October 26 Letters:

 Letter 1 by Howard Rodstein:

To: The Voters Of Oregon

From: Howard Rodstein

Date: October 26, 1999

Subject: Crime Victims' Rights 1999 Ballot Measures

Last Saturday night I took a batch of envelopes to the main post office on Hoyt Street in Portland and dropped them in the mail. And I breathed a sigh of relief. I thought that my role in the vote on Measures 69-75 was over and that I would be able to return to my normal life.

That night, I lay in bed for hours, unable to sleep. I could not get the thought out of my mind: If these measures fail, innocent people will die.

As I lay there unable to sleep, another thought sank in. A newly formed group, backed by people who are no friends of crime victims, has managed to get itself taken seriously. With 6 months of existence, it is being treated by the press as the equal of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Parents of Murdered Children, and Crime Victims United - with a combined 60 plus years of work for crime victims. And the press, with some exceptions, appears to be taking its far-fetched arguments at face value.

So Sunday morning, I started work on this, our third mailing.

This vote will have an impact on crime victims for years to come. It is very important that you understand where both sides of this issue are coming from.

Sincerely,

Howard Rodstein

This letter by Charlotte Comito appeared in The Oregonian on 10/24/99:

I am a Democrat. From my days as an idealistic young person, the Democratic Party stood for the underprivileged, the abused. Imagine my surprise when my Voters' Pamphlet arrived, filled with distortions proclaiming that the crime victims' measures are rife with abuses of power, that overzealous prosecutors will persecute innocent citizens.

Advocates I've worked with are now opposing victims' rights. What about the years we worked to keep batterers in jail, to break the silence on child abuse? As advocates for victims, do we only care about them until their perpetrators are caught?

Did we work to see violent offenders arrested only to classify them also as victims once they enter the criminal-justice system?

To those wringing their hands over the plight of these criminal "victims", visualize being beaten, visualize being raped, visualize your child murdered.

Visualize the criminal justice-system weighted in favor of that person who hurt your child.

I urge my fellow Democrats and crime victims to filter through the rhetoric and join me in giving victims a real voice by passing Measures 69-75.

Charlotte Comito

Southwest Portland

Letter 2 by Charlotte Comito:

I am a lifelong Democrat. It is important to tell you why I am a Democrat. From my days as an idealistic young person, the Democratic Party stood for the underdog, the underprivileged, the abused. There seemed to be compassion for children, outrage at violence against women. My frequent picket targets included those that cared more about profit than the poor, violators of civil rights and oppressors of women's rights.

Imagine my surprise when my voters' pamphlet arrived. On virtually every page there are exaggerations and distortions proclaiming that the crime victims' measures are rife with abuses of power, that overzealous prosecutors would persecute innocently accused citizens, that the measures would unduly empower the big, bad government. The same advocates that I have lobbied and campaigned with are now campaigning against victims' rights. What about the many years we, as advocates for women and children, all worked to keep batterers in jail, to break the silence on child abuse?

I distinctly remember the first time I was punched in the face by a man, 23 years ago, the police would not even arrest him. They simply directed him to take me to the nearest hospital, where I remained in intensive care for a week, my jaw wired shut. Unfortunately there were other times. As I healed, emotionally and physically, my anger led me to activism. I have worked most of my adult life to change our laws, to see that these offenders are prosecuted and put away. As advocates for victims, do we only care about them until their perpetrator is caught or convicted? Did we work all those years to see these violent offenders arrested only to classify them also as victims once they enter the criminal justice system? Are they now deserving of our sympathy because they are behind bars where they belong? Where is our compassion for the real victim?

To those wringing their hands over the plight of these criminal "victims," visualize being beaten, visualize being raped, visualize having a gun pointed in your face and mentally bidding farewell to your son/daughter, visualize answering the door to the police telling you that your child is dead, murdered. Visualize the criminal justice system weighted in favor of that person who hurt your child. Visualize advocates for victims campaigning for criminals' "rights." What have you, advocates, Democratic Party done for victims lately? Passed another "proclamation?" What do your hollow "Victims' Week/Month/Year" proclamations do for crime victims? Has a proclamation ever helped even one victim? Save your proclamations for the perpetrators of crime and save your compassion for the victims.

I urge my fellow Democrats and crime victims and advocates to filter through the rhetoric and join me in giving crime victims a real voice by resoundingly passing Ballot Measures 69-75.

Charlotte Comito

Portland, OR

An edited version of this letter by Kevin Kouns appeared in the Oregonian on 10/22/99:

The headline, "Crime victims a hung jury on rights initiatives" (Oct. 10) is deceptive journalism at its worst. I would be willing to bet your editor a year's wages that more than 99 percent of the politically active crime victims in this state support these ballot measures.

My parents, Bob and Dee Dee Kouns, founded the victims' rights movement in this state 17 years ago after my sister's murder. Over the years, through the initiative process, the Legislature and the courts, my parents and thousands of other victims have sought to restore balance to the criminal-justice system and to prevent other families from being victimized.

My parents were recently recognized as "National Victim Advocates of the Year" by the National Organization for Victims Assistance.

To equate the support given these measures by thousands of victims with the token opposition of one crime victim, Arwen Bird, is misleading to your readers and an insult to the vast majority of victims.

Why don't you try reporting the real journalistic facts? Ms. Bird has been employed as a paralegal by two defense attorneys. Her so-called organization is little more than an astro-turf front group, organized and funded by the defense bar. Bias masquerading as objective reporting is the worst form of yellow journalism.

Kevin Kouns

Southwest Portland

A letter from Donna Mainord:

Measure #69 - "Victims Rights"

Well, once more we're voting on Victim's Rights. Remember, we're "Voting again!" on Ballot Measure 40, the "Victim's Bill of Rights". Only this time, each Measure has been broken down into separate Measures. In 1996, Oregon Voters told our Heads of State that we wanted to have as much rights as the criminals. Do you feel your voice was not heard when the Oregon Supreme Court ignored your request for Rights if you become a Victim?

I can honestly say that I am a Victim. He was charged with 2 Counts Attempted Murder, Assault 1 and 2. Attempted murder means . . . #1 you fought with every ounce of strength to stay alive, and #2. you got lucky.

Do I believe in Victim's Rights? You're darned right I do!

First, I want to quell this whole outlandish idea the Measure #69 will "gut" Oregon's Bill of Rights.

This Measure adds to our constitution what other States already have as Constitutional Law. Oregon, the fore runner of so many progressive ideas, laws and beliefs, has fallen way behind in adopting Victims Rights into It's Constitution.

When you "Gut" something, it means that you remove the most important parts that make something function. Pretend I'm your boss and I tell you to write a letter on Safety Protocol. Once you're finished creating this letter and hand it over for approval, I take out my scissors and say, "Well, I like the "Date" and the "Dear Sir", and I like the "Sincerely" at the bottom, but the rest . . . it's just got to go!".

These Measures, that we voted for and made Law in 1996, are for you and for those you love. Tell our government once more you want to have the same amount of rights as the criminals have always had. Vote "YES" on all the Measures. 

Donna Mainord - Crime Victims United

Donna Mainord is a survivor of an attempted murder.

A letter from Gordon McDonald:

The Oregonian

1320 SW Broadway

Portland, OR

To the Editor;

In 1992 Matthew Thompson was charged and then convicted of a violent stabbing at a popular beach on the Columbia River, sending a young man to the emergency room. With a long history of similar behavior he was sentenced to 5 years. Truly he was an example of the worst of society. After spending only 6 months of his sentence the State of Oregon released him.

In November of 1994 he was charged and convicted of stabbing two young men to death in Portland. My brother, Andy McDonald died that night on November 18, from that unprovoked attack. He was 32.

A yes vote on Measure 74 would require violent criminals to serve their entire sentence and prevent other families from having to live with that kind of loss and pain.

Gordon McDonald

Portland, Oregon

A letter by Lisa Reed:

In 1985, my husband Stanley was murdered by two Caucasians claiming they were breaking in their hunting knife with the blood of a "nigger". I soon discovered victims had no rights.

I was kept out of the courtroom by the murderer's attorney. It was only with my persistence, the prosecutor's efforts, and Crime Victims United's support, that I received any consideration.

I've been forced repeatedly to relive the trauma at parole hearings or the murderer would have been released. Measures 69 to 75 will assure that future victims won't relive this nightmarish aftermath of murder.

Arwen Bird, a recent paralegal for defense attorneys, has been the spokesperson for the opposition, "Crime Victims for Justice". Her so-called organization of just five months, bought and paid for by defense attorneys, is merely a front for criminals' rights. She says these measures will do nothing for victims. Don't you believe her.

From someone who knows,

Lisa Reed

Portland, Oregon

Letter 2 by Howard Rodstein:

An open letter to Arwen Bird, leader of the opposition to Measures 69-75.

Dear Miss Bird:

Enclosed is a photograph of Martin Ferlitsch, Angela Ferlitsch, and their 12-year-old granddaughter Jennifer. Angela was injured and Martin and Jennifer were killed by a man driving under the influence of drugs who had previously killed two other people in similar circumstances. In the interim, he had shown disregard for the law and for the lives of innocent people on numerous occasions.

One glance at Jennifer's picture will give you a hint of the searing pain inflicted on her family. Her mother Maureen lost her only child and her father. Her grandmother Angela lost her granddaughter and her husband. Her uncle Andrew and her uncle Gordon lost their niece and their father. And her Aunt Jayne lost her niece and her father-in-law.

As horrible as the Ferlitsch story is, it is not unique. Assaults, rapes, killings and murders by convicted criminals on probation or parole and by criminal defendants on bail are routine in Oregon.

Measure 71 and Measure 74 will without question prevent some outrages like this from occurring in the future. They will save innocent lives. But you are trying to defeat these measures. And you are using far-fetched and misleading arguments to do it.

You cite the phrase "as determined by the prosecutor" in the definition of victim in Measure 69 as the reason to oppose it. This is the crux of your argument. Ask your legislator-partners how this phrase came to be in Measure 69. Your allies insisted on putting it in there!

You say that under Measure 70, prosecutors will force rape victims to testify before juries. Your defense-attorney financiers force rape victims to do this every day of the week!

You say that Measure 71 is unnecessary because judges can set high bails. But you know that this system has squandered the lives of innocent people!

You say that Measure 73 erodes the protection against self-incrimination. But you know that the measure retains exactly that protection and brings Oregon in line with virtually every other jurisdiction in the country!

You say that Measure 74 is not necessary because we have truth-in-sentencing under current law. But you know that your allies are planning to retroactively roll back Measure 11 sentences!

You argue that these measures don't need to be in the constitution because they are in statutory law. But you know that your defense-attorney backers are arguing in the Oregon Supreme Court to overturn these statutory laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional!

You tell people that your organization has the interests of crime victims at heart. But you know from personal experience that defense attorneys do not have the interests of crime victims at heart!

Can you really say that your arguments are honest?

If you are successful in your current enterprise, it will cost innocent people their lives.

Can you live with this?

Sincerely, 

Howard Rodstein, Member of Crime Victims United, October 26, 1999

Letter 3 by Howard Rodstein:

Why Measure 74 Is So Important To Crime Victims

Two stories illustrate why Measure 74 is so important to crime victims.

In 1995, three young men with lengthy arrest records went to a grocery store to steal some money and beer. It wasn't necessary to achieve their mission, but while they were at it, one of them stabbed the store owner 16 times, killing him. The victim was the father of Julie Hedden. Julie was devastated.

The men were convicted. Under Measure 11 they received sentences ranging from 17 1/2 years to life. These are true sentences - there is no parole or time off for "good behavior".

In 1985, before Measure 11, Stanley Reed was riding his bicycle home from work. A young man had just received a new hunting knife as a gift and wanted to try it out on "nigger blood" (his words). He and his partner chased Stanley Reed down and stabbed him to death.

Stanley Reed was an upstanding, hardworking, decent person with a loving wife, Lisa, and two young children. This murder tore Lisa and her family to shreds.

One of the perpetrators was sentenced to 10 years to life for the crime. The parole board, recognizing the viciousness of the crime, immediately raised the 10 years to 13. But after 7 years, they started to consider reducing the sentence. The burden to keep the murderer in prison fell to Lisa Reed! It was up to Lisa to write letters to the parole board and to round up people to support her in keeping this person in prison. Lisa's sentence was to go through this gutwrenching ordeal every two years.

What does this have to do with Measure 74?

Under Measure 74, a sentence announced in court can not be changed without going back to court for a hearing. The opponents of Measure 74 also have on their agenda to retroactively roll back Measure 11. If Measure 74 does not pass, Julie Hedden could find herself, like Lisa Reed, having to battle to keep her father's murderers in prison.

Hasn't Julie suffered enough?

Please vote yes on Measure 74, and on all the victims' rights measures, 69-75.

Howard Rodstein, October 21, 1999

Member, Crime Victims United

A letter by Richard Vaughn:

Letters to the Editor October 25, 1999

The Oregonian

1320 SW Broadway

Portland OR 97201

To the Editor,

Arwen Bird says, "measures 69-75 will take rights away from crime victims", WRONG. Ms. Bird talks about how the justice system worked well for her after being hit by a drunk driver. Now, she wants to slap the face of two organizations that helped her, M.A.D.D. and Crime Victims United. Twenty years of hard work gave her these rights; what has she done for crime victims?

Not all crime victims receive these rights which are law in Oregon. This is because some courts do not recognize "Victims Rights" since the laws are not written in the Oregon Constitution. I learned this first hand when my 21-year-old daughter was murdered. I have also spoken with numerous other crime victims who have had the same experience.

We need a YES vote on measures 69-75 to have the "Victims Rights" laws placed in the Oregon Constitution. This will guarantee rights for all victims. 

Thank you,

Richard L. Vaughn

Beaverton, OR

October 18 Letters