there is clear and convincing evidence that the accused poses a threat to the community. Provisions such as this have been found reasonable and constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Inaccurate: Measure 71 is "unnecessary to be in our constitution: current law already provides protections to people when it comes to releasing people accused of violent crimes".

Under current constitutional provisions, other than for charges of aggravated murder, murder or treason, the primary consideration in pretrial release decisions is the risk of the accused person not appearing rather than the safety of the victim or of the public (statement of the committee appointed to summarize Measure 71).

Inaccurate: Measure 71 "incorrectly claims this is to ensure a fair balance, when there is no evidence of an imbalance".

Here's some evidence:

Misleading: Measure 73 "would erode the constitutional protection against self-incrimination by granting the unusual power to the state to compel accused citizens to testify against themselves".

This "unusual" power is in practice in nearly every state in the country. Measure 73 retains the provision that testimony of witnesses compelled to testify can not be used against them.

Members of Crime Victims United have fought for victims' rights since the early 1980's. They have gathered signatures, petitioned the legislature, fought battles in court and appealed to their fellow citizens. I know from 5 years of participation that their overwhelming motivation is a desire to see justice done and to spare others the horrors they have been through.

The battles have been rough and the opposition, mostly people who feel we are too hard on criminals and people in the business of defending them, have been tough. This opposition is now well funded and well organized, and they are attempting to spin the story. Don't let them do it.

I personally am convinced that these measures, if passed, will go a long way toward restoring sanity to our criminal justice system, giving the safety of innocent people the weight it deserves. I hope that, over the next five years, I won't find another 152 cases and 79 innocent people dead because we failed to protect them.

Vote Yes on Measures 69-75.

Howard Rodstein, Member of Crime Victims United, October 17, 1999

October 22 Letters